LEILA FADEL, HOST:
A private arbiter has ordered The Washington Post to reinstate an opinion columnist that the paper fired last year after she wrote on social media about the assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk. That firing raised questions about whether the dismissal was fair or meant to silence her particular view. Karen Attiah is that columnist and joins us now. Good morning.
KAREN ATTIAH: Good morning, Leila.
FADEL: So, Karen, when you first heard that the Post would have to reinstate you and pay back pay, as I understand it, after a yearlong fight, what was your first reaction?
ATTIAH: Oh, gosh. I was excited, exhilarated, exhausted (laughter). I think I just wanted to cry. It's just been such a hard fight. But I was also excited because I knew that this reinstatement wasn't just about me and wasn't just about a job. I know that so many people have been fighting all sorts of battles when it comes to expression and free speech institutionally. And so I just realized this one was bigger than me.
FADEL: So you feel like this is a larger message, this decision?
ATTIAH: I think so, particularly for journalists who have been coming under such scrutiny, such attacks. And particularly, of course, we saw so much of the clampdowns in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk killing, right? And I also think this is a big message and a big win for unions. I'm a proud Washington Post Guild member, and I could not have done this without the support of the Washington Post Guild without having a union contract in place, which allowed me to fight back. And so for me, this is a bigger message that, you know, silencing speech, silencing journalistic expression, you should be prepared to fight for these values and to fight for these things.
FADEL: If this is a place that you think is - was trying to silence you, is it a place that shares your values? Is it a place you do want to go back to and work at?
ATTIAH: That is the big question. I mean, my attitude is I was very proud of the work that I was able to do and very proud of being able, especially as an editor, to platform other voices. And when it comes to that work as a journalist, I'm ready and willing to go back to that work. And right now, I mean, The Washington Post has a standing marching order from the arbitrator, so the ball is in their court. I know that - and I think the whole world knows that - everybody is watching how The Washington Post stands up to their values of journalistic integrity.
FADEL: Can you share what your conversations have been like with the Post since an arbiter ruled in your favor? I know this only happened recently.
ATTIAH: I have not heard from The Washington Post yet.
FADEL: Really?
ATTIAH: Not yet.
FADEL: And so what does this mean about your possible return?
ATTIAH: Well, they've got my number. They've got my email, so I'm just waiting. They've got standing orders. And for now, though, I think still it is about, you know, this message that it sends also to all media houses - right? - that when journalists do come under scrutiny, particularly for The Washington Post, such a storied newspaper, I mean, I just think the message is we're going to be watching what they're doing. This is going to be a sign of who The Washington Post, I think, is going to choose to be in this new era.
FADEL: On the day that Charlie Kirk was shot - September 10 of last year - you wrote on the social media platform Bluesky, quote, "refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is not the same as violence." In hindsight, would you write that publicly again, knowing what came after?
ATTIAH: All my posts are still public. I think that's testament to how I saw that that was just a statement of fact. As a journalist, I wasn't going to, of course, celebrate his murder, but I also wasn't going to engage in performative, over-the-top mourning. And I think part of what this case showed is that, particularly as a woman journalist, this expectation that I was supposed to go over the top for, you know, anyone, particularly who espoused views that many saw as reprehensible. I saw that as just doing my job - right? - and the arbitrator ruled.
And particularly, as uncomfortable as it is, there is a problem with white men who choose to engage in hatred and violence. And the arbitrator in her decision said that descriptiveness - descriptions of race and gender - do not amount to disparagement. So, you know, as uncomfortable as these truths are about race and violence in our political discourse, that's part of the job - is to be as accurate in our descriptions as possible.
FADEL: What else did the arbitrator say in their decision where they concluded, yes, The Washington Post has to reinstate you, they shouldn't have fired you?
ATTIAH: So part of what The Washington Post alleged was that my posts were gross misconduct and that they fired me without even a conversation after 11 years. The arbitrator found that that was, quote, "disproportionate treatment," that according to our collective bargaining agreement we have a progressive discipline.
So no conversations, no investigation, that they violated the union contract. So, yeah, the arbitrator also - as I said, said, in terms of security, The Washington Post argued that my posts were a threat to the security of my colleagues. The arbitrator basically said, well, if that was true, your duty is to protect your journalists after - and that's also in The Washington Post contract.
Their duty wasn't to leave journalists like me to the wolves. Their duty was to protect, right? And so to not even warn me of these so-called threats, not even to have a conversation, I think that's part of what - why this is a bigger message to media houses, particularly as social media harassment and campaigns increase, is that the role of powerful media corporations is to use that power to protect the journalists who are putting their safety on the line quite often to be able to report the truth and to be able to, again, make commentary, sometimes as uncomfortable as it is to do that. So, yes, I think that this was a just decision. I'm very happy with it.
FADEL: Karen Attiah, thank you for being here. Thanks for joining us.
ATTIAH: Thank you.
FADEL: We asked The Washington Post for a comment on the arbitrator's decision. A spokesperson told NPR the newspaper respects the arbitration process and declined to comment further.
(SOUNDBITE OF MUSIC) Transcript provided by NPR, Copyright NPR.
NPR transcripts are created on a rush deadline by an NPR contractor. This text may not be in its final form and may be updated or revised in the future. Accuracy and availability may vary. The authoritative record of NPR’s programming is the audio record.
