The New York Times Supports Affirmative Action (So What Else Is New?)

Continuing the uniform editorial drumbeat for diversity in the establishment press, the New York Times has an editorial today calling upon its readers to “Stand Up For Affirmative Action.”

Since I don’t think we should stand for (or is it sit still for?) this, or let the editorial stand unchallenged, let’s parse its major arguments.

With Trent Lott’s recent remarks casting doubt on the Republican Party’s commitment to racial equality, there is more reason than ever for the administration to stand up for affirmative action.

As DISCRIMINATIONS readers already know, I think this jab will be fair and effective … if the Republicans retain Lott as Leader. If they dump him, I will expect to see a NYT editorial praising the Republicans for affirming their commitment to racial equality. (Don’t worry; I won’t hold my breath.)

[President Bush] is justifiably proud of appointing distinguished African-Americans and Latinos to such important posts as secretary of state, national security adviser and White House counsel. One reason the president had a highly qualified pool of minority members to draw on is that affirmative action has helped them make their way into educational institutions and up the career ladder. Secretary of State Colin Powell has said that in his military career he at times benefited from having his race taken into account.

I do not belive, as the NYT obviously does, that Gen. Powell’s and Ms. Rice’s success depended on their race being “taken into account,” nor do I think they believe it. But if race did play a role, it shouldn’t have. Let’s be clear: critics of racial preferences do not argue that the preferences have no effect. Indeed, they can have dramatic effects, on the unpreferred as well as the preferred. The critique is not that they don’t “work” but that they’re not fair and further that their cost in the corrosion of our fundamental principle of equality — that all should be judged “without regard” to race, creed, or color — is far greater than the benefit it provides to the preferred or to our society as a whole.

It is fitting that the administration’s dilemma arises during the firestorm over Mr. Lott, because both are about turning back the clock on race.

Well, there goes the NYT’s chance to win the ten cents in coin I offered to anyone defending preferences without mentioning “turning back the clock” or the Iniquitous Ubiquitous Non Sequitur. As I’ve argued, I would welcome the NYT “turning back the clock” to the time when it thought distributing burdens or benefits on the basis of race was wrong.

The white plaintiffs seek to overturn an admissions policy