The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast

Posted by Carl Augusto on 9/26/2005 4:40:46 PM

I never thought the food section of The New York Times Magazine could make me sick to my stomach. But it just did. In this week's magazine, there is an article by Gabrielle Hamilton that is possibly the most insidious, offensive thing I have ever read about someone who is blind.

In the article titled "Eat, Memory: Line of Sight," Hamilton recounts a story about interviewing a man who is blind for a line cook position in her restaurant. Hamilton speaks of the man as though he is inhuman. She writes, "The first thing I noticed when he arrived was that he was blind. His eyes wandered around in their sockets like tropical fish in the aquarium of a cheap hotel lobby."

This sentiment continues throughout the piece. The more Hamilton writes, the more her disdain for the man's disability seems to grow.

This article sends a dangerous, misleading message about the abilities of people with vision loss. The reality is people who are blind or who have low vision are capable of holding almost any job. I know successful NASA scientists, doctors, Ivy League professors, state representatives, attorneys, artists and, yes, even chefs with vision loss who are known not for their disability, but for their professional accomplishments.

What I find most outrageous is that The New York Times, one of the most respected newspapers in the world, published this article. I can't imagine the Times would allow a writer to belittle a person for their race, gender, or sexual orientation. So why is it okay to mock someone for being blind? It's nothing short of disgusting.

Are we sure it's 2005? This article made me feel like I just entered a time warp.

And don't worry, I'm directly expressing my outrage to the paper and submitting a letter to the editor...

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Robert on 10/26/2005 12:52:20 PM

I'll agree-the New York Times should have never published this article. Its inflamatory and will only serve to bolster stereotypes and misconceptions.

However, I have to also agree with the technology consultant who wrote that we tend to injure ourselves....especially (and ironically) more so since passage of the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Despite my own vision loss (legally blind, with vision right at 20/200), I have enjoyed a successful fundraising career...the last four years of which have been spent at an elite (US News top 20) private university. While I have experienced discrimination in my career (nearly all of us have), I have moved on from those experiences. My skills, and ability to cope with my disability (knowing what my limitations are and the ways around them), are what have gotten me where I am.

Unfortunately today, disabled people (not just the visually impaired) are relying on others to make decisions for them...Waive math and science requirements in high school and college curricula; rely on a rehabilitation conuselor (or worse, an employer) to find a job and modify it for them. In the past 15 years I have sat in no fewer than half a dozen job interviews where the interviewer has said something like "We've had visually impaired applicants before, but you're the only one who seems to have (fill in the blank) social skills, the requirements for the job, a sense of how to do the job.." I would have taken this as mere lip service except that three of those six employers called me back for second interviews, two actually hired me and one of those two went on to be a mentor to me who has helped me get where I am today...

Those of us who were working prior to the ADA's passage didn't envision this. What we (or at least I) invisioned was that it would level the playing field for those of us who were making it and allow others who were struggling to enter the workforce and mainstream society. No one, certainly not me, thought some people would use the ADA as an excuse to shirk their own responsibility - don't learn cane travel, the law will provide; don't insist on being included in math and science curricula, the law will provide...don't try your own accomodations...our agency might loose grant money...and oh year, the law will provide...

I am not going to get into the "blindness as diability" or "blindness as chararistic" debate. However, I'd agree with the tech consultant; until you can manage your disability, you're going to have problems. Managing your disability means you - not your counsellor, job coach, college advisor or whoever - know what modifications you need to do a job and propose them. Granted, some might dismiss what I have to say because I'm a "high partial" (I can modify a job simply by hiking up the contrast on a computer monitor and bringing a magnifying glass to work) and thus my life is "easy." However, I know several totally blind people who have figured out either what they need or how to do things differently - on their own. Counsellors, job coaches, college disability officers, social workers...they are all resources to be used...not resources to be depended upon to make decisions a job applicant or employe should make.

Taking responsibility for yourself...communicating your limitations (and the ways around them), speaking up for yourself and learning what everyone else is learning (not some watered down version) are what will get you ahead in life...they are also the skills that will avoid you making the kinds of gaffes Ms. Hamilton's cook applicant made...and by doing that, you'll not only be helping yourself...but other blind people as well because every person who comes across as imept hurts the rest of us...

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Jerry on 10/12/2005 10:30:59 AM

So much has been said already that I feel I hardly need to say more. That has never stopped me, though. I am totally blind, but I don't know that that fact really matters much to my reaction to the article. Just stepping back from the blindness aspect, the article itself is simply an ugly example of public degradation of a human being and really lowers my opinion of the newspaper that stooped to publishing it. Certainly, assuming the events documented are factual, the job applicant somehow got in over his head. The impression is given that he had experience in the restaurant setting, so it's hard to imagine he'd have had such a "crash-and-burn" on his trial run as described in the article. Had he just recently lost a lot of his vision? Perhaps it would have helped if he'd been direct about the nature of his disability so that the prospective employer would have known what to expect. On the other hand, what idiot, seeing that there was a vision issue, would rely on the, "This person must have magical powers," argument to excuse asking and getting reasonable answers to obvious questions she had about the ability of the applicant to do the job? Did she have some sort of malicious thoughts like, "This I gotta see"?

Enough of trying to understand the story behind the story. What reputable newspaper, supposedly providing a public service, would publish a "humor" piece in which a "plain joe", just trying to find a suitable job, is exposed and humiliated in public? Maybe it's funny to write about how a bunch of big kids beat the heck out of a little kid half their size, too. I wonder if this woman would have found it nearly so funny if she had been the one trying to get a job and had had a similar self-destruction experience. I suspect she wouldn't have been out there trumpeting about it. I just don't get it. All I know is that I'm pretty sure I would never like to meet the contemptable person who committed this article.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Jerry on 10/12/2005 10:30:13 AM

So much has been said already that I feel I hardly need to say more. That has never stopped me, though. I am totally blind, but I don't know that that fact really matters much to my reaction to the article. Just stepping back from the blindness aspect, the article itself is simply an ugly example of public degradation of a human being and really lowers my opinion of the newspaper that stooped to publishing it. Certainly, assuming the events documented are factual, the job applicant somehow got in over his head. The impression is given that he had experience in the restaurant setting, so it's hard to imagine he'd have had such a "crash-and-burn" on his trial run as described in the article. Had he just recently lost a lot of his vision? Perhaps it would have helped if he'd been direct about the nature of his disability so that the prospective employer would have known what to expect. On the other hand, what idiot, seeing that there was a vision issue, would rely on the, "This person must have magical powers," argument to excuse asking and getting reasonable answers to obvious questions she had about the ability of the applicant to do the job? Did she have some sort of malicious thoughts like, "This I gotta see"?

Enough of trying to understand the story behind the story. What reputable newspaper, supposedly providing a public service, would publish a "humor" piece in which a "plain joe", just trying to find a suitable job, is exposed and humiliated in public? Maybe it's funny to write about how a bunch of big kids beat the heck out of a little kid half their size, too. I wonder if this woman would have found it nearly so funny if she had been the one trying to get a job and had had a similar self-destruction experience. I suspect she wouldn't have been out there trumpeting about it. I just don't get it. All I know is that I'm pretty sure I would never like to meet the contemptable person who committed this article.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by steve on 10/11/2005 2:34:34 AM

perhaps the times food article is a wake up call that there is an oppertunity for enterprising folks to start thier own bussiness as a qualified consultant that goes to employers and says " i can inform you as to how a person is able to be accommodated so they can be a successful employee in the various areas of your bussiness and explain the practicle advantages of hiring a person with a fisical difference. remember ,there is no incentive for employers to do that extra effort and time to educate thems its just easier to hire somebody else . if we want to play in the game we have to do absolutely whatever is required to get on the feil . I am hopeingto soon see those new consultant bussiness's blooming all over the u s .i

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Lynne on 10/5/2005 3:05:10 PM

This is the letter I sent to Mr. Gerald Mazorati, Editor of the NY Times Magazine:
Dear Mr. Mazorati:
I am writing in response to Gabrielle Hamilton's article "Eat,Memory: Line of Sight" in the Sept. 25, 2005 N.Y. Times Magazine. What was the purpose of publishing this article? The author has the right to show her ignorance, which she so aptly does, in her article. But, the New York Times Magzine has the responsibility to use socially appropriate and rational judgment in determining what to publish. Why did the N.Y. Times Magazine condone such ignorance by publishing it?
If Ms. Hamilton's disparaging comments about the physical characteristics of the visually impaired person were transposed to a person of color or a person of a specific ethnic background, the N.Y.T. Magazine would not have printed it. Why is a person with a disability treated as a second-class person and exempted from this protection of discrimination?
The 45 million people with disabilities, their families, their friends, their neighbors, their colleagues, and their employers would appreciate a public apology.
Yours truly, Lynne Luxton, Ed.D.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Bob [http://www.guidedogs.com] on 10/4/2005 3:34:07 PM

Here's my letter to the New York Times.

September 30, 2005

Gerald Mazorati
Editor
The New York Times Magazine
229 W. 43rd Street
New York, NY 10036-3959

Dear Mr. Mazorati:

For 22 years I have raised a blind child who is struggling to fit into a sighted world that fears her blindness and can’t envision her being successful. This is in spite of the fact that she is a national honors student at Stanford University, a noted children’s rights advocate, and an accomplished writer and poet.

Therefore, I was understandably shocked by the words and thoughts expressed in Eat, Memory: Line of Sight (The New York Times Magazine, September 25, 2005). In my opinion, the story does not belong in a magazine of the caliber of The New York Times. I found Gabrielle Hamilton’s comments superficial, stereotypical, derogatory and dehumanizing.
And yet, rather than feel angry, I find myself feeling concerned for Gabrielle as she reveals her own inability to cope appropriately with the situation. A “disability” is defined as “a disadvantage or deficiency that interferes with or prevents normal achievement in a particular area.” Gabrielle experiences her “worst self” as she struggles to cope with interacting so closely with a blind person. .
I cannot refrain from specifying references that illustrate my point. The comment: “His eyes wandered around in their sockets like tropical fish in the aquarium of a cheap hotel lobby” is demeaning – a cheap shot, perhaps meant to rationalize her discomfort with his blindness.

His voice, his manner, his intelligence and ability to articulate on the phone, built her expectations. She trusted her ears, mind, and heart. However, upon “seeing him”, she responded as a kid in school might, by mocking his physical appearance and criticizing his actions. Kids often pick on others who are “different” – overweight, brainy, poor, of a different race, or disabled. Once labeled, those “different” children are easy to discount. It allows the ones who believe they’re “normal” to feel superior.

It never occurred to Gabrielle that this might be a situation she could have handled differently. Instead, she concluded, “there was no method of compensation”, that “he was just plain blind”.

I’d like to believe that if she had known what to do, she would have done it; that her anger had something to do with feeling so bound by political correctness that she was afraid to ask or didn’t know how to ask the questions she needed answered. The added pressure of needing to work quickly and safely put her over the top. But the reality is that Gabrielle’s visual images were so disturbing to her that she humiliated both herself and him in person and in print.



I personally know that blindness does not stop people from becoming successful lawyers, accountants, bankers, politicians, psychologists, restaurant owners, computer programmers, investment bankers, financial planners and every other conceivable job (even cook). And when they’re motivated to pursue these paths and fail, it’s usually not the blindness that stops them; it’s the discrimination and lack of education among those of us who are too dependent on our vision to imagine another way of being in the world.

On a positive note, the article has galvanized the entire international community of people who love, live, play, and work side by side with people of diverse abilities. And we are reminded that we still have a long way to go to overcome discrimination.

As President and CEO of Guide Dogs for the Blind, I am passionate about improving the quality of life of people without sight and educating people who are blinded by their sight. I’d like to encourage all who may be interested to visit www.guidedogs.com under “Access & Etiquette” to learn more on the topic.

And as for the NY Times Magazine, I’d just like to say that I know some outstanding journalists who happen to be blind. They could make an important contribution to improving the editorial content of your magazine.

Sincerely,



Bob Phillips
President and CEO
Guide Dogs for the Blind, Inc.
800 295-4050
www.guidedogs.com

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Marvin on 10/3/2005 4:19:05 PM

Here's the letter I submitted to the New York Times.

To the Editor:
I am writing regarding the essay "Line of Sight" by Gabrielle Hamilton, which appeared in the Magazine Section of the New York Times of Sunday, September 25th.

Shame, shame, shame!

If Ms. Hamilton's cooking is as tasteless as her prose, she'll soon be looking for a new daytime job. Her puerile attempt at humor in describing the job applicant's eyes as wandering "around in their sockets like tropical fish in the aquarium of a cheap hotel lobby" reads like something written for Creative Writing 101, and for which she would have received a "D" for Disgusting. This was not Harpo Marx ogling for the cameras - it was a human being who clearly was not as perfect as Ms. Hamilton pictures herself. Did she really think that this sentence enhanced the quality of the essay?

If she enjoys amusing herself by ridiculing others who have disabilities, she might want to look up some people with Parkinson's Disease - it would be a real hoot for her to see all those folks standing around twitching. Better yet, she could visit Walter Reed Hospital and check out all those guys and gals who lost eyes and arms and legs defending Ms. Hamilton's right to write tripe like this essay - what a gas that would be! She could regale her friends for hours with her rapier-like wit as she recounted those experiences. Think of the sympathy she could evoke as she bleated, as she did in her essay, of her nobility in suffering through "another 4 hours 35 minutes...to honor".

The proof readers, editors and management personnel who approved this article for publication in the Times share equal blame. Together with Ms. Hamilton they have collectively set back employment opportunities for blind people, and physically challenged people as well, for years, by writing and publishing an article that clearly warns prospective employers away from hiring less-than-perfect people. Even worse, they have demeaned and degraded another human being who has not done anything to harm them. Didn't any of them think about the fact that the job applicant has friends who will read this essay to him? Did any of them think about his feelings? What were they thinking? Were they thinking? Do they have the capacity for thinking? These people have the sensitivity of tree stumps and, like Ms. Hamilton, they should also get a "D" - this time for Disgraceful.

It is my hope that Ms. Hamilton, and all those involved in the publishing of this essay, will dine at her restaurant and spend the next week with stomach cramps.

Marvin Sandler

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by John on 10/3/2005 4:03:56 PM

Sir/Madam: The Toledo Society for the Blind, aka The Sight Center of Northwest Ohio, was started 83 years ago by a group of caring persons, who felt that persons who were visually impaired or blind should not be isolated and in some cases hidden from the rest of society. How that caring is expressed has migrated over time to the point where today vision rehabilitation by an agency, such as ours, has a mission to help visually impaired persons make the best use of their remaining vision and people who are blind continue to live independently. The focus, of course, is on the person's abilities not their disabilities.
After all these years and the money expended to carry out such a mission, we began to think we are making substantial strides--that is until there is an article in the Sunday (September 25) New York Times Magazine written by Gabrielle Hamilton creating the most offensive description of a person who has low vision I have ever read. We obviously still have a long way to go.
As someone who has read the New York Times for fifty years and has found it to be a cut above other newspapers, I was completely shocked--not only that the article was written but that the New York Times published it. I sincerely hope that a concerted effort is expended by the New York Times to rectify the situation. Somehow your filter system failed you. If this happened with drinking water, we would all be poisoned.
John W. Davies, Jr, Executive Director, Toledo Society for the Blind, 1819 Canton Avenue, Toledo, OH 43624. Daytime phone number 419-241-1183

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Vicky on 10/2/2005 2:55:06 PM

This must have been mostly imagination or exaggeration? Surely the guy knew his own limitations if he already had worked as a line chef and knew what kind of adaptations he needed.

What kind of employer only asks a few questions, questions about the experience or method of the prospect? What kind of employer who has misgivings doesn't call a former place of employment?

Of all the question about this article, most importantly, since anyone can write anything they want, HOU COULD IT HAVE BEEN PRINTED?

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Leon [http://www.leongilbert.org] on 10/2/2005 2:12:45 PM

(Middlesex, United Kingdom, 2nd October 2005.)
As one of the hardest working "vision impairment and blindness related media" monitors in the world I possibly hold some responsibility for the fact that this news article even reached people to be discussed in the first place, as it was one article of many that I posted on the day it was published, to blindnews@blindprogramming.com, for whom I volunteer. The reality is that this article, although I do agree with many of the viewpoints people have expressed about it, was one of many.

To give some idea of the volume of v i media articles I have distributed in plain text (from international sources and on a wide variety of subtopics) see the Digital Eyes database at http://www.geoffandwen.com/blind
Where you will see for example that I have delivered over 4000 v i media articles this year, and 675 from September 2005 alone, all on the very day they were published.

It has been my positive endeavour for some time now to ensure that V I related media articles are accessible to V I people (both in the sense of web accessibility, and in the sense of making more easily findable). So I do have a somewhat unique perspective on V I in the media, as even before working for the blindnews@blindprogramming.com mailing list and to this day, I am also the Director of www.vipnews.org.uk (for which I have posted links to blindness related media articles every single day since September 11th 2002), and I am also the RSS news feed editor for ACB Radio, delivering articles daily on four blindness related sub-topics, "assistive technology news", "guide dog news", "blind sports news" and "blind arts news". I could not possibly count precisely, the number of media articles related to blindness/vi that I have read since starting, but needless to say it is somewhere in the range of a 20,000 article readership, all done on a voluntary basis.

Coming back to this individual article and the way people have responded to it, my own view is that the destructive criticism of the person who wrote the article is totally unwarranted, in fact I would like to get in touch with the job applicant himself if possible, to notify him of the way he has been written about, possibly he would have a right to sue. Laws do vary internationally but the basic tenet of the difference between libel and slander remains the same. Good luck to AFB and all those taking action, on both making and getting a positive response to this extremely negative journalism.

At the same time, I would implore people to consider that the media at large, CAN and DOES make a difference to the way in which blind and v i people are portrayed in society, and the impression that the wider public may have. The majority of articles that I deliver as a media monitor are at the opposite extreme to this one, reporting on a diverse range of the positive achievements, creative dynamics, and indomitable character that many blind/v i people have. Not to mention the innumerable organisations that support them as a community and the positive actions they undertake around the world every day. Surely it is time for a positive call for action on vision impairment in the media, and I for one believe that there are a few factors that could make real difference to the media's reporting on blind & visually impaired people today, they are:-

(1) More blind & visually impaired people should consider taking up journalism, to have a positive impact on both the volume and quality of the V I media.

(2) More blind and visually impaired people should take up creative writing, of the vast numbers of articles that I read there are so few that are written IN THE FIRST PERSON, way too many articles are ABOUT
v i p's and not enough written BY them.

(3) Organisations (especially those most user-led) should improve their awareness of what is going on in the media at large today, and develop clear strategies for action. This includes publicising your own information not just on mailing lists but as properly prepared external press releases, paying close attention to the language you use and the quality of writing itself), We all make an impression, and how well publicised, how profound and how positive that is, is also in our own hands. And it is to any organisations benefit to recognise the scale of, and take a hold of this potential and make the most of it.
(4) Organisations should play an advocacy role, as AFB have done by responding to the publishers of articles such as this New York times one. However it is better to have a developed strategy that takes into account legal frameworks, from established voices rather than have wild responses from seemingly ununited individuals. It is possible to do more harm than good, and any endeavour of this type needs to be done thoughtfully.

My best regards to all, I look forward to hearing of any follow-up responses to this issue.

Leon W Gilbert (Cert Ed, ISM)
Volunteer reader, blindnews@blindprogramming.com
Editor & site owner, www.vipnews.org.uk
RSS News Feed Editor, www.acbradio.org
Co-founder/webmaster, The Accessible Friends Network, www.tafn.org.uk
Presenter, "Vision Impairment in the Media" Seminar, Sight Village 2005, Birmingham UK.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Susan on 10/1/2005 12:19:46 PM

Gotta admit that I feel sorry for Ms. Hamilton who is obviously frightened of people who are blind - fear usually comes from ignorance. I echo the response of several folks who have responded that education is the key to the kind of thoughtless, backward thinking demonstrated in this article. At the same time, I think Ms. Hamilton's brand of condemnation of others, in this case a person who is blind, is particularily harmful because it keeps the ignorance going AND it hurts not just the person or group of persons she bashed, it also hurts her and others like her who choose to live their lives in fear.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Peggy on 10/1/2005 10:55:23 AM

Dear Sirs,

The article you published about the blind man trying out for a job as cook was not humorous, edifying or educational. It was
informative, however. It informed us of the general ignorance and lack of empathy some have for those less fortunate than themselves, in this case the visually impaired, and proud of it, may I add, from the sound of Gabrielle Hamilton's article. Were we supposed to feel sorry for her? She must have thought people would get a good laugh at how "stressful" her day at work can be, poor lady. The woman was so mean to the job applicant that her other employees had to rescue him from her "worst self." Pitiful. What the article did for me was to reveal the ignorance of a hard-ass, uncompassionate and obviously grandiose restaurant owner who didn't have the guts (or the smarts?) to ask the man about his visual impairment before the trial. How self-revealing.
I am left to wonder what was the article's purpose for you to publish it? It seems it was a stoop to the lowest of the low to stir up some controversy and to attract attention to your magazine on the premise that any publicity is good publicity. But why pick on a blind person? Having lived with one, I am ashamed that any American could be so condescending to another human being who obviously struggles to get proper employment with such an impairment.
On the other hand, hats off to the gentleman who dared try to get the job! He had the right to try. I'm sure it was not the first time he had been treated like this. Knowing full well that what happened to him that day might happen, he tried anyway. What guts! He runs into the "Gabrielle Hamiltons" of the world all of the time. Good for you and good luck to you, sir.
My recommendation is for Ms. Hamilton to receive training in empathy and awareness.Perhaps she could wear a blindfold for a day and see just how funny it can be to be visually impaired in the kitchen. She might then realize just how accomplished this man actually was. And how offensive she is. God help her.

Margaret Raboin

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Jake on 9/30/2005 2:25:10 PM

Well, I just called the Prune Restaurant, and Gabrielle it seems is taking the day off. I wonder if that means she is so stressed out from writing that article, and from interviewing the guy, that she just decided to lay low today? I'll keep trying back.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Louise [http://homepage.eircom.net/~lebers/] on 9/30/2005 2:13:05 PM

Ms Hamilton was obviously attempting to infuse a little "humour" in her article. Her lack of empathy is obvious and it's equally obvious that she has personal, emotional issues which come out in her stabs at so called humour. As a writer she fails miserably and her content is shameful. As a human being she IS both miserable and shameful. This is an individual who would poke fun at the starving individuals in Ethiopia or find "humour" in the infamous "dead baby jokes". She is to be pitied for her lack of expression, her lack of education and her very real lack of humanity. Her emotional I.Q. is clearly sub zero.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by William on 9/30/2005 12:28:16 PM

Oddly enough, perhaps we as a field should be thanking Ms. Hamilton for being so honest in her article. Without this type of discourse how are we to gain an insight into what the visually impaired workface is facing. As teachers, we work to prepare our students ultimately to be contributing citizens of society and the main means of expressing that goal is through employment. We often wonder why so many in the visually impaired community are unemployed. Can we afford to be so naive as to think that employers should play nice or worse pretend to play nice. I don't have the answers as to how, but I think the field needs to find a way to educate employers so a human face can be placed on a very human experience. I am left with the uneasy feeling that Ms. Hamilton's perception of people with vision impairment may be an underlying and pervasive attitude among the majority of employers toward the disabled. If so, we have our work cut out for us.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Jake on 9/30/2005 12:26:44 PM

Well, I just called the Prune Restaurant, and Gabrielle it seems is taking the day off. I wonder if that means she is so stressed out from writing that article, and from interviewing the guy, that she just decided to lay low today? I'll keep trying back.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by William on 9/30/2005 11:28:47 AM

Oddly enough, perhaps we as a field should be thanking Ms. Hamilton for being so honest in her article. Without this type of discourse how are we to gain an insight into what the visually impaired workface is facing. As teachers, we work to prepare our students ultimately to be contributing citizens of society and the main means of expressing that goal is through employment. We often wonder why so many in the visually impaired community are unemployed. Can we afford to be so naive as to think that employers should play nice or worse pretend to play nice. I don't have the answers as to how, but I think the field needs to find a way to educate employers so a human face can be placed on a very human experience. I am left with the uneasy feeling that Ms. Hamilton's perception of people with vision impairment may be an underlying and pervasive attitude among the majority of employers toward the disabled. If so, we have our work cut out for us.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Jon on 9/30/2005 10:50:51 AM

"All the news that's fit to print", not!

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Kathy [http://fromtheport.blogspot.com] on 9/29/2005 7:41:46 PM

I feel the hate radiated from Ms Hamilton's poison pen. I wonder if her flaming will be picked up by the "others," those persons without a disability? As for the New York Times, I don't read it any more, it is filled up with "selected" facts that support opinion that they substitute for reporting the news.

I am concerned, however, with some of the previous posts referring to Ms Hamilton as a moron or an idiot. Frankly, I do not believe it is her intelligence that is the problem, but her ignorance. (from to ignore)I am also not sure "education" is the problem, as she is able to reflect on the fact she should know better. In fact she delibertately and intentionally ignored what she knew, and wrote this hate spreech. Persons with disabilities that limit their intelligence also suffer from our ignorance, when we stereotype them as ignorant, when in fact how smart one is is not the measure of a person.

No, Ms Hamiliton cannot use lack of smarts as an excuse, it is her intentionally ignoring what should be known by all, including the Editors of the Times; hate speech is never right, even when directed at a job applicant who is deemed unfit for the job. The Times insults it's own readers if they assume the readers will find this piece humourous.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Mary on 9/29/2005 3:41:41 PM

I judge a person's character by how well they interact with an individual who has a mental or physical impairment. Did they treat that individual respectfully? Obviously she did not pass my test. I am appalled. Just what was the purpose of this article?

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Judith Lurie on 9/29/2005 2:20:44 PM

Here is what I sent to the magazine:
Editor

New York Times Magazine



I am shocked and appalled at the article you allowed to appear in last Sunday's magazine section. I have always thought about the Times as a paper that prided itself on balanced reporting, and would have expected you seek out an expert on blindness and employment to compose an article as a balance to this scurrilous piece.



I think the author was trying to show what an ignorant job applicant she had to confront -- and worse yet I think she believes this article to be amusing. I imagine Gabrielle Hamilton still does not know how willfully ignorant she is – a stance that belies her claim of openness to someone who is 'visually challenged'. As an employer she should have known that in the first interview she could have asked, for example, how he "could slice an onion on a white board," a perfectly legal and logical question. She might have called a former employer to ask how he coped on the job. Once he was at the trail and seemed in a dangerous place, she could have asked how he handled this kind of cooking at his then current restaurant.



With a little research she might have learned that some people have a condition called nystagmus that might cause rapid eye movements -- and that many such people drive cars let alone cook. And some people who have limited vision might look at things from an unusual angle because that is where their best focal point is. So sorry if their struggle to see offends her aesthetic sense!



There are plenty of blind cooks in the world, both in their own homes and in working environments. What Ms. Hamilton is blind to is that she never saw the human being across from her, never thought about how terrified he must have been knowing that she was judging and angry with him, but that she would not discuss the situation. While he wanted a chance to show what he could do; she wanted to see how he would fail. Nervousness, not inability, is the more likely reason that he spilled the fries; something anyone might do.



On the other hand, he may have simply been inept. Likely she has had other bad job applicants, and at least in print she would never ascribe their inability to do the job to their belonging to particular class of people. Even if she thought it, she would not say so because it would show her as bigoted -- and could cost her business goodwill.



Ms. Hamilton should know that at least 15% of all Americans have some kind of disability. That is a significant potential customer market and they will not disappear so easily as this poor job applicant did. Most of them have parents, brothers and sisters, and friends, all of whom should be putting her articles and her restaurant on their "carefully avoid" list. And she should also know that if she is lucky enough to live long enough she will become someone with a disability. She better start praying that when that day arrives, she meets kinder people than the person she has become.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Sandy on 9/29/2005 9:32:15 AM

It does not serve us well for any of you to act out your anger by calling the author of this article to tell her she is a moron. By doing so you are as guilty and immature as she was when she told the applicant to read the thermometer. For many of us, the problem is that, despite improvements in technology, and the alleged help of the ADA, a law that I believe has done us more harm than good, little has changed. As a friend pointed out, history is a record of what humankind has done; literature is a record of what people really think. Since the man isn't talking here, we don't know what went on in his mind and I see no reason to slam him; he's not the first person to go on what may have been an inappropriate job interview. I still keep going back to the questionI kept wondering while reading the article; precisely what was the author's point? I kept waiting for it all to be somehow tied together, but it never was. Everyone involved needs some lessons in communication. Let's calm down and be a little more thoughtful in our responses.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Kyle Ryan on 9/28/2005 10:50:09 PM

wow, this has been an interesting read today, the responses of co-workers in my agency and this thread. I'm just giving my reaction. What do you expect from a falling star like the Times? They've been creating instead of reporting for some time now and their editors still have not grown up. I think Ms. Hamilton, and evidently her editors, thought this was funny. How sad a comment that is. There was no lesson in the column so entertainment must have been the goal. My only other comment is that several times today I've heard the applicant slammed by fellow blind professionals because he didn't have his ducks in a row. Whoa! We don't know that, we only know what this restaurant owner, and runner up for Ms. Congeniality, says happened, after she spiced it up with her elitist stab at humor. Completely unrelated to this, well sort of... does she really think being a line cook is that bigtime of a "macho" job? What suburb did she grow up in? Uh oh..I'm getting ugly. And so turns another page of the calendar in the life of the blindguy.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Marja on 9/28/2005 8:31:45 PM

Gabrielle Hamilton’s account of trialing a line cook applicant in her restaurant who is visually impaired is a study in bigotry that is unworthy of the Times. Ostensibly, the piece chronicles Ms. Hamilton’s willingness to give the applicant a chance and to interrogate her own feelings along the way. He fails the trial and she chooses not to hire him, a decision that she clearly has a right to make.

But if the applicant was of a racial minority would Ms. Hamilton find it relevant to mock his physical appearance (“His eyes wandered around in their sockets like tropical fish in the aquarium of a cheap hotel lobby”), which has no bearing on his job performance? Would she decide that his efforts to apply for the job were duplicitous because he should know ahead of time that he can’t make the grade? Would she find it surprising that he has basic social skills (“We shook hands again miraculously”)? Would she find it necessary to be sarcastic about political correctness in face of his apparent identity as a minority? Would she have all kinds of wild emotional responses to interacting with him that are clearly about her perceptions of him, and yet that she blames him for? Would she regard him as so socially ignorant that after being subjected to her “passive-aggressive vitriol" (as she puts it) he wouldn’t guess that he wasn’t getting the job? Would she fail to ever talk to him about her job-related concerns with his application as if he were not, in fact, just another human being?

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Vincent on 9/28/2005 3:31:10 PM

I can’t imagine reading the same article, in the same tone, if the job applicant had been black, or gay, or a woman either, but that is beside the point.
A although the tone of the article does not lend itself to our normal accepted levels of empathy and political correctness, the true nature of the posted responses pointes directly toward the real problem.

The past fifteen years, I have provided a myriad of services to the blind and visually impaired community mostly in Georgia. Two years ago, I decided that it was time for me to leave this career. I had worked as a technology instructor and Rehabilitation engineer, but the rewards were outweighed by the frustrations. Unfortunately, there is one frustration that tops the entire list. It is the frustration from listening to a bunch of whining visually impaired and blind people who are not working, because they can’t compete in the workplace.

I have multiple engineering degrees and a minor in Management that I completed with my visual impairment. Retinitis Pigmentosa finally took the remainder of my eyesight nine years ago, and I have not let that stop me yet. I remember a former rehabilitation counselor of mine getting truly upset because I would tell them that seventy to eighty percent of her clients did not have a chance in hell of working in a competitive environment and we should not be wasting a penny on them. My Industrial and Systems Engineering background coupled with almost fifteen years in the business led me to the following conclusion.


“Until your disability becomes an afterthought, or you make your disability a rudimentary inconvenience in your everyday life, then it is still best described as a handicap”


If you can’t manage the ramifications of that last statement, then you don’t have a chance in hell of competing in the general workforce. If the job is simple enough to do without some modification or adaptation, then it is probably a good candidate for out-sourcing out of the country. If you spend any iota of your conscious time dealing with the limitations that might be added to the completion of your assigned tasks, then you are taking away from your ability to compete the job along side a person without any limitations.

The guy in this story did not have a clue as to how he was going to truly get the job done and that is why he is not employed there today. Don’t knock the writer of the article, because it does look like they tried to find out what was going on. The blind person just did not make the same effort. I have seen this happen all too often only to watch it take five to ten years to get another person a legitimate shot at working in the same place. This is why I don’t assist in the completion of any more jobs that are created specifically to hire blind people or a person with any disability. The person in the article did not just mess it up for him, he messed it up for the next person who comes in after him.

Now, I can see all the letters and calls that will go to the New York Times and the restaurant article writer, but we should be turning our emotional outbursts towards ourselves for letting this lunacy continue.

Ps. Maybe "his eyes wandered around in their sockets like tropical fish in the
Aquarium of a cheap hotel lobby." Was a good analogy.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by David on 9/28/2005 3:18:10 PM

Ah, yet another example of bias resulting in discrimination! How novel. (Sarcasm) I take my hat off to one of my students in my class I am teaching on Psychosocial Aspects of Disability in our Masters of Rehabilitation Counseling program here at Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center. There is nothing like a current event to show the rest of my class that this kind of ignorance is still doing damage to people with disabilities everywhere. Hamilton is a museum piece worthy of study.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Gil [http://www.livejournal.com/~the_mind_of_gil] on 9/28/2005 1:51:55 PM

I agree with a few of the other commenters: first, that the article is in the poorest of taste and that the NY Times should have never run it at all; but second, that each of us, with whatever our disabilities are (and we all have one or another of them), should face the reality that not everyone on the planet can do every job. There are thousands and thousands of jobs from average to very high level that a visually impaired person can perform admirably and at which he or she can compete with anyone. However, there are jobs that every single one of us should never consider because of our individual limitations. So I feel, like the first commenter (Michelle Mason), that there is fault on both sides of the situation described, only that Ms. Hamilton's fault is the more egregious, compounded by the NY Times's poor judgment.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Michelle on 9/28/2005 1:29:31 PM

I had mixed reactions while reading this article. Yes, Ms Hamilton was crass in her discription of the gentleman's disability. However, he should have been forthright with her about his abilities and limitations. In my opinion, fault lies with both parties.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by James on 9/28/2005 1:00:22 PM

As a rehabilitation professional working with the blind in Illinois, I found the article offensive. The author obviously would benefit from some sensitivity training, and perhaps cultural diversity training would help, too. The harshness of her writing ability indicates to me she has no interest in adaptive equipment, job modifications or the like, and the blind person in question might have wanted to toot his own horn about what he can and cannot do with focus on what he can do. The article appears to be outlandish in one of the better papers in America, but the editors chose to be hard-hearted , as they allowed the article to be printed. Shame on them! This tells me that I have no interest in ever going to that restaurant for dinner. Finally, being "compassionate" and "pro-active" would go a long way in helping this gentleman to have a positive job match. Obviously the writer of the article has deleted these two words from her personal dictionary.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Lesley on 9/28/2005 10:17:56 AM

What disturbs me about this article is her anger. She has probably had applicants that have tanked at their trial night before. That's part of being an employer. But she is angry and resentful that SHE has to deal with a person with a disability. Also, by not letting him know what things he was missing (the seasoning, etc) she made the situation much much worse.

A guy came in for an interview. He didn't do well. That's ALL it should have been. Everything else is her discomfort with people with disabilities.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Cindy on 9/28/2005 9:53:19 AM

Thank you for calling this to our attention. Thankfully, I do not read the New York Times. If this is an example of the quality of this paper, then I don't think I will start.
I would hope the author of this article would be well embarrassed by this time. Her ignorance shone through like a beacon.
I have to wonder if this blind applicant couldn't do a much better job at being editor of a major newspaper then the uneducated, unfeeling person who allowed this to get to print. Shame on you New York Times!

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Paul Lewis on 9/28/2005 7:52:15 AM

The ranters here should thank Ms. Hamilton for providing the field with a rare, albeit unusually harsh, glimpse of personal honesty as to how "it really is" in the employment world without the buff and polish of the fantasy we typically spin. Those of you who are so offended must have rarely heard such openness from potential employers and should be glad that you now know what the challenge is and what has to be improved. Failure to hire clients is often justified with employer's powdery excuses that, apparently, we accept in deference to the truth. The truth from their perspective might be a hard pill to swallow, but it is a good one because it can only make us better at our jobs. Mob reaction is not useful in educating Ms. Hamilton and others. ...and be careful who you call a “moron”.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Caroline on 9/28/2005 12:45:22 AM

I don't have an immediate connection to the blind community, but am totally tied to the community of people with developmental disabilities. I am a professional in that field with over 30 years experience, but my most important experience has been over the last 13. I gave birth to beautiful Christopher who has a bonus chromosome at number 21 (Down syndrome). The chef connection hit home because my grandfather was a professional chef and I am addicted to cooking. Christopher has been my sous chef since he could see over the counter. What would this uneducated woman say about my son with a knife in his very skilled hands?

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by JUDY Davis on 9/27/2005 9:51:50 PM

I BEKIEVE MS. HAMILTON IS AN UNEDUCATED "BLIND" PERSON TO COME UP WITH THIS SORT OF GARBAGE. HOW EASY IT IS FOR SOMEONE TO CRITICIZE WHEN YOU HAVEN'T WALKED IN THEIR SHOES.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE NY TIMES-HAVEN'T THEY GOT ANYTHING ELSE TO WRITE ABOUT-AND TEAR TO SHREDS.
SHAME ONTHEM FOR ALLOWING MS. HAMILTION THE SPACE TO HAVE HER ARTICLE PUBLISHED.
WHAT IS HER ATTITUDE WITH OTHER MINORITIES-THE BLACKS, SPANISH, ASIAN-ARE THESE PEOPLE ALSO INFERIOR BECAUSE THEY DON'T FIT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PERFECT WHITE PERSON.
OUR SOCIETY STINKS WHEN THEY ALLOW THIS KIND OF CRAP TO GO ON!!!PS I AN A PARENT OF A BLIND YOUNG ADULT AND AM TIRED OF THE JUNK THAT GOES ON. GROW UP MS. HAMILTON. THIS IS 2005!!! NOT 1950.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Len on 9/27/2005 8:47:54 PM

I have two reactions. First I as well never cease being amazed at the license
that can be taken when derogating a person with a disability, but the guy applying for the position
is far from blameless. People who do this kind of thing often do more damage in minutes than I can repare
through a good example in months. He should hide himself in shame!

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Tiffany on 9/27/2005 8:02:15 PM

I cannot believe that someone in the year 2005 has the mindset to write such an article nor an editor of such a prestigious magazine to publish it! How outrageous! I thank AFB for bringing this to our attention!

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Ashley on 9/27/2005 7:13:58 PM

If this had been written about blacks, Muslims, gays, or any other minority group, it never would've been printed. People with disabilities continue to be the "acceptable" minority to pick on.

I've been considering getting a Times subscription, especially now that I'm taking a political science course, but now I'm actually going to encourage friends to please cancel theirs. This is disgusting. It honestly made me feel sick inside.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Steve on 9/27/2005 6:59:16 PM

I am having a hard time fathoming what moved Gabrielle Hamilton to write her "piece" that appeared in the 9/25/05 Sunday Magazine ("Eat, Memory: Line of Sight"). Her essay about a blind man who applied for a chef's position at her restaurant has me wondering several things. How could such vitriol come from a civilized person's mind? What makes someone so angry that they write such mean-spirited material? And what, for heaven's sake, was going through the head of the New York Times editor that gave that article the green light?

Had race or sexual orientation been the issue in this story... two other involuntary states of being... I'm sure it would never have passed muster.

I hope Ms. Hamilton gets the education she needs on this issue as well as the subject of conducting job interviews. Asking the questions that need to be asked in such a situation is as rudimentary as boiling water.

Advising or helping someone who has taken on a task for which they are not equipped or prepared often takes some milk of human kindness, an ingredient that was completely missing from her article. I would also like to ask any of her employees if it is lacking in their workplace.

In radio and television, the chance to reconsider one's words before speaking is a fleeting one. In print, a writer sometimes has the opportunity to sleep on an essay before submitting it for publication. Ms. Hamilton should have done that. Unfortunately, it was the editor who was sleeping.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Jake on 9/27/2005 6:01:52 PM

Hello. I just read Ms. Hamilton's article, and I completely agree with all of you. She is arrogant, bigoted, and she has no idea of our capabilities as human beings. The article could not have been more condescending, and I did not enjoy it. I guess Ms. Hamilton does express herself well though. Thank you Carl and AFB for bringing this to our attention. I am going to send this article to my roommate, who, incidentally, is cooking dinner for the two of us tonight and is a very good cook. He is also visually impaired. I'm also calling the restaurant in question because I have some things I want Gabrielle to hear.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Sue on 9/27/2005 5:17:18 PM

Hello, I think the article did not mean anything to me, what I don't get is why there are stuff to prepare the food at the end of the article. I think it is unclear, and it was not specffic as far as to what he did in working with the food, I know when I cook, I use a cutting board plus I place my hands in a fist meaning say if I am cutting a potatoe my fingers don't get cut by accident. I can't beleive this lady does not have any concept as to what a blind person can do. As for me, I get questions all of the time, I don't mind talking about how I do things. I mean come on here we do have the internet, and braille to read everything plus note takers to write things down. She did not even mention that. I know when I was in the public school, people were amazed how I did things, sometimes I would give presentations, everyone just love that! I think if the lady wants to be educated she should attend an blindness convention or maybe a tech fair just to see how blind people can do daily tasks. For me I find ways in doing things, have educated a lot of people, and the people in my church they think I am pretty cool. Yes please everyone write a letter to the person so she can be educated. I also have done a lot of hiking, went to college and done quite well.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Marshall on 9/27/2005 4:46:54 PM

Here's my letter to the Times Magazine:
In her article “Eat, Memory: Line of Sight” in New York Times Magazine (9/25/05), Gabrielle Hamilton forgot to mention the single greatest impediment to people who are blind or have a visual impairment, whether they are cooks, doctors, mechanics, lawyers, business owners, scientists, teachers, engineers, moms and dads, clergy or anything else. This impediment is the attitude of fully sighted people – an attitude filled with condescension and bigotry, fueled by ignorance and fear.

She did, however, get one thing correct when she wrote “I thought maybe I was an ignorant jerk who didn't realize how far the blind had come.” Yes, in spite of people like you.

I don’t know a sous chef from a soufflé, but then, I don’t write articles about either. And, if I did, I hope that I would bother to learn something about each before I wrote. I suggest that Ms. Hamilton contact Carl R. Augusto, President and CEO of the American Foundation for the Blind (212) 502-7610 (I’m sure he has written to her) and get an education. I also suggest that the editors of the Times Sunday Magazine re-read Ms. Hamilton’s article and replace the references to blindness and visual impairment with references to race, ethnicity, religion, gender, or sexual preference and see how it reads. Maybe you should get an education, too.

Sincerely,

Marshall Flax

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Maureen [http://www.pco.edu] on 9/27/2005 4:20:50 PM

Dear Carl:

Excellent blog! I, too, read Ms. Hamilton's article and was similarly appalled; however, my reaction is that she needs education, not condemnation.

As director of a university program in Vision Rehabilitation Therapy (VRT), I'd like to invite Ms. Hamilton to observe a graduate class in adaptive meal preparation in which blind, visually impaired and blindfolded students learn to prepare complicated meals using the stove, oven and a variety of razor-sharp (well, razor-sharp if I have the time to sharpen them) slicing and cutting devices.

Education is the key to everything, isn't it?

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Gaylen on 9/27/2005 3:57:48 PM

I just called the telephone number listed above and of course, Ms. Hamilton was "on the other phone!" I told her assistant that I thought Hamilton was an ignorant fool and that she should keep her pen to herself! I insisted that her assistant relay the message to Hamilton and her assistant said she would. This article really pisses me off! I am sitting here just boiling right now!

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Matt on 9/27/2005 3:48:38 PM

This certainly qualifies as one of the most pointless articles I have read in a paper that is starting to lose its credibility quickly. I plan on writing a letter to the editor and since somebody asked earlier the e-mail address is magazine@nytimes.com. All letters should include the writer's name, address and daytime telephone number.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Alex on 9/27/2005 3:44:54 PM

Carl,
Thanks for passing along awareness of this. I missed The Times this outrageous rant. Having said that, as one of the previous bloggers notes, Ms. Hamilton is far more blind than the fellow she describes, or even her other employees, who obviously had more common sense that she. Someone this pathetically lacking in empathy and basic communication skills needs great compassion-and a good therapist. I read "anger" from every sentence-not at the hapless applicant; but at her own inadequacies.... How can we take this and have The Times or Wall St. Journal do a piece on how this kind of job is successfully accomplished?... Seems like a great opening to educate.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Stephanie on 9/27/2005 3:04:58 PM

I think Paul Doyle has a wonderful point as well. Applying for a job or auditioning while leaving your disability on the sidelines is like walking into the fire, crossing your fingers, and hoping you won't get burned. Pretending your blindness doesn't exist when engaging in a phone call only hurts the person who is blind, because it will come out eventually, often in an awkward, even humiliating situation. I don't in any way condone this article or the mentality behind it, but the only way to reach a potential for changing someone's stereotypical thinking is to be up front and open the door for learning. There was clearly a lack of communication from the get go here, and anything you hide will ultimately be revealed. He needed to be up front with his disability, explain how he does things, and express what assistance he is needing in order to do his job effectively. This would've given him a greater chance at showing his true potential.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Jennifer Hoppe on 9/27/2005 2:57:13 PM

Unbelievable. That's my reaction to the disgusting, shameful article inexplicably published in the Times. Who in their right mind would find such cruel behavior humorous? Mr. Augusto is absolutely right that no newspaper--let alone the Times--would waste ink on this kind of bigotry were it directed at a person's race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. I share your outrage about this article and also plan to write directly to the paper.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Stephanie on 9/27/2005 2:53:25 PM

If any one had written an article with slanderous, stereotypical statements about someone of a particular race, gender, or sexual orientation, the outcry would be one million times greater than it is now. We can all agree that there are millions of visually impaired persons living independently and holding down great jobs, but I think the bigger issue is the double standard this article presents when looking at discrimination full in the face. It's time more people took a stand, just as they would do in any other situation in which discrimination is so obvious. Whether or not Gabrielle Hamilton was lying or exaggerating the details really isn't the major issue here, either. If her intent was to humiliate someone, or an entire group of people with this article, which clearly seems to be the case, than she is to be pittied, and The editors of the New York Times should be ashamed of themselves for condoning, even encouraging this outrageous, inhumane behavior by posting the article in the first place. Did she really think it remarkable, from a human perspective, that the man anticipated her response after the fact? Wouldn't she have also seen it coming if the tables had been turned? I don't expect the coward to come to the phone; that's exactly what a bully is. I would, however, greatly appreciate it if anyone has an address, e-mail or postal, for writing to the editor regarding this outrageous article. I think that would have a greater impact. We can vent about this in a list of blogs all day, really accomplishing nothing, or we can make our voices heard in an appropriate, adult like fashion. There is no need to stoop to her level. Thank you.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Paul on 9/27/2005 2:47:06 PM

I’m a teacher of kids that are visually impaired and feel the best response to this article would be a positive one. Instead of flaming rhetoric, offer Ms. Hamilton a change to observe a successful person with a VI at work. Otherwise, we may get a retraction of the story or apology but not a change of mindset. I also read between the lines here and believe the person auditioning should have educated the employer about their VI and apparent null spot along with requesting the services of an orientation & mobility prior to jumping into the fire.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Blue on 9/27/2005 2:40:34 PM

I don't believe there is any question that the Times and Ms. Hamiulton deserve the wrath of every one who has a sense of social justice; but we should also let Bloomsbury Publishing know as well, since they have decided to publish this "essay" in their book DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by June on 9/27/2005 2:25:50 PM

I agree that this article is completely inappropriate and disgusting. Can someone provide an address where a letter can be sent to New York Magazine. Thanks.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Lee Huffman on 9/27/2005 2:06:35 PM

I think Darren has a great idea here!

I am not surprised Ms. Hamilton could not come to the phone; she was most likely hiding in shame. At least she should be.
I can not think of a reason to write such an article; what was her point?
In her article Ms. Hamilton says the man must have died a thousand deaths when the supervisor pulled him off the food line. How does she think he will feel when he reads this article? She obviously did not think about this nor did she think at all before she wrote her article.

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by C on 9/27/2005 1:35:52 PM

Well, one thing you can say for Ms. Hamilton: She's a good writer. By the end of the article, I didn't think of the guy as being human either. I wonder if that was her intent...

By the way, there's still a link to the story on the MAIN PAGE two days (and many unhappy letters) later! Take the thing off!!

Re: The New York Times Magazine Food Section Serves Up Bigotry for Breakfast
Posted by Darren Burton on 9/27/2005 10:46:34 AM

I echo Carl's comments about how disgusting this article is. Not only is Ms. Hamilton bigoted and ignorant, I believe she is actually lying to try to further make her ridiculous point. Nobody, sighted or blind, would pour french fries all over the floor, as the task can easily be done tactilely without the need for vision. After I read it yesterday morning and my blood boiled over, I immediately called the Prune restaurant to speak with the moron Ms. Hamilton, but of course, she was not able to come to the phone, so I conveyed my displeasure to one of her minions. If anyone else reading this blog would like to call the idiot Ms. Hamilton, the restaurant number is 212-677-6221. Of course, we can expect neanderthals like Hamilton to every once in a while pop up out of the sludge and make complete fools of themselves, but the real crime is that the once-respected New York Times magazine would print such junk from such a moron. Who are the uneducated people working for them? Did they think the article was funny? Now, I am of course no advocate for violence, but since Hockey season is finally coming back, maybe the New York Rangers could get in a little pre-season practice by visiting the NY Times offices and the Prune restaurant. They could practice some body-checks and loosen up their sticks a bit.

Post a Comment