An arbitrator ruled the Washington Post must reinstate columnist Karen Attiah with back pay after she was fired for a column about Charlie Kirk. The arbitrator found her article, which didn't name Kirk or advocate violence, didn't constitute misconduct. The ruling exposes how the Post overreached in punishing her for protected journalistic expression.
Chapters
Uh-oh, it turns out the Washington Post made a boo-boo. They, according to arbitration, are going to have to rehire the columnist Karen Attia. In case you forgot about her situation, here's the situation. The Washington Post has to reinstate columnist Karen Attia with back pay, ruling that her post after Charlie Kirk's assassination did not constitute gross misconduct. And that the newspaper lacks sufficient cause to fire her. So here's what she actually wrote. You remember this huge brouhaha last year? Charlie Kirk unfortunately assassinated. No one's in favor of assassination, but there was sort of this mania in the country, this hysteria, where for a while if anyone mentioned This guy's named Charlie Kirk and didn't instantly surround 2 minutes before and 2 minutes after with unmitigated praise, they were treated as if they were terrorists and they were losing their jobs and getting terrorized out of polite society. So this is essentially what happened to this columnist. So here's what she wrote. 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. Nothing in there even mentioning Charlie Kirk's name. Nothing advocating or celebrating his violence. There was an additional quote that got her in trouble. Ultimize.