{"id":5194,"date":"2004-12-14T15:40:17","date_gmt":"2004-12-14T19:40:17","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.law.harvard.edu\/formerlyknownas\/2004\/12\/14\/guinier-getting-the-story-and"},"modified":"2011-08-05T14:58:08","modified_gmt":"2011-08-05T18:58:08","slug":"guinier-getting-the-story-and-the-correction-right","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/archive.blogs.harvard.edu\/ethicalesq\/2004\/12\/14\/guinier-getting-the-story-and-the-correction-right\/","title":{"rendered":"guinier: getting the story (and the correction) right"},"content":{"rendered":"

A<\/em><\/strong>s we noted in an update to our earlier <\/span>post<\/span><\/a>, today, the Washington Post<\/em> issued this <\/span>Correction<\/span><\/a><\/span> concerning Harvard Law Professor Lani Guinier:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

“A Dec. 12 article incorrectly said that Lani Guinier’s nomination to head the Justice Department’s<\/span> civil rights division under President Bill Clinton was withdrawn because of a “nanny problem.”<\/span><\/p>\n

There was no such problem, and the Clinton White House withdrew the nomination because of<\/span> controversy over Guinier’s legal writings.”<\/span> [via E. Volokh<\/span><\/a>]<\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the wake of the withdrawal of the Kerik nomination, many newspapers ran articles noting that other<\/span> nominees have had “nanny problems.” The <\/span><\/span>articles<\/span><\/a> taken<\/span> directly from a December 11 <\/span>Associated<\/span><\/a><\/span> Press<\/span><\/a> story correctly stated that Guinier’s nomination was withdrawn due to controversy over her <\/span><\/span>supposed position on civil rights issues, and then mention a nanny problem<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n

“A look at three individuals [Zoe Baird, Kimba Woods, Lani Guinier] who withdrew their names as <\/span>nominees by President Clinton for Cabinet and other <\/span>high-level posts because of similar political <\/span><\/span>obstacles:<\/span><\/p>\n

“Lani Guinier<\/strong><\/span><\/span>: A Clinton classmate at Yale University Law School, she was Clinton’s choice to<\/span> head <\/span>the Justice Department’s civil rights division. Clinton cited her legal writings on racial issues <\/span><\/span>for dropping the <\/span>nomination. She also had not paid taxes for a domestic worker<\/strong>.” (emphasis added)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

However, other articles, such as one from <\/span><\/span>CBSNews<\/span><\/a>, <\/span>NewsweekUK<\/span><\/a> and the <\/span>Washington Post<\/span><\/em><\/a>,<\/span> stated that it was <\/span><\/span>unpaid <\/span>taxes for a domestic worker that caused<\/em> Pres. Clinton to withdraw the nomination. <\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"journalist\" Yesterday evening, we pointed out that we did not know the facts yet. However, the following cryptic <\/span>statement in Lani Guinier’s book <\/span>Lift Every Voice<\/span><\/em><\/a>, at <\/span>page 36<\/span><\/a>, describing <\/span><\/span>the very first press conference<\/span><\/span> after her nomination was announced, suggests that there might<\/em> have been some kind of unpaid employee<\/span><\/span> tax issue — or, at least, that reporters were broaching the issue with the new nominees:<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

” the weight of my description of how prior administrations had tolerated actual examples<\/span> of intentional discrimination was more than the reporters wanted to hear that day. Afterwards, <\/span> my fellow nominees thanked me for what they took as a filibuster. From their perspective, I had<\/strong><\/span><\/span> successfully distracted the press, whose interest in nonpayment of Social Security taxes could <\/strong><\/span>not regain momentum” <\/strong>(emphasis added)<\/span><\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Your Editor then expressed a hope that Professor Guinier might set the record straight. Well, she did write the<\/span> following <\/span>letter to the editor<\/span><\/a>, which appeared in today’s Washington Post<\/em>:<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

Still Getting My Story Wrong (<\/span><\/strong>Tuesday, December 14, 2004; Page A26 )<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

I have been committed since 1993 to correcting the public’s confusion about my ideas. It continues <\/span><\/em><\/span>to be an uphill battle, made more difficult by inaccurate media reports.<\/em><\/span> The Clinton White House withdrew my nomination in 1993 to be assistant attorney general for civil <\/em><\/span> rights in response to controversy about my academic writings on democracy. The controversy was fueled by a media firestorm that reported many of my ideas — and me — out of context. <\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

I was disheartened to read that some Post reporters are now writing a revisionist history that lets the <\/em><\/span>media off the hook in 1993 and instead asserts inaccurately that my nomination was withdrawn because <\/em><\/span>of concerns about domestic help<\/em> [“<\/span>White House Puts Blame on Kerik<\/span><\/a>; Nominee Initially <\/span>Denied Having <\/span>Hired an Illegal Immigrant, Officials Say,” front page, Dec. 12].<\/span><\/p>\n

LANI GUINIER<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I’m glad that Prof. Guinier corrected the Post’s misstatement concerning the cause of her dismissal. However, I’m disappointed that she did not choose to deny or confirm whether there had been unpaid Social Security<\/em><\/span> taxes. Her letter alone does not seem to support the Post’s Correction assertion that “there was no such <\/span>problem” — unless<\/em> the Post is distinguishing between a “nanny” problem and a “domestic worker” problem.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n

G<\/em>etting the facts right is very important, as is giving a correct overall impression in a story. Wordsmiths from<\/span> the Washington Post<\/em> <\/span>and the <\/span>Harvard Law School faculty are certainly able to do both, if they want to. Do they? Will they? [see updates below for statements by Prof. Guinier and other Correction statements]<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n