SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
NYT Rewrites Scalia to Make Him Sound Less Racist
New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak (12/9/15) recounted a startling moment in the Court's oral arguments over the University of Texas' affirmative action plan:
In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at "a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well."
Dec 11, 2015
New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak (12/9/15) recounted a startling moment in the Court's oral arguments over the University of Texas' affirmative action plan:
In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at "a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well."
"I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible," he added.
But part of the reason that the remark drew "muted gasps," surely, is that that's not what Scalia said-he didn't say minority students "with inferior academic credentials" would be better off at worse schools, he said African-Americans in general would. Here's the whole passage:
There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas.... They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.
He goes on to suggest that "really competent blacks" would be better off if they were "admitted to lesser schools":
I'm just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer [black students]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some, you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools turns out to be less. And I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.
This is not a person talking about a subset of blacks with a particular kind of educational background; taking his words at face value, this is a person asserting that African-Americans as a whole belong in "lesser schools" that are not "too fast for them." (Or that "there are those who contend" that that is the case, if you want to give Scalia credit for that circumlocution.)
The fact that a Supreme Court justice justifies eliminating affirmative action on the basis of openly racist views ought to be big news. By sugarcoating what Scalia actually said, the New York Times disguises that news-making the ethnic cleansing of America's top schools a more palatable possibility. Perhaps that shouldn't make me gasp.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting (FAIR)
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak (12/9/15) recounted a startling moment in the Court's oral arguments over the University of Texas' affirmative action plan:
In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at "a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well."
"I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible," he added.
But part of the reason that the remark drew "muted gasps," surely, is that that's not what Scalia said-he didn't say minority students "with inferior academic credentials" would be better off at worse schools, he said African-Americans in general would. Here's the whole passage:
There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas.... They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.
He goes on to suggest that "really competent blacks" would be better off if they were "admitted to lesser schools":
I'm just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer [black students]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some, you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools turns out to be less. And I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.
This is not a person talking about a subset of blacks with a particular kind of educational background; taking his words at face value, this is a person asserting that African-Americans as a whole belong in "lesser schools" that are not "too fast for them." (Or that "there are those who contend" that that is the case, if you want to give Scalia credit for that circumlocution.)
The fact that a Supreme Court justice justifies eliminating affirmative action on the basis of openly racist views ought to be big news. By sugarcoating what Scalia actually said, the New York Times disguises that news-making the ethnic cleansing of America's top schools a more palatable possibility. Perhaps that shouldn't make me gasp.
Jim Naureckas
Jim Naureckas is editor of FAIR (Fairness & Accuracy In Reporting). He is the co-author of "Way Things Aren't: Rush Limbaugh's Reign of Error." He was an investigative reporter for In These Times and managing editor of the Washington Report on the Hemisphere.
New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak (12/9/15) recounted a startling moment in the Court's oral arguments over the University of Texas' affirmative action plan:
In a remark that drew muted gasps in the courtroom, Justice Antonin Scalia said that minority students with inferior academic credentials may be better off at "a less advanced school, a slower-track school where they do well."
"I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible," he added.
But part of the reason that the remark drew "muted gasps," surely, is that that's not what Scalia said-he didn't say minority students "with inferior academic credentials" would be better off at worse schools, he said African-Americans in general would. Here's the whole passage:
There are those who contend that it does not benefit African-Americans to get them into the University of Texas, where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less-a slower-track school where they do well. One of the briefs pointed out that most of the black scientists in this country don't come from schools like the University of Texas.... They come from lesser schools where they do not feel that they're being pushed ahead in classes that are too fast for them.
He goes on to suggest that "really competent blacks" would be better off if they were "admitted to lesser schools":
I'm just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer [black students]. Maybe it ought to have fewer. And maybe some, you know, when you take more, the number of blacks, really competent blacks, admitted to lesser schools turns out to be less. And I don't think it stands to reason that it's a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.
This is not a person talking about a subset of blacks with a particular kind of educational background; taking his words at face value, this is a person asserting that African-Americans as a whole belong in "lesser schools" that are not "too fast for them." (Or that "there are those who contend" that that is the case, if you want to give Scalia credit for that circumlocution.)
The fact that a Supreme Court justice justifies eliminating affirmative action on the basis of openly racist views ought to be big news. By sugarcoating what Scalia actually said, the New York Times disguises that news-making the ethnic cleansing of America's top schools a more palatable possibility. Perhaps that shouldn't make me gasp.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.