Last spring, I was sitting on the couches on the 7th floor of the Washington Post, fighting back tears.
A new edict had come down from Jeff Bezos, ordering that the opinion section I had worked in for the last 11 years would not be allowed to publish anything outside personal liberties and free markets. A number of my fellow columnists had already resigned in protest of the paper’s changing policies.
A number of us were sitting on the couches, with a sense of foreboding mixed with determination. I remember saying out loud, “All I know how to do is write, and fight.”
A few months later, I declined to take a buyout to leave the Washington Post. I decided to stay and fight, and do my job as best as I could.
Still, I never thought a year later I would end up going to war—with the Washington Post itself.
But I did. And… I won.
It’s official:
After being fired last September by the Washington Post for telling the truth about race and gender in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk killing, I filed a grievance through the Washington Post Guild, of which I am a longtime member. We went to arbitration on June 4th for a day-long hearing.
And now, the newspaper has been found in violation of the Guild’s Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Independent arbitrator Sarah Miller Espinosa ruled that the “Washington Post did not have good and sufficient cause to terminate [my] employment”, and that the firing violated the collective bargaining agreement between the Guild and the Post.
The Washington Post has been ordered to reinstate me immediately, plus full back pay and benefits.
My God. I fought the Washington Post—and won.
Key Points from The Arbitrator’s Decision
Last September, the Post fired me via email a day after the Charlie Kirk killing, claiming that my posts on Bluesky on how America coddles “white men who espouse hatred and violence” were “gross misconduct” and violated the Post’s social media policy.
You can read the original termination letter here:
“White men who espouse hatred and violence”
The Post argued that I violated their social media policies and that I disparaged white men when I was specifically talking about white men who choose to engage in harmful behavior. As I said in my testimony, if the Post believes that white men who espouse hatred and violence are a protected specific group, then well— they literally proved the point of my posts about America coddling violent white men. I didn’t say all white men. I didn’t say some white men. I said those that choose to espouse hatred and violence.
Espinosa disagreed with the Post’s interpretation.
“A reasonable interpretation of this provision is that posts cannot disparage groups or individuals on the basis of protected characteristics, including race and gender. The Post’s assertion is that the Grievant’s posts disparage White men. That interpretation is unsupported by the actual words, as well as the context, of the Grievant’s posts. The Grievant was referring to a subset of White men, specifically “white men who espouse hatred and violence” and a “white man who espoused violence.”
Simply based on the plain language of the text, it is not reasonable to conclude that the Grievant’s posts were referring to or disparaging all White men or disparaging a particular white man on the basis of race or gender. Recognizing an individual’s or individuals’ race or gender does not, in and of itself, constitute misconduct.”
This was not just a win for journalism, but a win for basic reading comprehension. Pour one out for the Grammar police.
The Post Argued I Was a Security Threat. The Arbitrator Reminded Them About Protecting Their Journalists.
In the arbitration decision, Espinosa reminded the Post of their duty to safeguard their journalists. The Post’s policy says, “It is a top priority for The Post to protect its journalists. The company recognizes that harassment on social media continues to become more sophisticated and frequent. We will work to protect our journalists from these campaigns publicly and privately.”
At the time of my Bluesky posts on Sept 10th, I barely received any backlash. I did not see any threats against me. A few anonymous accounts posted screenshots to Twitter, but otherwise, as far as I could tell, my posts didn’t generate any harsh blowback. I went on about my day.
Wayne Connell and the Post argued that they believed Charlie Kirk’s assassination was such a heightened emotional moment, and that my “association with the Post was the security issue.” The Post “felt the need to act quickly in separating itself from Ms. Attiah in order to protect itself and its employees.” They fired me within 4 hours, without a conversation.
The arbitrator disagreed.
That is, in the Arbitrator’s view, the Post’s witnesses’ testimony seems to attempt to hold the Grievant accountable for the actions of bad actors who were posting threats against her and The Post on social media. The testimony implies that The Post’s leadership Page 30 of 39 believed summarily discharging the Grievant would placate the bad actors so that they would not commit violence against other Post employees. The Arbitrator finds it strange for The Post to argue it had just cause to terminate the Grievant, in part, because, if it didn’t immediately do so, criminals may commit violence against other employees. The Arbitrator wonders about the Post’s logic in that it fails to recognize it is the people making the threats who are responsible for their own behavior, not the Grievant. To imply that the Grievant’s posts were justifiable provocation for threatened criminal acts or that the Grievant’s employment may be terminated for just cause because bad actors threatened The Post is unsupportable.
This is important for all media employees. Women journalists, and particularly Black women journalists who cover anything related to race, politics or gender, statistically receive more hate and abuse online. The Post’s logic would impose a double burden on us, not only to be subject to that abuse, but to be held responsible for the threats against us— to the point where we could be terminated.
I am glad the arbitrator rejected this logic and reminded the Post—and all media houses —of their responsibility not to bend to bad-faith actors and to protect their journalists.
A WaPo Columnist Encouraged Charlie Kirk Critics to be Doxxed and “fck all the media”. He still has a job.
I wasn’t the only one posting about Charlie Kirk. Apparently, to Adam O’Neal, if you are a white male contract columnist, like Marc Theissen, you can post on Twitter about “fck the media and liberal democrats” and encourage the doxxing of Kirk critics and still have your job.
In addition to retweeting or quote tweeting comments from other social media users encouraging the doxxing and/or firing of individuals expressing negative opinions about Mr. Kirk or celebrating Mr. Kirk’s murder, Thiessen wrote: “Got a point” above a post from another user stating: “Fck all the media and the liberal democrats.” (Un. Ex. 3). It is difficult to understand how these posts could be considered collegial or professional, yet The Post took no action against Thiessen, other than O’Neal’s conversation directing Thiessen to be more careful online.
Adam O’Neal and the Mysterious Text Messages
Editorial Page editor Adam O ‘Neal testified that he doesn’t have a Bluesky account, and doesn’t regularly check social media in the mornings. But he did receive messages from various individuals about my posts. Individuals whose names and identities he then could suddenly not remember. Whoever sent the messages, it was enough for him to call a meeting and fire me within four hours.
“…,it is curious that O’Neal could remember many details of the events occurring on September 11, 2025, but could not remember the identity of even one of the several individuals who sent him messages about the Grievant’s posts…”
I have… thoughts. But it all begs the question— who or what influenced such a reckless decision? How high up did this really go? Or what outside forces exerted influence that day to fire me in such an abrupt way? Questions that still need answers.
The Washington Post’s Erasure of Jamal Khashoggi and threats to other Washington Post Journalists
Many readers may remember me from my days of being a global opinions editor, and hiring Jamal Khashoggi, who was killed by agents of the Saudi regime in 2018.
Perhaps one of the most chilling moments of the hearing was what was not said. For all the talk about threats to safety, the Post never brought up Jamal’s name once. All of the awards, honors and glory the Post covered themselves in after Jamal’s murder, for standing up against threats to journalists, all of the years I spent putting myself in harm’s way, none of that was mentioned. Nor did they mention WaPo journalists who had been imprisoned, or harmed in the wake of the Jan. 6th attacks.
After years of standing up for Jamal’s life and work, I never would have imagined that I would be painted as the threat to the Washington Post.
A Huge Win for Press Freedom and for Union Solidarity
I am still processing the magnitude of this year-long ordeal, and how important this ruling is— not just for me, but for journalists, and anyone who dares to speak the truth about America in these challenging times. I should not have had to fight this battle, but it was a fight worth having.
As the last full-time Black staff opinion columnist left in the section before my firing, I know that my termination sent a chilling message to Black journalists about our disposability, especially when we say or do anything to challenge the status quo. As the arbitrator found, I was fired without even a phone conversation, despite numerous awards, accolades, and no disciplinary record in my 11-year tenure.
Also, I am not the first woman journalist at the Washington Post to be punished for not adequately mourning the sudden death of a prominent male celebrity. My former colleague Felicia Somnez was unjustly suspended in the wake of the death of basketball star Kobe Bryant for tweeting about his sexual assault allegations. In my case, a team of male bosses specifically punished me for not stripping performatively for Charlie Kirk. This is the cruel and intimidating message they send to women journalists— and women everywhere— strip yourselves in mourning for powerful men, or we will strip you of your livelihood.
As my friend and political philosopher Olufemi Taiwo said, “Our ancestors did more, with less, against worse. Lock in.” And that was one of my mantras that helped keep me going in the last year of this fight.
But lemme brag on myself for a little bit. Why do people test me? Not only am I a martial artist and amateur fighter, but I also come from a line of war survivors. I’ve stood up against the Saudi government to fight for justice in Jamal Khashoggi’s murder. In the words of Rihanna, “who y’all think y’all frontin’ on?” Don’t y’all know who I am? I am her, that’s who.
This victory is a testament to the power and necessity of strong labor unions in media— I am especially grateful to my Washington Post Guild siblings who protested, flyered, and posted on social media on my behalf, even when the Post was going through massive upheaval and layoffs. I owe the world to my amazing Washington Baltimore News Guild legal team, lead counsel Amos Laor, and Michael Sosnick. And Kathleen Floyd, who has been on top of the comms. The possibility of going to arbitration to resolve this matter would not have been possible without the union contract.
If you have a union, I suggest you join one!
And last but certainly not least, I want to thank Norman Eisen, Craig Becker and the team at the Democracy Defenders Fund, who lent their excellent legal support to this very important case.
To all the independent media and substackers who platformed me when no one else would, thank you. I’m especially thinking of you, Don Lemon , Jim Acosta , THE LEFT HOOK with Wajahat Ali — you all were the first to have me on your platforms to speak about my firing when mainstream media was too afraid to touch my story last year.
And I want to thank all of you readers who have followed and supported my work all these years, even over here on Substack. And to all the students who took my courses last year under Resistance Summer School / Resistance Studies Series. Your support (and subscriptions) allowed me to weather what would have been a massive financial setback and put that energy toward fighting this battle. I will be teaching Race, Media and International Affairs this fall, so sign up if you are interested!
The Washington Post Fired Me for Talking About Race. I'm Going to Teach It Anyway.
Life comes at you fast. One moment you’re a columnist. The next moment, you become a case study of racial double standards and institutional censorship.
To my fellow journalists and truth tellers: If you are fighting battles that you think are impossible, I hope this win gives you hope, courage, and some wind in your sails. Sometimes the little guy (or in this case, girl) wins against the machine. As I like to say… one must keep throwing rocks at the tanks programmed to run over us—we might not always stop them, but we can sometimes break a window.
Lastly, I want to dedicate this win to my late father, who passed away exactly six months ago today.
Daddy, you told me to keep going, to go “up and up and up”, and to “always help people.” I hope I’ve made you proud today. I miss you and love you.
Forward ever, backward never.
We move!
🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
All's well that ends well . . .
The firing helped you build your platforms on other media, shed light on injustice and hypocrisy, and your response has inspired many . . .
Well done!!!
I saw the good news in the NYT today. Congratulations!!! You deserve that, and more. I will continue to follow you here as a paid subscriber if only to thumb my nose at Bezos. I will say that the reporting has gotten a little spicier at WaPo lately - not sure if it's because Trump's approval is so historically low that maybe Bezos doesn't feel quite as beholden to him.