Rather than sort through these complex questions of celebrity and suitability, however, the media narrative has downplayed or elided the substantive concerns. In a typical example of flagrantly misleading coverage, one Inside Higher Ed “explanation” piece for why Hannah-Jones’s desire for tenure might face opposition was that “some critics say ‘1619’ is unpatriotic and too focused on racism” — flatly ignoring the concerns about its historical inaccuracy and politicized cast. When Walter E. Hussman Jr., the Arkansas newspaper publisher for whom the UNC journalism school is named, shared concerns with the school about Hannah-Jones’s professional qualifications, media accounts chose to portray his reservations as evidence of some malicious conspiracy rather than soberly consider their validity.

To understand how hard it is to justify omitting her record from the popular narrative, one only need imagine if Hannah-Jones were a conservative academic rather than a woke celebrity journalist. Credible accusations of shoddy work, professional misconduct, and personal attacks would be deemed as self-evidently relevant — and likely disqualifying — for a prestigious academic post. Indeed, one need not work hard to imagine such a scenario. Consider the case of Marc Short, who was subjected to ferocious assault, with two faculty members resigning in protest, when he was offered a short-term, one-year position as a senior fellow at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. This occurred despite the fact that Short had not engaged in any professional misconduct — his only sin was being a former Trump administration staffer. No major media or academic voices rose to suggest he was being treated unfairly.