An editorial about Eddie

This morning, I heard a newscaster say that a jury at the U.S. courthouse is now deciding “whether Eddie Jordan is a racist.” Wrong. The jury is deciding whether Jordan will be civilly liable for employment discrimination.

Years ago, I knew Eddie when we both worked at the same law firm. The Eddie that I knew was not a racist; and I doubt his character has changed. He may have made some unwise personnel moves, and for those moves, the jury may find him liable for money damages. If that is the jury’s verdict, it won’t make Jordan a racist.

12 Comments so far

  1. Aaron (unregistered) on March 29th, 2005 @ 8:53 pm

    Good for you. You worked with a man who clearly favors people of his own color. If you want to sugarcoat it and say that he isn’t a racist, that’s your perogative.

    But the facts are that he fired a ton of white people and replaced every single one with a black person. Pretend it wasn’t racist if you want. Call it unwise or a bad move. Eddie Jordan made racist moves. That’s a fact.

  2. YatPundit (unregistered) on March 29th, 2005 @ 9:51 pm

    Jordan’s actions were no different than any politician that came before him and will come after him. A lot of Connick’s people campaigned pretty hard for Dale Atkins. With the white folks behind Atkins, it’s not surprising that Jordan’s supporters were/are mostly black. A politician who rewards loyalty and punishes disloyalty is no surprise.

  3. Aaron (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 7:30 am

    Whether it is common practice or not, it is still wrong, unfair and illegal.

  4. jfbiii (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 8:33 am

    Not necessarily wrong, unfair, or illegal. If you hold a patronage job and you patronize the loser and you’re white, you’re likely to lose that job regardless of the color of your replacement (which is irrelevant in this case, and others).

  5. nathalie (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 10:57 am

    orleans parish is almost 60% black. so it is not unlikely, that when replacing individuals with a candidates who are more qualified (or perhaps not liked to the old new orleans political machine) that the race of the new hires would reflect population of the city in which they serve.

  6. Ryan Fitzpatrick (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 12:57 pm

    The black political machine is rascist and driven by corruption.

    Eddie Jordan is but a recent, local example.

  7. Tom DeLay (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 1:18 pm

    “The black political machine is rascist and driven by corruption.”

    You tell ’em. White political machines are never driven by racism and corruption.

  8. David Duke (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 1:19 pm

    That’s right, we’re not.

  9. Edwinn (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 1:20 pm

    Certainly not in the gret stet of Loosiana.

  10. Mike Hoffman (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 3:32 pm

    That’s the best commentary using comments since…well…ever.

  11. Casey (unregistered) on March 30th, 2005 @ 9:54 pm

    My personal feelings about the subject aside (he struck me as a racist arrogant pig when we met), I have 2 points:

    1. Last I checked, the DA’s office had no residency requirement, so saying the representation of races in new hires matches the city’s population is like saying that your height correlates to your shoe size. So what? If he was hiring people who were best qualified, it would not matter what their race is. and

    2. how do you think activist groups like the ACLU would have reacted if Jim Letten had fired African Americans and replaced them with whites? whites are still the race of majority in the US (who he represents), so wouldn’t it make sense that his office would have a similar compisition?

  12. jfbiii (unregistered) on March 31st, 2005 @ 9:05 am

    1. Those jobs were not necessarily held by the most qualified people to begin with, they’re patronage jobs. If a white candidate had won the race and replaced all of those people with other white folks, would we be having this discussion, much less a trial? No. Qualification and race have nothing to do with the situation, IMO. If the charge being brought was one of patronage, then he’d be guilty in about 2.3 seconds.

    2. Probably with unfounded outrage at the “obvious” racism, because charges of racism prompt juicier headlines, which makes for more lucrative fundraising.

Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.