The whole issue of affirmative action is one of race - that blacks only get jobs because of their race - it is impossible (in this view) for an affirmative action hire to be competent. While it is true that achieving diversity was a goal of the NYT (as a private employer this isn't of necessity a bad goal - employers should decide what is necessary and good for their business model) the issue as I see it isn't "imcompetent black kept on by affirmative action" but rather that of a charmer and suckup who wheedled his way around until he was caught. As we are seeing now, the issue with the NYT goes deeper than race and has more to do with a management culture. But race is at best a minor issue here although, it's become more of major issue especially on the right.
The whole issue of affirmative action is one of race - that blacks only get jobs because of their race - it is impossible (in this view) for an affirmative action hire to be competent.That's too extreme. It's more correct to say that it's impossible to separate the competence of the hiree from race because AA makes race a factor in the hiring process in place of hiring based solely on merit. Thus it taints the hiree and all hirees of that race. Certainly many, if not most, AA hires are competent.
But race is at best a minor issue here although, it's become more of major issue especially on the right.
The race of Blair is the issue here because it is quite clear from the record that they were reluctant to fire Blair because of his race.