Cancel Culture Strikes Again: Washington Post Loses Bid to Silence Black Female Journalist
The press release summary from Democracy Defenders Fund↱:
The arbitrator's explanation↱ runs thirty-nine pages. At the heart of the matter:
Of all that, apparently the Post was really worried about Attiah refusing to tear her clothes and smear ashes on her face. The arbitrator, Sarah Miller Espinosa, continues (13):
And then, immediately after, there are over four paragraphs (14) redacted before Espinosa explains, "Bohatch testified that normally [Attiah] would have been made aware of the threats made against her … but [Attiah] was not contacted because The Post's leadership made the decision to terminate [Attiah's] Employment."
Opinion Editor Adam O'Neal¹, to the other, "said several people messaged him concerning [Attiah's] posts" but "he could not remember the identity of any of the people who messaged him". "O'Neal explained during his testimony that because the Signal app automatically deletes messages, these messages were destroyed prior to O'Neal receiving instructions from counsel to preserve messages related to the case" (14-15). And we do know (15-16):
Inasmuch as, basically, everything follows from O'Neal's personal disdain for a discussion he never really shows he understood, it's enough to observe that at least he spoke his mind. The arbitrator, however, did not find such logic convincing.
Moreover, the comparative reflection on the Post's social media guidelines didn't help; the section on Marc Thiessen (18-19) includes footnote 6, explaining, "'Retard' is an offensive slur referring to a person with an intellectual disability", important context to the arbitrator's explanation of where Thiessen got the portmanteau "libtard". And O'Neal's explanation of the difference—
—similarly failed to persuade. For the record, the Union did make the argument (qtd. 26-27) that the posts "could not be considered gross misconduct as [Attiah] did not act 'with deliberate indifference to the posts interests … [or] recklessly'", explaining "the posts were thoughtfully tailored comments intended to further public discourse, as she regularly did as part of her job."
The arbitrator tacitly concedes (34-35) there are times when dissenting response should be withheld (35, "ill-timed"), but found that "the record does not support a finding of gross misconduct" (34), Attiah "is not culpable for the threats made against her & the threats are not proof of misconduct" (28), and "the record does not establish that [Attiah] disparaged white men" (30).
(see also, #90↑ above)
The press release summary from Democracy Defenders Fund↱:
In a monumental defense of the First Amendment, an independent arbitrator has ruled that The Washington Post wrongfully fired acclaimed journalist Karen Attiah, ordering her immediate reinstatement with full backpay and benefits. The ruling marks a landmark moment for press freedom, confirming that corporate media institutions cannot use retaliatory discipline to silence journalists who address uncomfortable truths. The decision follows a year-long battle led by Attiah, with the support of the Washington-Baltimore News Guild and Democracy Defenders Fund, to hold the Post accountable for violating its collective bargaining agreement in her wrongful termination.
Attiah, a veteran award-winning journalist who spent 11 years at the Post and rose to become a founding editor of Global Opinions, was terminated in September 2025 following two social media posts with commentary on racial double standards. The Post attempted to frame her public posts as “gross misconduct” in their decision to fire her, but the independent arbitrator flatly rejected this justification finding that her words did not disparage any group based on race or gender. The arbitrator’s decision condemns the Post’s attempt to hold Attiah responsible for the threats of violence directed at her by external actors, calling it a “wholly rejected justification” for silencing a journalist.
Attiah, a veteran award-winning journalist who spent 11 years at the Post and rose to become a founding editor of Global Opinions, was terminated in September 2025 following two social media posts with commentary on racial double standards. The Post attempted to frame her public posts as “gross misconduct” in their decision to fire her, but the independent arbitrator flatly rejected this justification finding that her words did not disparage any group based on race or gender. The arbitrator’s decision condemns the Post’s attempt to hold Attiah responsible for the threats of violence directed at her by external actors, calling it a “wholly rejected justification” for silencing a journalist.
The arbitrator's explanation↱ runs thirty-nine pages. At the heart of the matter:
On September 10 and/or 11, 2025, [Attiah] posted, in part:
(12-13)
• For everyone saying political violence has no place in this country.. Remember two Democratic legislators were shot in Minnnesota just this year. And America shrugged and moved on.
• Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.
• Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is ... not the same as violence.
• If anything, the rush to coddle violent white men is self-protective — that we know they are not used to feeling vulnerable and mortal — and will react violently out of fear. And we will suffer.
[Attiah] also reposted several posts made by other Bluesky users. Some of the replies to [Attiah's] posts (many of which were made on X accompanied by screenshots of posts made by [Attiah] on Bluesky) included: "Well, by her own definition, her facing a firing squad isn't violence then…"; "nope but maybe those that made it and published it should get the death penalty, then there would be standards instilled. ENOUGH PLACATING. EYES FOR EYES."; "it's beyond wanting them fired."; "I'm done talking to the Karens … It's time to let the bad things happen."; "Be so terrible if it burned to the ground."; "These leftist journalists need to get the same treatment they're okay with Charlie getting"; and "Deal with them as warranted."
• Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.
• Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is ... not the same as violence.
• If anything, the rush to coddle violent white men is self-protective — that we know they are not used to feeling vulnerable and mortal — and will react violently out of fear. And we will suffer.
[Attiah] also reposted several posts made by other Bluesky users. Some of the replies to [Attiah's] posts (many of which were made on X accompanied by screenshots of posts made by [Attiah] on Bluesky) included: "Well, by her own definition, her facing a firing squad isn't violence then…"; "nope but maybe those that made it and published it should get the death penalty, then there would be standards instilled. ENOUGH PLACATING. EYES FOR EYES."; "it's beyond wanting them fired."; "I'm done talking to the Karens … It's time to let the bad things happen."; "Be so terrible if it burned to the ground."; "These leftist journalists need to get the same treatment they're okay with Charlie getting"; and "Deal with them as warranted."
(12-13)
Of all that, apparently the Post was really worried about Attiah refusing to tear her clothes and smear ashes on her face. The arbitrator, Sarah Miller Espinosa, continues (13):
On September 11, 2025 l… Bohatch sent Lewis, Connell, and other members of management the following email:
The two posts referenced in the email by the Analyst were: "Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is ... not the same as violence" and "'Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot'. — Charlie Kirk."⁴
___________
⁴ This post was not cited in The Post's termination letter.
[redacted (3 paragraphs)
The two posts referenced in the email by the Analyst were: "Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is ... not the same as violence" and "'Black women do not have the brain processing power to be taken seriously. You have to go steal a white person's slot'. — Charlie Kirk."⁴
___________
⁴ This post was not cited in The Post's termination letter.
And then, immediately after, there are over four paragraphs (14) redacted before Espinosa explains, "Bohatch testified that normally [Attiah] would have been made aware of the threats made against her … but [Attiah] was not contacted because The Post's leadership made the decision to terminate [Attiah's] Employment."
Opinion Editor Adam O'Neal¹, to the other, "said several people messaged him concerning [Attiah's] posts" but "he could not remember the identity of any of the people who messaged him". "O'Neal explained during his testimony that because the Signal app automatically deletes messages, these messages were destroyed prior to O'Neal receiving instructions from counsel to preserve messages related to the case" (14-15). And we do know (15-16):
O'Neal sent the following text to Connell: "Karen's social media feed yesterday and today is beyond the pale— completely unacceptable for someone associated with Opinions. We need to discuss this urgently." (Er. Ex. 2). O'Neal's text also included the following Bluesky post made by [Attiah]: "Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is ... not the same as violence." (Er. Ex. 2) ....
.... O'Neal testified: "given the nature of the offense, how blatant it was, all three of us agreed that termination was the appropriate response and will, the CEO, had final say." (Tr. 64-65:16-1). When asked at hearing why O'Neal found [Attiah's] Bluesky posts to be problematic, O'Neal stated:
(Tr. 61-63:11-9). O'Neal also testified in part: "Because of her [Attiah's] association with The Post, we were worried and I'm — we were worried that there would be some kind of retaliation or an outbreak of violence after the Charlie Kirk assassination." (Tr: 67-68:21-4).
.... O'Neal testified: "given the nature of the offense, how blatant it was, all three of us agreed that termination was the appropriate response and will, the CEO, had final say." (Tr. 64-65:16-1). When asked at hearing why O'Neal found [Attiah's] Bluesky posts to be problematic, O'Neal stated:
「Right. Well there are three reasons I mentioned earlier I think came into real focus here. One was that this was undermining The Post's journalistic integrity and our values. When there is an intense moment like this, there's a video circulating of someone dying in a horrific, gruesome way, people should weigh in and people should have a conversation about that. But this was not attempting to have a constructive conversation or even make, you know, important points. It was for shock value, very clearly, and it's not a calm, measured response with that, so that damages our journalistic reputation.
And there are specific guidelines in The Post's overall social media policy, but also the newsroom one. But for the parts of the newsroom policy that fit for opinion journalism there were also violations there. So there was that.
But more than anything, it was an issue of safety. And when the backlash began it was very clear that people were responding to, you know, shocking comments with shock, that this continued and that it was just — it kept going and going. And this came a couple weeks after I had made a general point that collegiality is important on social media. And, you know, I don't think it's a big lean to say that this is not collegial behavior when you're making these shocking and irresponsible posts continually and continually at such a heightened moment. And that led to security concerns. And, you know, like people were at this intense moment of violence in America, and we didn't know what was coming next. And we're walking into a building that says Washington Post on top of it, and here there's a columnist at Washington Post on this account that's making these horrific comments and that was of deep security concern beyond the professional — beyond the publication standards and our policies. That was all really top of mind at that meeting.」
And there are specific guidelines in The Post's overall social media policy, but also the newsroom one. But for the parts of the newsroom policy that fit for opinion journalism there were also violations there. So there was that.
But more than anything, it was an issue of safety. And when the backlash began it was very clear that people were responding to, you know, shocking comments with shock, that this continued and that it was just — it kept going and going. And this came a couple weeks after I had made a general point that collegiality is important on social media. And, you know, I don't think it's a big lean to say that this is not collegial behavior when you're making these shocking and irresponsible posts continually and continually at such a heightened moment. And that led to security concerns. And, you know, like people were at this intense moment of violence in America, and we didn't know what was coming next. And we're walking into a building that says Washington Post on top of it, and here there's a columnist at Washington Post on this account that's making these horrific comments and that was of deep security concern beyond the professional — beyond the publication standards and our policies. That was all really top of mind at that meeting.」
(Tr. 61-63:11-9). O'Neal also testified in part: "Because of her [Attiah's] association with The Post, we were worried and I'm — we were worried that there would be some kind of retaliation or an outbreak of violence after the Charlie Kirk assassination." (Tr: 67-68:21-4).
Inasmuch as, basically, everything follows from O'Neal's personal disdain for a discussion he never really shows he understood, it's enough to observe that at least he spoke his mind. The arbitrator, however, did not find such logic convincing.
Moreover, the comparative reflection on the Post's social media guidelines didn't help; the section on Marc Thiessen (18-19) includes footnote 6, explaining, "'Retard' is an offensive slur referring to a person with an intellectual disability", important context to the arbitrator's explanation of where Thiessen got the portmanteau "libtard". And O'Neal's explanation of the difference—
So I think Marc's posts were in a different context, the ones he was making. And I thought that some of them were inappropriate, and I spoke to him and I told him not to, to post like that and to be more careful online. But it did not rise to the same level as Karen's. The posts were materially different.
—similarly failed to persuade. For the record, the Union did make the argument (qtd. 26-27) that the posts "could not be considered gross misconduct as [Attiah] did not act 'with deliberate indifference to the posts interests … [or] recklessly'", explaining "the posts were thoughtfully tailored comments intended to further public discourse, as she regularly did as part of her job."
The arbitrator tacitly concedes (34-35) there are times when dissenting response should be withheld (35, "ill-timed"), but found that "the record does not support a finding of gross misconduct" (34), Attiah "is not culpable for the threats made against her & the threats are not proof of misconduct" (28), and "the record does not establish that [Attiah] disparaged white men" (30).