The Press Dog That Didn’t Bark…

A few posts ago (here) I mentioned that Deborah Howell, the Washington Post’s ombudsman, had responded to my complaint about anti-conservative bias in a Lois Romano article.

Proving that no good deed goes unpunished, I’ve just sent her the following:

Ms. Howell:

Thanks again for your prompt reply to my complaint about one of the points in Lois Romano’s recent article, and for taking it seriously. Your reward (“No good deed …” etc.) is another complaint from me, although this one is over something that has conspicuously (at least to me) NOT appeared in the Post.

Traditionally, the principle that every American has a right to be treated “without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin” was long regarded as the most fundamental of our core values, so fundamental that Gunnar Myrdal (and many others) labeled it “The American Creed” in his highly influential AN AMERICAN DILEMMA (1944). Not only was this creed written into the civil rights legislation of the 1960s, it was even the basis for the two presidential Executive Orders that first implemented “affirmative action” in the federal government — 10925 from President Kennedy on March 6, 1961, and 11246 from President Johnson on September 28, 1965. They both repeated identical language in many provisions, typified by the beginning of Kennedy’s order:

WHEREAS discrimination because of race, creed, color, or national origin is contrary to the Constitutional principles and policies of the United States….

WHEREAS it is the plain and positive obligation of the United States Government to promote and ensure equal opportunity for all qualified persons, without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin, employed or seeking employment with the Federal Government and on government contracts….

And, one more example re federal contractors from both Kennedy’s and Johnson’s order:

The contractor will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, creed, color, or national origin. The contractor will take 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….

Although our leadership class in the media, academia, large corporations, etc., have abandoned this principle over the past generation, there is overwhelming evidence that most Americans still believe in this principle — not only virtually all polling data, but also actual votes writing this principle into the state constitutions of California, Washington, and Michigan, the latter in Nov. 2006 with a 58% majority despite well-funded opposition from a united leadership class.

Now here we are in a new presidential season, with signatures being gathered in five additional states to pass similar “without regard” provisions in Nov. 2008, when the next president will also be elected, and yet to the best of my knowledge no Washington Post reporter has ever asked any presidential candidate of either party a simple question: “Do you believe every American has a right to be treated without regard to race, creed, color, or national origin?”

But don’t stop there. The obvious follow-up question for any candidates who have the temerity to answer “yes” is, “So, you oppose any employment or college admissions policies that are ‘race conscious’ or that ‘take race into account’ or that distribute benefits and burdens based even in part on race?”

Why haven’t these questions been asked? Are they not of great importance? Don’t many people want and deserve to hear what, if anything, the candidates believe? Your reporters have daily access to the candidates. They all parade before your editorial board. Yet these questions remain unasked. Why?

Sincerely

John Rosenberg

UPDATE [26 Dec.]

Ms. Howell responded right away:

My guess is that reporters think all will answer yes. I will send this to the political editor for his perusal. Thanks for writing.

I thanked her for sending my comment on to the political editor and added:

How could any candidates answer “yes” if they support — as all of the Democrats and some of the Republicans do — racial preferences in college admissions and employment? You can’t treat people “without regard” to race if your policies are “race conscious,” “race sensitive,” etc. That’s why I included the following in my note (and subsequent blog post):

The obvious follow-up question for any candidates who have the temerity to answer “yes” is, “So, you oppose any employment or college admissions policies that are ‘race conscious’ or that ‘take race into account’ or that distribute benefits and burdens based even in part on race?”