Jack Lessenberry is a journalism professor at Wayne State University and the ombudsman of the Toledo Blade. His column today contains a whopper that ought to earn a flunking grade in Journalism 101 and a reprimand from Lessenberry for any reporter who committed it. I’m not sure who ombuds the ombudsman.
Anyway, Lessenberry writes today, as do so many careless (or sometimes biased) journalists, that the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative “would outlaw the use of affirmative action in college admissions.”
It would not. It would outlaw only preferences in admissions (and hiring) granted on the basis of race, sex, or gender. It would not outlaw any present or future affirmative action programs that do not involve racial, ethnic, or gender preferences. Lessenberry seems as blissfully ignorant as most of those fearing that the sky will fall on affirmative action of the fact that the presidential executive orders by both Presidents Kennedy (10925) and Johnson (11246) requiring affirmative action in federal contracting explicitly demanded
affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, creed, color, or national origin. (Emphasis added)
Unless Lessenberry is prepared to support the argument that all “affirmative action” programs that currently exist, or that could be created, must involve racial preferences (which, of course, is not true), he should do what he no doubt demands of erring reporters and publish a correction.
UPDATE [15 April]
Mr. Lessenberry replied by email:
You are playing games with semantics; using race and other factors in admissions in exactly what affirmative action has come to mean in the modern era.
I replied:
On the contrary, you are being loose with language, and with language that has an important political import and impact. This is not good practice for a newspaper or its ombudsman.
It is certainly true that, contrary to its original meaning and intent, “affirmative action” has come to be synonymous with racial, ethnic, and gender preferences, but it is most certainly not true that all affirmative action programs employ such preferences. Outreach programs, recruiting efforts in heavily minority schools, widely publicizing non-discriminatory policies, stringent oversight to ensure non-discrimination — none of these programs, and more, rely on racial/ethnic/gender preferences, and none of them would be barred by MCRI.
Your insistence that they would be is simply wrong, and is thus a disservice to your readers.
Critics of MCRI all claim that it will put an end to affirmative action. Supporters of MCRI all deny that, pointing to affirmative progrms that will not be affected. Mr. Lessenberry sides with the former and ignores the latter. His comments belong on the editorial page, not in an ombudsman’s column.
John, it was nice to see Lessenberry admit that he believes all AA = preferences, but it does nothing but reinforce proof of his bias.
I’m afraid we here at MCRI have long known of Lessenberry’s bias from his time with the Metro Times as a columnist and very minor local radio talk host. It’s amazing though that a newspaper would allow that bias into its Ombudsman position – not amazing that he would be hired, but he needs to put his political opinions aside and represent all his readers. Lessenberry’s goal though is explicit – to write exactly what the OUM “playbook” requires.