In this chapter we see how to people working for the Beacan Journal, Carl Chancellor and Bob Dyer worked together with a number of other people to explore the racial attitudes of the City. Eventually this helped create multiracial partnerships among their local community, which gain their journal win the Pulitzer Prize. Although even after the fact, there were still issues that occurred in their workplace that seemed to go back on all these ideas of race that they were so determined to showcase in their research.
We see some tension grow during an incident where the use of "niggardly" was used by a District of Columbia official and both Chancellor and Dyer wrote columns in reaction. Dyler defending the official, while Chancellor stated that unlike Dyler he had a right to have an objection and why should Dyer determine how he should feel of this use of this word. This reminded me a bit about chapter 4, but instead of "who gets to tell a Black story" it was more of who has the right to feel about issues that deal with certain races. Chancellor may have felt more impacted by the word "niggardly" since it reflected a similar sounding to a insulting racial slur used against his race. So because of his racial background does he have the right to be angry, does Chancellor have a right to defend?
Another interesting thing is when Dyer gets pulled over, he says he experienced something comparable to racial profiling. Also he talks about bad service he got at a restaurant and how another family who were black got the same bad service may thinks its a type of discrimination. He brought in an interesting idea about seeing race where it may not even be, which again reminded me of the previous chapter 3 about the military and how both drill sergeants were equating their lack of opportunities to racial discrimination. Do we truly use race to explain many factors or limitations in our lives? Maybe its just due to race being shoved in our faces on a daily basis, so that is why people become dependant on it for answers.
Dyer later on questions that maybe his views hurt his chances for more opportunities in the Beacon Journal and he thinks this idea of "would it have been easier to get ahead if he were not a white male". Which at first sounds like he's playing the victim for what he claimed was due to "having written so honestly about race" which could have honestly been the main reason he didn't do much afterwards since other articles did seem to offend other race groups. For example like the suggestion of the new mascot for the local high school being called crack head. Maybe he was just being "just writing what he felt like" but can we draw a line, do we place limits on who exactly gets to say things about certain race groups? Also if he had this idea of getting ahead if he wasn't white, then how come Chancellor got his column cancelled and not him, they both commented on racial issues so if he was being denied for being to honest about race then they both would have had their columns canceled.