Latest news with #JimCrow2.0
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capeheart quits editorial board over dispute with white colleague: ‘Robbing me of my humanity'
A black Washington Post opinion writer said he quit the newspaper's editorial board over a dispute with a white colleague about a piece concerning Georgia's voting laws that he didn't agree with — accusing her of 'robbing me of my humanity,' according to a report. Jonathan Capehart, who was the only African American member of the editorial board when he quit in 2023, writes in a new book titled 'Yet Here I Am: Lessons from a Black Man's Search for Home,' that he stepped down over a dispute with another opinion editor, Karen Tumulty, the news site Semafor reported. In his book, Capehart, who remains a columnist at the paper, writes that he clashed with Tumulty over an editorial which took issue with then-President Joe Biden's criticism of a 2021 Georgia voting law. Biden described the law as 'Jim Crow 2.0' — a characterization that the Washington Post editorial board deemed to be 'hyperbolic.' That didn't sit well with Capehart, who agreed with Biden's view of the law and was upset that the editorial may make it appear as if he supported the board's position that it was 'hyperbolic,' according to Semafor. According to the book, Capehart was incensed when Tumulty later did not apologize to him for publishing it. He wrote that he felt additionally put off when Tumulty said Biden's choice of words was insulting to people who had lived through racial segregation in the South. 'Tumulty took an incident where I felt she ignored and compounded the insult by robbing me of my humanity,' he wrote in the book, which was published last week. 'She either couldn't or wouldn't see that I was black, that I came to the conversation with knowledge and history she could never have, that my worldview, albeit different from hers, was equally valid.' Capehart left the editorial board after complaining about the incident to human resources and other senior figures at the paper, Semafor reported. Capehart's frustrations were notable enough that after the piece was published, opinion editor David Shipley was asked to meet privately with the Rev. Al Sharpton to discuss the incident and alleged shortcomings in the paper's opinion coverage, Semafor reported. The claims made by Capehart in his new book have also reportedly rankled Washington Post staffers, according to Semafor. Capehart's description of the incident in his book as well as a recent discussion that he held with former Biden administration official Susan Rice at a local Washington, DC, bookstore last week has been the subject of internal recriminations at the newspaper in recent days, Semafor reported. According to two Washington Post staffers, staff have complained privately that the book publicly pitted current colleagues against each other and appeared to run afoul of the Post's editorial guidelines around collegiality, as well as rules that restrict staff from publicly disclosing internal editorial conversations. The Post has sought comment from the Washington Post, Tumulty and Capehart. In a statement to Semafor, Tumulty noted that the paper had repeatedly published opinion pieces criticizing Georgia's 2021 voting laws limiting ballot access, but said she would not comment further on the book or the Post's editorial processes. 'I have a very different recognition of the events and conversations that are described in this book, but out of respect for the longstanding principle that Washington Post editorial board deliberations are confidential I am not going to say anything further,' Tumulty told Semafor. Some current and former staff told Semafor that they felt Capehart's decision to go after Tumulty in a book and on his book tour over an editorial disagreement, as well as the actual description of the incident, was unfair to her. 'Ed board members, current and former, are honor bound not to discuss specific deliberations publicly,' former deputy opinion editor Chuck Lane said in a text to Semafor. 'I can only say that Karen took an unsought leadership role when the paper needed her, and performed it superbly and 100 percent honorably, despite extraordinary health challenges — for which I admire her greatly.' The Washington Post editorial board has undergone considerable upheaval in the last nine months. Just before the Nov. 5 presidential election, billionaire owner Jeff Bezos blocked the editorial board from endorsing the Democratic nominee, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Earlier this year, Bezos overhauled the opinion section so that it would promote 'personal liberties' and 'free markets' — a move that prompted the resignation of Shipley.
New York Post
27-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Post
Washington Post columnist Jonathan Capeheart quits editorial board over dispute with white colleague: ‘Robbing me of my humanity'
A black Washington Post opinion writer said he quit the newspaper's editorial board over a dispute with a white colleague about a piece concerning Georgia's voting laws that he didn't agree with — accusing her of 'robbing me of my humanity,' according to a report. Jonathan Capehart, who was the only African American member of the editorial board when he quit in 2023, writes in a new book titled 'Yet Here I Am: Lessons from a Black Man's Search for Home,' that he stepped down over a dispute with another opinion editor, Karen Tumulty, the news site Semafor reported. In his book, Capehart, who remains a columnist at the paper, writes that he clashed with Tumulty over an editorial which took issue with then-President Joe Biden's criticism of a 2021 Georgia voting law. 5 Jonathan Capehart is a Washington Post opinion columnist. Getty Images Biden described the law as 'Jim Crow 2.0' — a characterization that the Washington Post editorial board deemed to be 'hyperbolic.' That didn't sit well with Capehart, who agreed with Biden's view of the law and was upset that the editorial may make it appear as if he supported the board's position that it was 'hyperbolic,' according to Semafor. According to the book, Capehart was incensed when Tumulty later did not apologize to him for publishing it. He wrote that he felt additionally put off when Tumulty said Biden's choice of words was insulting to people who had lived through racial segregation in the South. 'Tumulty took an incident where I felt she ignored and compounded the insult by robbing me of my humanity,' he wrote in the book, which was published last week. 'She either couldn't or wouldn't see that I was black, that I came to the conversation with knowledge and history she could never have, that my worldview, albeit different from hers, was equally valid.' Capehart left the editorial board after complaining about the incident to human resources and other senior figures at the paper, Semafor reported. 5 Capehart reportedly clashed with fellow editorial board member Karen Tumulty. Lisa Lake Capehart's frustrations were notable enough that after the piece was published, opinion editor David Shipley was asked to meet privately with the Rev. Al Sharpton to discuss the incident and alleged shortcomings in the paper's opinion coverage, Semafor reported. The claims made by Capehart in his new book have also reportedly rankled Washington Post staffers, according to Semafor. Capehart's description of the incident in his book as well as a recent discussion that he held with former Biden administration official Susan Rice at a local Washington, DC, bookstore last week has been the subject of internal recriminations at the newspaper in recent days, Semafor reported. 5 According to his new book, Capehart took issue with an editorial criticizing remarks by then-President Joe Biden. Getty Images for Family Equality According to two Washington Post staffers, staff have complained privately that the book publicly pitted current colleagues against each other and appeared to run afoul of the Post's editorial guidelines around collegiality, as well as rules that restrict staff from publicly disclosing internal editorial conversations. The Post has sought comment from the Washington Post, Tumulty and Capehart. In a statement to Semafor, Tumulty noted that the paper had repeatedly published opinion pieces criticizing Georgia's 2021 voting laws limiting ballot access, but said she would not comment further on the book or the Post's editorial processes. 5 Then-President Joe Biden described the 2021 Georgia voting law as 'Jim Crow 2.0' — which Tumulty thought was 'hyperbolic.' Reuters 'I have a very different recognition of the events and conversations that are described in this book, but out of respect for the longstanding principle that Washington Post editorial board deliberations are confidential I am not going to say anything further,' Tumulty told Semafor. Some current and former staff told Semafor that they felt Capehart's decision to go after Tumulty in a book and on his book tour over an editorial disagreement, as well as the actual description of the incident, was unfair to her. 'Ed board members, current and former, are honor bound not to discuss specific deliberations publicly,' former deputy opinion editor Chuck Lane said in a text to Semafor. 5 Capehart's book has reportedly rankled staffers at the Washington Post. Christopher Sadowski 'I can only say that Karen took an unsought leadership role when the paper needed her, and performed it superbly and 100 percent honorably, despite extraordinary health challenges — for which I admire her greatly.' The Washington Post editorial board has undergone considerable upheaval in the last nine months. Just before the Nov. 5 presidential election, billionaire owner Jeff Bezos blocked the editorial board from endorsing the Democratic nominee, then-Vice President Kamala Harris. Earlier this year, Bezos overhauled the opinion section so that it would promote 'personal liberties' and 'free markets' — a move that prompted the resignation of Shipley.
Yahoo
26-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Biden-era racial justice conflicts echo through Washington post
A new book by a Washington Post opinion editor is spilling a years-old fight back out into the open, privately frustrating some colleagues and putting the paper in an awkward position. Last week, Washington Post opinion editor Jonathan Capehart published a book detailing his decision to step down from the paper's editorial board in 2023. He attributed the move to a disagreement he had with another editor in the section, Karen Tumulty, over a piece by the editorial board saying that then-President Joe Biden's decision to call Georgia's voting laws 'Jim Crow 2.0' was 'hyperbolic.' According to the book, Capehart, the only Black man on the Post's editorial board at the time, agreed with Biden's description and was bothered by the editorial and the fact that readers may believe it represented his view. He was incensed when Tumulty later did not apologize to him for publishing it; Capehart said he felt additionally put off when Tumulty said Biden's choice of words was insulting to people who had lived through racial segregation in the South. 'Tumulty took an incident where I felt ignored and compounded the insult by robbing me of my humanity,' he wrote in the book, which was published last week. 'She either couldn't or wouldn't see that I was Black, that I came to the conversation with knowledge and history she could never have, that my worldview, albeit different from hers, was equally valid.' Capehart left the editorial board after complaining about the incident to human resources and other senior figures at the paper. His frustrations were notable enough that according to one person with knowledge, when the Post hired top opinion editor David Shipley several months later, one of the first moves he made was to meet with Rev. Al Sharpton to discuss the Capehart incident and alleged shortcomings in the paper's opinion coverage. But Capehart's description of the incident in his book, along with a discussion about it he held with former Biden administration official Susan Rice at the Politics and Prose bookstore in Washington last week, has been the subject of internal recriminations at the Post in recent days. According to two Washington Post staffers, staff have complained privately that the book publicly pitted current colleagues against each other and appeared to run afoul of the Post's editorial guidelines around collegiality, as well as rules that restrict staff from publicly disclosing internal editorial conversations. A spokesperson for the Post did not respond to requests for comment. Capehart did not respond to requests for comment. In a statement to Semafor, Tumulty noted that the paper had repeatedly published opinion pieces criticizing Georgia's 2021 voting laws limiting ballot access, but said she would not comment further on the book or the Post's editorial processes. 'I have a very different recognition of the events and conversations that are described in this book, but out of respect for the longstanding principle that Washington Post editorial board deliberations are confidential I am not going to say anything further.' Some current and former staff told Semafor that they felt Capehart's decision to go after Tumulty in a book and on his book tour over an editorial disagreement, as well as the actual description of the incident, was unfair to her. 'Ed board members, current and former, are honor bound not to discuss specific deliberations publicly,' former deputy opinion editor Chuck Lane said in a text. 'I can only say that Karen took an unsought leadership role when the paper needed her, and performed it superbly and 100 percent honorably, despite extraordinary health challenges — for which I admire her greatly.' The internal rehash of the 2023 saga comes at a moment when the Post is trying to keep attention off of its Opinion section, which has been the subject of reader fury following owner Jeff Bezos' decision not to endorse in the 2024 election, as well as his subsequent decisions to overhaul the section.
Los Angeles Times
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Los Angeles Times
LA Times Today: Take it from California's election czar, the SAVE Act is a sham
For much of America's history, the right to vote was reserved for a select few. African Americans, women and other minorities were unable to cast ballots. Last month, the House of Representatives passed the Safeguard American Voter Eligibility – or SAVE Act. California Secretary of State Shirley Weber wrote an opinion piece for the L.A. Times calling the bill 'Jim Crow 2.0.'
Yahoo
02-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Contributor: Take it from California's election czar, the SAVE Act is a sham
In my family, voting isn't just a right — it's a lifeline. My parents were sharecroppers in Arkansas until 1951, when my dad dared stand up to his boss for not paying him a fair wage at the agricultural weigh station. Under threat from the KKK, he left town in a wagon, covered in hay so he wouldn't be discovered. Three months later — after months of threats of violence from the Klan at our home — the rest of our family rode in that same wagon on our way to join him in California. Only when we settled in Los Angeles were my parents able to register to vote, finally free from fear of the violent and deadly retribution that such a simple act would trigger across the Jim Crow South. My family's lived experience facing discrimination and the vigilantes of the South cannot be forgotten, especially now as Congress considers the SAVE Act. The House recently approved the SAVE Act under the guise that it will prevent illegal voting — an issue that is infinitesimally rare but buoyed by baseless narratives. If passed by the Senate and signed into law, the act's true effect would be to disenfranchise millions of voters across the country and in California. Americans must not be fooled by fearmongering and misleading rhetoric. The SAVE Act has one true intent: to silence millions of eligible voters. This effort intentionally targets unserved and underserved populations, anyone who has changed their last name and those serving in our armed forces, to name a few groups who would be affected. This proposal is both undemocratic and unconstitutional. It will not stop there. The bill will serve as a catalyst to unravel decades of hard-fought constitutional rights. You don't have to be born in the Deep South to know this is Jim Crow 2.0. Some of our federal lawmakers are trying to steal our right to vote under the guise of phony election claims. Let me be clear: Voter fraud is virtually nonexistent. According to the Heritage Foundation, a conservative organization, only 12 voter fraud cases have been prosecuted in California since 2021 — an infinitesimal fraction of millions of ballots cast. National studies confirm voter impersonation is exceedingly rare, with most claims rooted in clerical errors rather than deceit. Even if you believed illegal voting to be a problem in need of a solution, the SAVE Act is like swatting at a mosquito with a sledgehammer — unlikely to be effective against the target, and likely to cause a lot of collateral damage. No matter which state new voters are registering in, they must attest to their U.S. citizenship when they register. And every state conducts voter list maintenance to identify potentially ineligible voters on the rolls. States already ensure the vote is safe without disenfranchising vulnerable groups. By adding unnecessary and burdensome documentation requirements, the SAVE Act would keep millions of Americans from participating in elections. That's the point. Certain lawmakers want millions of citizens to decide voting is not worth the trouble. The fewer people who vote, the more some candidates will benefit. This legislation would either directly affect you, somebody you know or both. Those most affected include: Newly married or divorced individuals and others navigating name changes. Military families stationed far from home. College students studying across state lines. Disaster survivors — including the tens of thousands of people displaced just this year by California wildfires — without vital documents. The SAVE Act, by design, places incredible burdens on millions of people who are already eligible to vote. And if they decide to try to re-register for voting, they'll face a Herculean task. State offices around the country will be flooded by millions of people seeking documentation of their citizenship. Many older people might not be able to stand in line for hours. Citizens with disabilities may be effectively barred from acquiring documentation. If you have a current passport, you might be in luck — but roughly 140 million Americans don't have one. And your California driver's license or RealID won't work; neither qualifies as proof of citizenship. Even before the SAVE Act landed in the Senate, California was fighting back against another push to take away constitutional rights. On March 25, President Trump issued an executive order that requires citizens to provide documentary proof of citizenship on the federal mail voter registration form. I have partnered with California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to lead a lawsuit, along with Nevada, against the unconstitutional and unlawful executive order. Seventeen other state attorneys general have joined our fight. Throughout our nation's history, voting rights have been systematically curtailed to silence voices the powerful don't want to hear from. From poll taxes abolished by the 24th Amendment in 1964 to barriers dismantled by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, every step forward has been a fight against deliberate disenfranchisement. Nobody can make a serious argument that the SAVE Act actually encourages people to vote, or even ensures eligible people can exercise their right to participate in our democracy. It's meant to keep people away from voting. It's an old story. Just ask my family about living in the South. Some lawmakers seem conveniently unconcerned about the constitutional rights of minorities, members of our military, women, and poor or rural citizens. The Senate needs to stop this nonsense in its tracks. You can help. Contact your U.S. senators today and urge them to oppose the SAVE Act. Educate your friends, family and community about the true intentions of this bill. Participate in local voter registration drives and support organizations fighting voter suppression. Your voice matters. Use it to defend democracy. Shirley N. Weber, the secretary of state of California, oversees all federal and state elections in the state. If it's in the news right now, the L.A. Times' Opinion section covers it. Sign up for our weekly opinion newsletter. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
