The latter would be the New York Times. Gay (above) has a long and disturbing dossier at Ethics Alarms (under two tags, here and here, because of her annoying misspelling of her own first name).The last time I visited her work as an ethics corrupter, I wrote,
It tells you pretty much all you need to know about the biases of the New York Times that its workplace ethics column, “Work Friend,” is authored by race-obsessed, radical, and combative gay feminist Roxane Gay. No biases there! …I have concluded that Gay is too often intellectually and rhetorically dishonest because of her ideological mission, and people like that shouldn’t have regular platforms (or advice columns) in the New York Times.
Now I have discovered that I was too kind in that evaluation. It isn’t just that Gay is so woke she can’t see or think straight; her ethics are rotten to the core, if one can call them ethics at all.
In today’s edition of her weekly workplace advice column for the Times, an inquirer writes that she and her colleagues have discovered that the sales office’s star employee has been faking her results, and is being rewarded for it. “She’s logging calls that never happened, and falsifying her activity to get to the top. This colleague now gets special praise each month, got promoted and is in a mentorship role, and makes everyone else’s numbers look bad,” the questioner writes. What should be done?
What should be done??? Could a work-related question be easier? Go to the management with your colleagues and your evidence, and demand that the lying, fabricating co-worker be properly dealt with. Be prepared to go up the ladder as far as it is necessary to go. The situation has to be exposed, and nothing short of a fair resolution should be accepted.But Roxane can’t see that. After saying that she never recommends “snitching” (an endorsement of ghetto ethics, which are not ethics at all), Gay writes, “Certainly, you can confront her with what you know, because her lies are materially affecting you and your colleagues. What she is doing is unseemly, at best. All the benefits she’s receiving from her supposed exemplary performance are unearned, which I know is infuriating.” Lying to enrich yourself while disadvantaging others isn’t “unseemly,” it’s wrong. Gay is engaging in miserable equivocation. And the issue isn’t that the inquirer is upset by this conduct; the issue is that she’s in a position to stop it, and has an obligation to do so.
Then Gay shifts into full ethics corrupter gear:
“Before you move forward, think through some questions. Do you have credible proof of her misdeeds?”
She said quite clearly she did. Gay is just trying to shake her confidence.
“What do you think will happen if you confront her?”
It doesn’t matter. Gay is trying to makes a whistle-blower fear the confrontation.
“If she is willing to lie so flagrantly, is she really going to confess her sins or change her ways when confronted by a colleague?”
Maybe not, and again, so what? If the evidence is there, who cares if she tries to lie?
“What do you think will happen if you bring this to her manager’s attention, or if you take the issue to human resources?”
Well, if the inquirer doesn’t think they will do anything, then it is time to get out of a corrupt organization.
“And what will it do for you to bring attention to what you and your colleagues know?”
Gay is implying that the only time one should alert management to misconduct in the organization is if it will benefit the whistle-blower. False. It is the ethical course because it will benefit the organization.
Then Gay concludes with more mind-poison, injecting her cynicism into what is already an unethical response:
What you really want is a level playing field. For all kinds of reasons, that doesn’t really exist, anywhere. I still hope you can find a way forward that is more fair and doesn’t only reward someone who’s willing to cheat to get ahead. Just be sure you’re thinking carefully about the consequences of however you proceed.
This is the quality of workplace advice the New York Times supports. It is one more symptom of a thoroughly unethical culture at the Times.
Ethics Alarms 
I’m surprised she didn’t just complete the logic underlying her response by saying, “Shouldn’t you consider dummying up your own sales reports? I mean, get with the program!”
She began her comment by saying exactly that, and then said she was just kidding. I don’t think she was.
Leave it to an incompetent like Roxane (rhymes with arcane?) to rationalize, excuse, condone or even promote incompetence in others.
I must admit that when I read the fake sales situation described, I immediately thought of George Costanza creating “Mr. Vandelay” and other fake customers to cover his lack of sales success.
In real life, fake sales show up quickly when revenue doesn’t materialize. That’s difficult to conceal for very long.
The resort to “ghetto ethics” is always troubling. The “don’t snitch” culture has done tremendous damage to our country and the rule of law.
What a cesspool the Times has become.
“Before you move forward, think through some questions. Do you have credible proof of her misdeeds?”
She said quite clearly she did. Gay is just trying to shake her confidence.
I would defend her on this one. I did not read the article (paywall) so I don’t know how she said quite clearly that she did.
I just know from dealing with lots of people that many of them are very bad in evaluating evidence. Hearsay is one of the most common types of evidence people rely on. Getting people to understand what they really know (or really DON’T know) can be difficult. Of course, she may have solid evidence, but it is always worth asking the question.
And, I will defend her a little bit here:
“What do you think will happen if you confront her?”
“If she is willing to lie so flagrantly, is she really going to confess her sins or change her ways when confronted by a colleague?”
“What do you think will happen if you bring this to her manager’s attention, or if you take the issue to human resources?”
These three questions all kind of go together, and they form a bit of a dialectical chain. Assuming you have good evidence: what is the next step?
Go to her? No, someone who lies will just deny it. Go to the Manager? Or go to HR?
You could flow chart these four questions as a way to outline a decision-making process.
And, at the end of it, I honestly don’t know if the proper decision is to go to the manager or go directly to HR. Going to her manager is probably the preferred route (going up the chain of command), but, if she is worried about retaliation from the manager (the cheater is now a manager herself), HR is the better option.
-Jut
Jut, I think a flow chart I’d draw up would have a single line reading, “Run away!”
At the second firm I worked at (for way too long, over ten years), one of the name partners and head of the car wreck, er, insurance defense group had a paralegal who was paid more than a few of the youngest associates. The word was she was invaluable. And she was. She was fucking the name partner in question. Which situation only sort of righted itself when the paralegal’s husband found out and she left the firm. I bailed a while before that little saga unfolded. Like the sales outfit above, the firm was toxic.
As are so many law firms.