Several days ago I criticized (here) Jack Lessenberry, ombudsman of the Toledo Blade, for sloppily repeating the false assertion that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative would ban all “affirmative action” programs. He replied by email, insisting that the distinction between “affirmative action” programs that employ racial perferences and those that don’t is purely “semantic.”
That column was merely incompetent. To see what Lessenberry really thinks, however, it is necessary to take a look at his column in a Detroit alternative paper, Metro Times. The only good thing about his column is the perfect aptness of its title, “Political Prejudices,” and the title of this particular example of those prejudices, “Easter Basket of Idiocy.”
Writing off the 500,000 or more Michiganders who signed petitions to put MCRI on the ballot, Lessenberry views the entire argument against racial preferences as being no more than the prissy petulance of “a little blond girl named Jennifer Gratz” who “ran to her daddy” crying because “some of those black folk had gotten in when she hadn’t….”
After a recent, “neutral” column, Lessenberry continues (yes, it was the one I criticized),
I got an e-mail from Jennifer’s intellectual sugar daddy, California businessman Ward Connerly, who is helping to bankroll the Michigan effort to abolish affirmative action.
I was being dishonest, he said. Why, “affirmative action programs that do not conflict with this language or that do not grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity and national ancestry would be unaffected.” Well, I guess that leaves us with programs that favor suburban cheerleaders.
That a reputable newspaper such as the Toledo Blade would hire someone who writes this sort of vitriolic bile as its ombudsman suggests it doesn’t care a whit about political bias in its pages. Lessenberry and his editors obviously regard “fair and balanced” the same way they regard the “without regard” principle of colorblind equality — as no more than a right-wing slogan.
Here is what Ward Connerly wrote to the Toledo Blade about Lessenberry’s “neutral” column, in full:
Reasonable people can differ about whether there continues to be a compelling need to implement policies that advantage one citizen over another in the realm of public policy. However, professionalism obliges that journalists be true to their profession when they characterize the terms of the debate. Justice O’Connor in her opinion about the University of Michigan and Gratz/Grutter used the term “race preferences” to justify the use of race. It is disingenuous and dishonest to apply terms such as “affirmative action” and “diversity” to describe MCRI, when, in fact, the Elections Officer of Michigan approved ballot language that clearly describes the intent of MCRI: “To ban affirmative action programs that grant preferential treatment on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, and national origin in public employment, public education and public contracting.” Obviously, those “affirmative action” programs that do not conflict with this language or that do not grant “preferential treatment” on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity and national ancestry would be unaffected. Mr. Lessenberry, for whom I have considerable respect, needs to reconsider his position, because he is flat-out wrong about this. I respect his right to oppose MCRI, as he has already done publicly. But, his duty as a journalist should enable him to rise above his personal view in this matter, particularly if he is going to fulfill his mission as an ombudsman, which places a duty of fairness on his shoulders that might not otherwise be there.
Lessenberry’s “duty as a journalist” is smeared with the broken eggs in his own perfectly-titled “Easter Basket of Idiocy.”
UPDATE [20 April]
In a perfect if unwitting example of why the reputation of the “mainstream media” is in such trouble, Mr. Joseph H. Zerbey IV, the General Manager and Vice President of the Toledo Blade, has just replied:
God you just have to love this country. Freedom of speech generated by a daily paper and nobody goes to the gulag! You just gotta love it!
Profound.
I replied:
I do love this country, Mr. Zerbey.
By the way, you may want to ask Mr. Lessenberry’s editor, if in fact he has one, whether or not The Blade regards it as sound journalistic practice for an ombudsman whose paper receives a complaint about the fairness of his treatment of a controversial issue in your paper to use that complaint as a platform for personal attacks (“sugardaddy,”little blond girl,” crybaby, etc.) in his aptly named “Political Prejudices” column for another newspaper.
Finally, for an otherwise responsible newspaper to have such an openly and publicly biased commentator as it ombudsman falls somewhere on a spectrum between embarrassment and travesty.
UPDATE II [20 April]
Perhaps I’m missing something here. Perhaps the Toledo Blade is pushing the envelope, exploring a new and uncharted territory of gonzo journalism.
In the old days of staid, stodgy, fact-based journalism committed to the principle (if not always the practice) of fairness and objectivity, ombudsmen were hired to moderate, mediate, and with luck alleviate charges of bias in the paper. Now it would appear that the Todelo Blade has come up with a new model: ombudsman as provocateur.
Speechless, not at his opinion, after all Democrats have been supporting racial preferences for hundreds of years. But that he is an ombudsman? Incredible.
Is the Blade unapologetically leftist, like the NY Times, or do they claim to be a serious newspaper?
I wonder if those opposed to the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative who are so concerned with the rights of females these days will be complaining about Mr. Lessenberry’s sexist comments. Of course, to our opposition women are merely pawns in their political agenda so I won’t hold my breath.
“some of those black folk had gotten in when she hadn’t….”
I’ve heard people say that before (“they’re just jealous because they didn’t get in”) about whites who bring lawsuits against preferences. Really ticks me off, given the differentials in SAT scores and graduation rates and so forth.
And Jennifer, you are absolutely right about women being pawns. I’ve seen some of the smear tactics used by professors over affirmative action, and they’ll use whatever they can.
“I got an e-mail from Jennifer’s intellectual sugar daddy, California businessman Ward Connerly, who is helping to bankroll the Michigan effort to abolish affirmative action.”
This language is plain despicable. It’s tantamount to smearing Ms. Gratz as a whore. The writer here is the OMBUDSMAN? He needs immediate and extensive anger management therapy.
And people are sitting around scratching their heads, wondering why newspaper subscription and purchase rates are plummeting? Idiots.
This language is actually tame compared to the tradionally American lexicon of disdain and derision leveled at minorities; a level I can see and hear for myself on talk radio, cable news, blogs, and pro-white think tanks.
Apparently, anti-affirmative action types who post here seem to have the SAME “selective outrage” about language as they have about discrimination in America.
Not surprising in the least.
–Cobra
Lessenberry deplores that Ivy League schools limited the number of Jews admitted but finds it appropriate to limit the number of whites admitted to U of M.
Would this past Ivy League discrimination have been appropriate had they stated they did it in the name of ‘diversity’?
Actually, eddy, the Ivy League did use that justification for restricting the number of Jews.
Those of us in Detroit who have read The Metro Times know that The Blade could hardly have hired a more fervent ideologue as its (*cough*) “ombudsman.” You’d think Romanesko would be all over this. Well, then again …
No surprise that Cobra is down with the black sugar daddy/young white girl fantasy.
Tame enough, oh snarky one?
Cobra — the point is that this language came from an ombudsman. Talk show hosts are giving opinions.
I wonder what Lessenberry thinks of the “young blonde girls” who sue over not getting promotions, etc.
Cobra —
Are you suggesting that John should spend his blog attacking and refuting groups such as the Klan?
Is this what you meant by “pro-white think tanks”?
Or did you have in mind certain respectable, prominent, organizations? If so, can you give us some examples of these organizations and examples of their “lexicon of disdain and derision leveled at minorities”?
Dom,
There is no paucity of news coverage regarding the plight of “young blonde girls.” In fact, one can’t turn on Fox News without seeing “young blonde girls” read off the teleprompter about other “young blonde girls.” Your commentary rings hollow. And from what I’ve read, Jack Lessenberry is a COLUMNIST, which means his OPINION is the focus, like George Will, Will Satfire, Tony Blankley, John Leo, etc.
Mikem writes:
>>>”No surprise that Cobra is down with the black sugar daddy/young white girl fantasy.”
Come on, Mikey. I have written many things about Ms. Gratz and Mr. Connerly on this blog. I feel secure enough in my arguments against them without commenting on that particular and unfortunate imagery.
–Cobra
It was stated up front that Lessenberry is the ombudsman. That position is usually considered a spokesman of the readers to the editors and reporters. His job is to “stick up for” readers, who have no power over what gets published. That he would sneer at the readers is flat-out despicable. And exactly which “white think tanks” have a lexicon of disdain and derision leveled at minorities?
Lessenberry is an ombudsman and he is listed that way on the Toledo Blade. He gives his email address as email hidden; JavaScript is required, and I’m sure I know what the “om” stands for.
My other point is that Lessenberry is probably not dismissive of “young blondes” when they take the form of a preferred minority.
Ah, but Lessenberry’s greatest contradiction with the “opposition playbook” is that “white women” are the “greatest beneficiaries” of so-called affirmative action. Yet he attacks Jennifer Gratz as a whiny victim of affirmative action, a white woman.
Which is it? Are white women the beneficiaries, or the whiny [Lessenberry adjectives deleted] Lessenberry asserts here.
This is classic, and rank, hypocrisy (Lessenberry’s use of sexist language, to which I ironically still support his First Amendment right to even while condemning it), and humorous contradiction.
The icing on the cake is that Lessenberry is an Ombudsman, with actual fiduciary duties to the Toledo Blade readership, and that he would use the private (violation of privacy) complaints of readers complaining about the bias of his own column (conflict of interest) in another newspaper (against the interests of the client Toledo Blade, and violation of expectation privacy that a reasonable reader writing to the Blade Ombudsman would expect not to be published in another newspaper even if they didn’t have such an expectation in the Blade).
By the way, “sugar daddy” has a racist connotation, from what I understand, so its not just sexist here. If someone on our side of the issue wrote anything near this, we’d be lambasted (and properly).
What is an Ombudsman doing writing political articles anyway? That seems like an unwise and out-of-role thing to do. Lessenberry has every right to his opinions, even offensive ones, but it is proper for us to point the impropriety of claiming objectivity and especially misusing the Ombudsman role so highly.
“Come on, Mikey”
Ah, the self styled dignified black man, making use of juvenile names.
“Unfortunate imagery… rather tame”
Always willing to throw principles aside to cover for a racist liberal white, eh Cobra? Isn’t there a word that describes that type of black man?
Sharon writes:
>>>”And exactly which “white think tanks” have a lexicon of disdain and derision leveled at minorities?”
LTEC writes:
>>>”Or did you have in mind certain respectable, prominent, organizations? If so, can you give us some examples of these organizations and examples of their “lexicon of disdain and derision leveled at minorities”?”
You’re not aware of pro-white think tanks? Here’s just ONE example. Media Transparency denotes a study from a grass roots organization in Wisconsin on the Bradley Foundation and its bankrolling of Charles “Blacks are only 85% as intelligent as whites like me” Murray.
>>>”
I – The Racist Agenda of the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
The Bradley Foundation, with $600 million in assets, is the premier conservative grant making foundation in the country, one that has played a leading role in the development of both a philosophical approach and an activist agenda for the national conservative movement. Bradley is a leading force in a constellation of other conservative foundations, institutions, media networks and legal action projects and has used that leadership position to advance a racist, right wing political agenda. For example:
…II – “The Bell Curve” as an Ideological Blueprint for W-2
Charles Murray was the author of the book, “Losing Ground”, in which he argued that poverty is the result of individual failings and that anti-poverty programs such as welfare were ill conceived and should be eliminated. Commenting on the book in the Spring, 1994 issue of the Milwaukee education newspaper Rethinking Schools, Barbara Miner wrote “…Murray called for… an end to all government programs that provide economic support for single mothers such as AFDC, subsidized housing, or food stamps.”
From at least 1986 to 1989, Bradley was giving Murray an annual grant of $90,000. By 1991, it was paying him $113,000 annually. In response to criticism of the book, Bradley president Michael Joyce said, “Charles Murray, in my opinion, is one of the foremost social thinkers in the country.”
After writing “Losing Ground”, Murray teamed up with Harvard psychologist Richard Hernstein to write the book “The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American Life” According to an article in The New York Times, Hernstein “predicted that as a society became more meritocratic, individuals with low I.Q.s could congregate on the bottom of the economic scale, intermarry and produce offspring with low I.Q.’s.” “The Bell Curve” incorporated elements of both Murray’s “Losing Ground” and Hernstein’s genetic theories. The book argued that poverty is the result, not of social conditions or policies, but of the inferior genetic traits of a sub-class of human beings. It was widely seen as a piece of profoundly racist and classist pseudo-science.
Immediately after the book’s publication, Bradley raised Murray’s annual grant to $163,000. Murray and Hernstein’s prescription for an end to poverty and the “threat” of a growing “underclass” was the elimination of all social welfare programs and their replacement by a work-centered program of coercion and behavioral modification. The goal was not the “empowerment” of poor people through acquiring jobs and independence, but rather their total regulation, on the theory that these were basically inferior people incapable of running their own lives.”
White Donors White Dollars White Power
As a matter of full disclosure, it must be noted that the Bradley Foundation was also the primary contributor to Ward Connerly’s American Civil Rights Institute, which destroyed Affirmative Action in California. Avid readers of “Discriminations” know where Ward Connerly is bringing his agenda today.
Mercenary Revisionism
Now far be it from me to be sardonic, but if posters here believe that “black sugar daddy” or “little blonde girl” are too heinous for public consumption, what pray tell would they make of eugenics propaganda masquerading as public policy reform?
–Cobra
The Bradley Foundation supports a number of conservative think tanks and Murray is considered to be a very influential person on policy-making.
Instead of parroting what one website says about Murray, maybe you should actually read what he says about his own work.
http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110007391
In fact, what he said about I.Q. (that is, that higher I.Q. people marry higher I.Q. people) is one argument made for why college-educated women are not marrying as young and are not producing as many children as their less-educated counterparts.
Here’s what Murray said about I.Q. differences and race:
There is no technical dispute on some of the core issues. In the aftermath of “The Bell Curve,” the American Psychological Association established a task force on intelligence whose report was published in early 1996. The task force reached the same conclusions as “The Bell Curve” on the size and meaningfulness of the black-white difference. Historically, it has been about one standard deviation in magnitude among subjects who have reached adolescence; cultural bias in IQ tests does not explain the difference; and the tests are about equally predictive of educational, social and economic outcomes for blacks and whites. However controversial such assertions may still be in the eyes of the mainstream media, they are not controversial within the scientific community…
The most important change in the state of knowledge since the mid-1990s lies in our increased understanding of what has happened to the size of the black-white difference over time. Both the task force and “The Bell Curve” concluded that some narrowing had occurred since the early 1970s. With the advantage of an additional decade of data, we are now able to be more precise: (1) The black-white difference in scores on educational achievement tests has narrowed significantly. (2) The black-white convergence in scores on the most highly “g-loaded” tests–the tests that are the best measures of cognitive ability–has been smaller, and may be unchanged, since the first tests were administered 90 years ago.
The reaction Cobra exhibits is not unusual. Murray goes on to state that the double standards we have for jobs these days does not create equality but breeds separation, condescension and contempt and that new policies must be put in place. Those policies will not come about, however, until we can talk about these differences openly without being accused of racism.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Those policies will not come about, however, until we can talk about these differences openly without being accused of racism”
Well, let’s put it to the test Sharon.
Do you believe that YOU (white person) are 15% more intelligent than any random African-American you encounter?
Before you answer that question–why don’t you take a look at what MURRAY’S answer to that question is. In his OWN WORDS:
>>>”MR. WATTENBERG: Yeah, but you’re also — if you believe your concept —
MR. MURRAY: Mmm-hmm.
MR. WATTENBERG: — you are also approaching someone who, in the back of your mind you are saying, is, ‘I’ve never met this person before, but on average, he is 15 points less smart than the white guy walking alongside him.’
MR. MURRAY: And that’s one of the things that bothers —
MR. WATTENBERG: And that is called — I mean, heretofore, when people said that, they were labelled racists.
MR. MURRAY: Yep.
MR. WATTENBERG: I mean, it —
MR. MURRAY: And one of the things that worries me is that people will do that MORE THAN THEY SHOULD.(!!!) Then, here is another one of the utterly key misapprehensions.”
All Murray needs is a white sheet, a lit cross and an off-key banjo tune
The “scientific community” involving race? LOL. It’s nothing NEW for some white scientists to suggest the “inferority” of the “negro race.” I’m sure you can quote any number of eungenicists over the years and line them up next to Murray, though I don’t think they reaped the financial rewards that the latter has, in this nefarious concoction of social Darwinism, Southern strategy politics and aryan accendancy propaganda.
As you can see, it’s totally ludicrous to compare phrases like “black sugar daddy” and “little blonde girl” to this.
–Cobra
Cobra —
In the linked article Murray wrote:
Cobra, try reading the article again without your apparent knee-jerk “of course he’s a racist” attitude.
As Murray further wrote:
Cobra, why are you so afraid of even considering data that might explain differences other than white racism?
Cobra,
Did you not read the link I left? We are talking the extreme ends of the statistics, here. Most of us are not at these extremes. It’s not surprising that you would want to dismiss this idea, regardless of the evidence left. But to answer your question, given my education level, I think I’m smarter than a LOT of the people I meet, regardless of color. It doesn’t change the way I interact with them, though, which is, I think, your implication. But I do agree with you about the black sugar daddy, etc. I think it’s completely ludicrous to compare scientific evidence with the buzzword of the day.
Sharon writes:
>>>”Did you not read the link I left? We are talking the extreme ends of the statistics, here. Most of us are not at these extremes.”
Oh, but I disagree. Theories on the inferiority of the negroid race wasn’t and, I would claim with support, ISN’T a rarely touted suggestion in America. For you to ask me, an African American (an outspoken one, at that) to simply accept Charles Murray and other non-black eugenicists’ research at face value is stupifying. You also fail to mention the studies and scientists who DISAGREE with Murray about the inferiority of the negroid race.
Sharon writes:
>>>”But to answer your question, given my education level, I think I’m smarter than a LOT of the people I meet, regardless of color.”
Education level is only a formal indicator of intelligence, and not always an accurate one at that. Often, the self-absorbed natured of humans make them feel like they’re the “smartest person in the room.”
The difference in your answer from Murray’s is that without any prior correspondance, conversation, or background information from two strangers, he can tell which one’s smarter based on race. Now put THAT type of “discrimination” on your plate when it comes to hiring, college admission, awarding of contracts and promotions.
Sharon writes:
“It doesn’t change the way I interact with them, though, which is, I think, your implication.”
Of course it’s my implication. It’s THE implication. Read what you posted about MURRAY:
>>>”The world need not be that way. Any university or employer that genuinely applied a single set of standards for hiring, firing, admitting and promoting would find that performance really is distributed indistinguishably across different groups. But getting to that point nationwide will require us to jettison an apparatus of laws, regulations and bureaucracies that has been 40 years in the making. That will not happen until the conversation has opened up. So let us take one step at a time. Let us stop being afraid of data that tell us a story we do not want to hear, stop the name-calling, stop the denial and start facing reality.”
You see, the rat poison in the turkey stuffing that right winged racialists like Murray spew when they talk about “the last 40 years” is what American society was all about 40 years or so ago–
JIM CROW. Segregation, separate but not equal–miscegenation laws, lack of voting rights, and an unchallenged white patriarchal hiearchy. It is the only logical strategy to pursue if one actually believes in white supremacy.
And some of you are saying to yourselves…”Come on Cobra, you’re reading too much into it…”
But read Murray’s own words:
>>>” But getting to that point nationwide will require us to jettison an apparatus of laws, regulations and bureaucracies that has been 40 years in the making…”
He has thrown his gauntlet down. He indisputably wants to roll back the clock on the progress made in this nation for the past generation in regards to civil rights and equality. If you think I’m going to shuffle along quietly in the face of that challenge–a rebirth of an American apartheid, you need to think again.
–Cobra
But read Murray’s own words:
“But getting to that point nationwide will require us to jettison an apparatus of laws, regulations and bureaucracies that has been 40 years in the making…
What Murray is referring to here is the retreat from civil rights represented by the abandonment of the principle of non-discriminatory equal treatment and the embrace of racial, ethnic, and gender preferences.
Whenever “progress” has been in the wrong direction, “rolling back the clock” is the right thing to do. When your hard drive has become corrupted with viruses, “rolling back the clock” by restoring a clean, virus-free backup is sensible, not reactionary.
“Oh, but I disagree. Theories on the inferiority of the negroid race wasn’t and, I would claim with support, ISN’T a rarely touted suggestion in America. For you to ask me, an African American (an outspoken one, at that) to simply accept Charles Murray and other non-black eugenicists’ research at face value is stupifying. You also fail to mention the studies and scientists who DISAGREE with Murray about the inferiority of the negroid race.”
Cobra, you just stated you didn’t even bother reading the link I left. Without you bothering to do the homework, any discussion is pointless. Murray makes perfectly clear that he was talking about the extremes of the spectrum where the differences tend to show up. You were the one that brought up Murray, yet you’ve shown you are unwilling to discuss what he actually said instead of taking pot shots about eugenics. When you decide to read what Murray actually said, then we can discuss it.
BTW, you clearly jettisoned the beginning of the quote you cited:
“The world need not be that way. Any university or employer that genuinely applied a single set of standards for hiring, firing, admitting and promoting would find that performance really is distributed indistinguishably across different groups.”
This sort of flies in the face of the rest of your rant that Murray thinks black people are inferior.
John writes:
>>>”What Murray is referring to here is the retreat from civil rights represented by the abandonment of the principle of non-discriminatory equal treatment and the embrace of racial, ethnic, and gender preferences.
Whenever “progress” has been in the wrong direction, “rolling back the clock” is the right thing to do. When your hard drive has become corrupted with viruses, “rolling back the clock” by restoring a clean, virus-free backup is sensible, not reactionary.”
You’re assuming the “hard drive corrupted with viruses” wasn’t already infested with pro-European programs, downloads of discrimination, and an operating system of oppression. Removing the “viruses” of civil rights simply leaves the system in place before, which you’re apparently arguing for.
Sharon writes:
>>>”You were the one that brought up Murray, yet you’ve shown you are unwilling to discuss what he actually said instead of taking pot shots about eugenics. When you decide to read what Murray actually said, then we can discuss it.”
Sorry to disappoint you, but I quoted Murray DIRECTLY, and evaluated his commentary. Apparently, UNLIKE YOU, I don’t agree with Murray’s conclusion that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites on average. Perhaps you DO, but I wouldn’t know that, since you DODGED the question I asked you directly on that very matter.
Perhaps because I so vehemently disagree with Murray’s conclusion that blacks on the average are 15% less intelligent than whites, your murky responses defending Murray’s conclusions are seen by readers of this blog as the “rational, conciliatory” position.
Your reluctance to continue this discussion based upon that said defense is indicative of a person who knows EXACTLY what Murray is saying, but is afraid of the implications of actually stating it oneself.
My next question to you Sharon, since you refuse to directly answer the first, can be answered by anybody who chooses to take it on:
If you agree with Murray, and believe that IQ is racially stratified, how on earth can the oft stated goal of a “color-blind” society be established?
–Cobra
“Sorry to disappoint you, but I quoted Murray DIRECTLY, and evaluated his commentary. Apparently, UNLIKE YOU, I don’t agree with Murray’s conclusion that blacks are intellectually inferior to whites on average. Perhaps you DO, but I wouldn’t know that, since you DODGED the question I asked you directly on that very matter.”
You aren’t disappointing me at all. You misquoted Murray and I redirected you to an article written by the man discussing the very issue you brought up. And I didn’t “dodge” your question about race and intelligence. I just don’t buy your argument about it. Neither does Murray.
“Perhaps because I so vehemently disagree with Murray’s conclusion that blacks on the average are 15% less intelligent than whites, your murky responses defending Murray’s conclusions are seen by readers of this blog as the “rational, conciliatory” position.”
I have no idea what other posters think of believe, nor do I care. It doesn’t change the facts. You want to take offense at Murray’s conclusions, therefore you misquote them. I didn’t bring him up, you did. I also read his conclusions about the differences between men and women in the “hard” sciences but, unlike you, I didn’t take offense at the notion that the vast majority of women (and men, it seems) are simply intellectually incapable of the sorts of mental exercises necessary to excel at the hard maths. And this doesn’t even address his comments that women would rather stay home than men. He made no such similarly stereotypical claims about blacks.
“Your reluctance to continue this discussion based upon that said defense is indicative of a person who knows EXACTLY what Murray is saying, but is afraid of the implications of actually stating it oneself.”
I have no fear, but there’s no point in discussing an issue that you obviously refuse to read up about.
“If you agree with Murray, and believe that IQ is racially stratified, how on earth can the oft stated goal of a “color-blind” society be established?”
Establishing a color-blind society has nothing to do with individual I.Q. scores. It is about providing the same opportunities to all individuals, allowing everyone to live with as little governmental interference as possible. You, sir, are looking for equality of outcome, not opportunity. That is totalitarianism.