Nonetheless, Boyd continued his remarkable rise. When he was assigned anew to the White House, he writes, “I did not feel as if my race had anything to do with my getting the post.”
Here the narrative enters its trickiest territory, for if race worked to undo Boyd’s career, it had just as clearly helped make it. He had been the beneficiary of a special brand of affirmative action, fast-tracked by a management suddenly sensitive about its own stark lack of diversity.
This, of course, was unfair to the highly capable Boyd from the start. As his colleague Bernard Weinraub recounts, he was saddled with a double burden: “to represent his race and create the best journalism.” Boyd’s leapfrogging ascent in an intensely competitive environment stirred powerful resentments, which found in the Blair scandal the kind of socially acceptable cover it needed to surface.
As a younger African-American peer of Boyd’s, I know something of the dynamics of racial resentment at the Times. When I was assigned to cover the Caribbean in 1990, certain white colleagues grumbled openly that I owed my promotion to affirmative action—even though I spoke French and Spanish and was busily learning Creole, and had done successful stints in Haiti amid outbreaks of political upheaval. Later, my very first conversation with a new foreign editor consisted of a telephoned shouting-down about calling the newspaper racist (I had not) over its Africa coverage.
Someone who did not know him well might well be surprised to learn of Boyd’s student militant phase, when he briefly adopted the name Uganda X. By the time he became entrenched at the Times, he had shed common manifestations of black identity in favor of the corporate culture. He armored himself with a firmly buttoned-down style, ironic repartee, and an inscrutable poker face, of which he was proud. “I became proficient at getting more from others than I gave to them,” he writes.
An abiding irony of the Blair scandal—and of the rap that Boyd had been his “rabbi”—is that he was always leery of being cast as the “editor for blacks.” Nor was he especially involved in nurturing people of his race, not that this should have been required. A newspaper more serious about diversity would have shared that responsibility widely throughout management.
There are moments in this book where Boyd rues having allowed the Times to so dominate his identity. In the end, his strategy of being the consummate company man proved to be a dubious survival technique.
Still, his account provides a timely opportunity for a beleaguered industry to think deeply about diversity. The Times seems to favor blacks who don’t make whites feel uncomfortable—as even Boyd did from inside his cocoon of inscrutability. In practice, this suggests that only the most thoroughly assimilated minorities (politically, culturally, some would even say physically) get in the door or get ahead.
If this is diversification, one might wonder, what’s the point?

Isn't the real lesson of Boyd's life that you don't need to be white to be, or become, an asshole?
Perhaps he was fired because he had risen to his level of incompetence, not because of the color of his skin.
#1 Posted by Ivan Fyodorovich, CJR on Thu 6 May 2010 at 10:21 AM
Plenty of white assholes get promoted to the very top of newsrooms and remained there, even now, and certainly include former top editors of the NYT. That is a mighty casual and unsupported assertion about a "level of incompetence," one that I've never heard made to justify Gerald's dismissal. Evidence?
#2 Posted by Ken Cooper, CJR on Sat 8 May 2010 at 07:06 AM
Plenty of white assholes get promoted to the very top of newsrooms and remained there, even now, and certainly include former top editors of the NYT. That is a mighty casual and unsupported assertion about a "level of incompetence," one that I've never heard made to justify Gerald's dismissal.
---
He seems to have been well qualified to be the Times' second banana. His assholedom may have gotten him that job; conversely, he may not have been enough of an asshole to become No. 1. Only Mr. Sulzberger would know.
In any event, in reading French's review, this reader came away with the distinct impression that Boyd was no real leader. That has nothing to do with skin color.
#3 Posted by Ivan Fyodorovich, CJR on Mon 10 May 2010 at 01:54 PM
Nobody asked Gerald Boyd---he simply wanted to be the best at his job, and from what I read about him from other people who worked with him, he was more than qualified for the job. He might have been a better leader if he hadn't had to constantly prove himself and be under pressure to work much harder than his white colleagues most of the time. I mean, would a white man be asked if he had written his own newspaper pieces or if somebody else wrote them for him? Hell no---just the fact that he was even asked that--which was an ignorant stupid racist assumption in the first place---just shows by itself that the New York Times needed some diversity VERY badly at the time. Also, Ivan, when do you get off assuming that he just wasn't competent enough to handle the job? Funny how you give his superiors the benefit of the doubt and not Boyd himself. So what if he got there by affirmative action---hell, white boys have benefitted from AA virtually the entire time this country has existed, simply because you're the majority and y'all set up this society for your damn selves only. Don't act like incompetent white men don't ever get jobs because of who they know and who they're related to----look no further than our joke of an ex-president Bush.
#4 Posted by michelle, CJR on Wed 12 May 2010 at 12:53 PM
This.
Tell it like it is, sister, so that everybody can hear!
#5 Posted by Neville A. Ross, CJR on Thu 13 May 2010 at 09:04 AM