Los Angeles Times News Article Opposes Civil Rights Initiatives

Today the Los Angeles Times has a huge, three-column wide article by staff writer Stephanie Simon beginning in the center of the first page, above the fold, on the campaign to pass civil rights initiatives banning racial preferences in five states next November. (See here, at least today, for a picture of the placement.)

The article provides a number of unrebutted falsehoods about the initiatives, quotes far more opponents than supporters of the initiatives, engages in misdirection about a largely irrelevant tangent (the relative incomes of various race/ethnic groups), misunderstands the legal context of these initiatives, and, finally, is clearly biased against them. Even the accompanying picture, in the online version linked above, is misleading: it shows a group of wholesome, no doubt “clean and articulate” students (in the Biden-on-Obama sense) protesting. What must the meanies in Missouri, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Arizona, and Colorado be like to oppose such an appealing group of young people? One must read the fine print to see that they are UCLA students protesting, in 2006, the passage of Prop. 2009 in 1996..

In short, Ms. Simon’s article is about par for the coverage of these initiatives in the mainstream press.

First, look at the lede:

DENVER — Intent on dismantling affirmative action, activists in five states have launched a coordinated drive to cut off tax dollars for programs that offer preferential treatment based on race or gender.

If the “activists” had intended to ban “affirmative action,” the initiatives would have said so. What they say instead is what the “activists” actually intend: to ban programs and policies that award preferential treatment based on race. All “affirmative action” programs don’t do that, and the ones that don’t wouldn’t be banned.

That fact, of course, doesn’t prevent pro-preference “activists” from accusing, and Ms. Simon from repeating the accusation as though it were fact, that anti-preference “activists” are purposefully trying to confuse voters by artfully constructing language that is

misleading because it doesn’t explicitly say that affirmative action would be banned.

“What Ward Connerly is banking on — and it’s a sad thing — is a lack of information among the public,” said the Rev. Gill Ford, a regional director of the NAACP.

Then Ms. Simon writes:

[i]f successful, the ballot measures would ban a broad range of programs designed to overcome the nation’s legacy of racism and discrimination.

She seems ignorant of the fact that any such programs in colleges or universities (where most of them are located) are already illegal, and have been since Bakke in effect barred all racial preference programs in higher education that were “designed to overcome the nation’s legacy of racism and discrimination.” After Bakke, the only race preference programs that could pass muster were those whose intent and effect was to promote “diversity.”

Now consider this bit of evidence and argument from Ms. Simon, not one of her pro-preference sources:

In the economic sphere, a California Department of Transportation study last year found that based on the number of businesses owned by women and minorities, such companies should be getting 19% of state transportation contracts. In fact, their share has amounted to 11%.

To defeat Connerly’s ballot measures, his foes must use such statistics to make the case that American society is still riddled with racism and discrimination.

Note the rather breathtaking assumptions here: first, that recipients of government contracts should perfectly mirror the racial and ethnic demographics of the state population; second, that any failure of racial proportionality is proof “that American society is still riddled with racism and discrimination”; and, third, that the purpose of “affirmative action” is to produce racial and ethnic proportionality everywhere.

On the same theme and reflecting similar unjustified assumptions, Ms. Simon notes that “[s]ignificant disparities in income among races exist in all five states Connerly is targeting….” And her point is, what? That affirmative action is needed to bring about a redistribution of income? If that’s what the supporters of “affirmative action” believe, they should stop accusing the anti-preference forces of being “misleading” for calling their anti-discrimination initiative a civil rights measure and frankly say so. Except in unguarded arguments in the press such as this one, I’ve rarely seen this defense of affirmative action.

Ms. Simon doesn’t seem to recognize that the examples she gives of the affirmative action programs that would be banned will strike most people as the very epitome of unfairness. Take this paragraph (please!):

One such program, in Tucson, treats minority- and female-owned companies as the low bidders for some construction contracts, even if their proposals come in as much as 7% higher than a bid from a firm owned by a white male rival. Academic mentoring targeted at specific groups, such as female engineering majors or Latina teens, would also be banned. The University of Colorado would have to cancel or redefine more than 100 scholarships because they award funds based on gender or race.

Most people think government contracts should go to low bidders. Most, I suspect, would be appalled to learn that high bids are redefined as low bids if they come from women or minorities. Most people think government and its agencies should treat people without regard to their race, and hence would find that educational programs and scholarships that exclude whole categories of students on the basis of race are grossly unfair. (Of course, though Ms. Simon appears not to know this as well, such programs are already presumptively illegal, and will remain illegal even if these civil rights initiatives are kept off the ballot or defeated.)

Sometimes, as here, the best evidence and arguments for colorblind equality are put forward, however unwittingly, by those who oppose it. In that regard, coverage of this issue in the mainstream media can be quite useful.