No one in personnel ever says, “Hey, Chink, no job for you.” Or: “Gee, we weren’t thinking about a Filipino guy for this position.”

Nor do they say, “Sorry, but you’re the wrong ethnicity for the job.”

Unfortunately, it’s the only way to win a discrimination suit. You’d have to be dealing with a pretty stupid employer. Nowadays, employers are so well-versed in the law they say things like, “It just wasn’t a good fit,” as if they were trying on new suits.

But if that was the case, “fit” would only be one issue, since a suit must fit. What if it did, and you were the wrong “style”—say, a qualified four-button guy in a two-button environment? Then you’d hear a phrase that goes: “Here at our X-rated, obscenely all-white company, we have a unique corporate culture.”

These are the phrases of modern discrimination—the legal kind.

Employers can’t single out race, ethnicity or age—these are protected. We have rights in America, after all. But there’s a certain area where a company can exercise discretion, no matter how qualified you are.

They just take one look, scrunch their face and say, “It just didn’t feel right. Sorry.”

Yeah, sorry.

I was thinking about these catch phrases as the American Society of Newspaper Editors (ASNE) unveiled its latest statistics on ethnic journalists. Each year, as a kind of masochistic parlor game, ASNE surveys newsrooms for diversity. As usual, the numbers don’t speak well.

According to the survey, American dailies do a terrible job of representing the population at large. Eighty-eight percent of working daily journalists are white. The percentage of journalists who are Asian, black, Hispanic and Native American is a whopping 11.55 percent. (Could the last .45 percent be of mixed race?)

The stats hardly make dailies sound like the voice of populism.

But let’s put the best possible spin on this one: Last year’s 11.55 percent is up from the previous year’s 11.46 percent. Ah, the march of progress.

Last year, ASNE realized newspapers were marching much too rapidly and decided to slow down the juggernaut of diversity in journalism. Apparently, a .09 percent increase seems to be a good rate for an America that embraces Prop. 209.

Back in 1978, ASNE set idealistic goals for newspapers. It wanted to reflect the nation’s racial composition by the year 2000. This was fiery talk in those days. Back then, minorities accounted for just 4 percent of newspaper journalists. Of course, fairness and equality were still considered important public values.

Here we are—20 years later—at 11.55 percent. Spindoctors will say that’s nearly a 300-percent increase!

But what about the lofty goal of newsrooms reflecting America by the year 2000? At a time when ethnic populations make up 26 percent of America, ASNE isn’t even half way to its goal!

Instead of pushing to increase hiring, ASNE’s board pushed back its goals—2000 was unrealistic. We may come close by 2025. Figure it took 20 years to get half way, another 25 years might finish job.

Almost a half-century? Editors wouldn’t be so lax with such a news deadline.

Meanwhile, California is already where the rest of the country is expected to be in 25 years. Whites are now a minority and ethnic communities form a majority. Still, the San Francisco Chronicle’s percentage of non-white journalists is just 18.8 percent. The San Francisco Examiner’s is 14.3 percent

The importance of employment goals is very easy to understand. Employment begets coverage. Without minority reporters and editors, particular issues aren’t likely to be handled with sensitivity, if even covered at all.

This all points to invisibility—both in the newsroom and as subjects in the news. And don’t think this doesn’t impact all other fields of endeavor. Out of sight, out of mind.

Thank goodness for AsianWeek and the rest of ethnic media—the antidote for invisibility.

Still, it’s amazing that this problem exists, considering the largest media convention of the year is likely to be the Unity ‘99 conference in Seattle, which brings together all ethnic and minority media groups—Blacks, Hispanic, Asian, Native American, Gay and Lesbian

With this in mind, ethnic and racial diversity should be an easy fix. Editors should have no trouble finding their qualified people at the Unity conference.

But there’s something else at work here—and it has nothing to do with traditional notions of race nor ethnicity. It has everything to do with just getting along. The right fit.

We’ve heard this for ages. Bosses like to hire people like themselves. Why do you think high-powered business deals are conducted on exclusive golf courses, and not around the lazy Susan, slurpin’ down a bowl of chow fun at an all-you-can-eat joint?

When you look at the statistics, you realize the difficulty we face in changing American society.

In the end, race and ethnicity under current law becomes a moot point when it comes to hiring. It’s not about race, nor about qualifications.

Do they like you? Are you a good fit?

Unfortunately, nothing can adequately address the barriers these questions create. No wonder current solutions appear to stop short. If we want real diversity, we all have to go beyond skin deep.