Do As We
Say
"The Supreme Court," the
New York Times scolded in an editorial Wednesday, is "often too quick to
dilute the Fourth Amendment's protections against unreasonable searches in the
name of fighting drugs." On this particular occasion, however, the Times
congratulated the court for sending "a welcome message ... that there are some
searches the war on drugs cannot justify." The message was an 8-to-1 decision
this week throwing out a Georgia law that required political candidates to take
a urine test. The Times noted that "there is no reason to suspect a drug
problem among Georgia's politicians."
Those of us who rely on the
New York Times for moral guidance on all important issues were deeply
alarmed by this sermonette. Not that we disagree, of course. Disagreement with
the New York Times editorial page verges on logical fallacy. One might
as well disagree with Niagara Falls about the effect of gravity on large
amounts of water. But Wednesday's editorial therefore raises the troubling
issue: Is there "reason to suspect a drug problem" among staff members of the
New York Times ? We ask because we happen to know that the New York
Times requires its own new employees to take a urine test for drugs. At
least one recent hire was told that flunking the test once would eliminate any
chance of being hired by the Times --now or at any time in the future.
When this person attempted to wash up after providing the required sample, it
turned out the tester had removed the handles from the faucets (apparently to
prevent the applicant from diluting the product).
There
must be some explanation! It's true that the New York Times is not the
government, so its drug-testing policy isn't unconstitutional. But that alone
doesn't make the policy any less "unreasonable." It's also true, of course,
that a junior copy editor for the New York Times is obviously more vital
to the nation than an elected official of the state of Georgia. But it would be
useful to have the Times editorial page spell out the exact difference
here for employers who must decide between doing what the Times says and
doing what it does.
Yellow
Journalism
Slate
readers will naturally wonder what our own drug-testing policy is. It is very
simple: All Slate employees, regular columnists, free-lance contributors,
artists, and paying subscribers must produce a urine sample under the direct
observation of a Microsoft official. Colleagues, family, and friends often join
in, turning what could be (and, at the New York Times , apparently is) a
grim ritual into a festive and sentimental occasion. Photographs are taken and
posted on the corporate Intranet. For those who will be writing about
software-related subjects, the ceremony is conducted once a month by Bill Gates
himself in the ballroom of the Redmond Holiday Inn. ("I used to do these
individually in my office," Gates says with a sigh, "but the company's gotten
so darn large!") We don't know about the New York Times , but at Slate,
we don't actually send any of these samples out for drug testing. We just sorta
like having them around.
Slate's
267,090,705 Most American Americans
As our "In Other Magazines"
column notes, both Time and Newsweek chose this week to celebrate
large numbers of allegedly remarkable Americans. Time 's cover story
anoints America's 25 "most influential people." Newsweek , perhaps
foreseeing that Time would repeat this device from last year, upped the
ante with a list of "100 Americans for the Next Century." We here at Slate wish
to make it clear that three can play this game. We have, of course, the
long-established tradition (well, dating back almost five months now) of the
Slate 60--our list of America's biggest givers to charity. Our first-quarterly report for
1997 is published in this issue.
But is that enough? The
Slate 60, we confess, is discriminatory. Many people who might like to make the
list by giving $10 million to charity are unfairly handicapped by the lack of
$10 million. Furthermore, something must be done to stop this insane
competition between Time and Newsweek --and many other
magazines--to come up with ever larger and less coherent lists of people. The
only solution is a pre-emptive strike. We at Slate have pondered the situation
and concluded that every American is influential in his or her own way. Some,
for example, are bad influences--but influential nevertheless. And, although we
have not asked each one, a random survey of Americans indicates that none of
them is opposed to the next century.
Therefore, we proudly announce that the entire population of the United
States--267,090,705 wonderful Americans as of Thursday evening, according to
the Census
Bureau's population clock--is on the first annual list of Slate's Most
Influential Americans With the Hottest Bods and Biggest CEO Salaries Not to
Mention Intriguing Personalities and Best Restaurants Under $25 for the Next
Century. Our heartiest congratulations to each of you. And we are confident
that Slate's list contains more people who will make history in the next
century than Newsweek 's list does. To find your name, try the Internet White Pages, WhoWhere?,
or PC411, the North American
Phone Book. (The last of these, however, includes Canadians among its 110
million listings--tragically, they do not qualify. After all, somebody has to
be excluded, or it isn't much of an honor, is it?)
--Michael Kinsley
