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."
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 are at a crossroads
This country and this world are at a monumental crossroads. In a few short weeks, US voters will have an opportunity to beat back the forces of fascism and confront the billionaires who are rigging the economy, our media system, and our democracy, making it increasingly impossible for ordinary people to get by. We’re not just talking about the election. We’re talking about what must be done once these fascist elements are vanquished from power. We need a bolder set of solutions than what either major party has so far been willing to offer and a working-class movement ready to fight like hell for it. Trump didn't emerge from nowhere. The conditions that fueled MAGA authoritarianism were created by decades of radical neoliberal economic policies and a corrupt political system dominated by corporate interests. They slashed taxes on the super-rich, promising that the benefits would trickle down. They said giveaways to the corporate titans would make life more affordable for the rest of us. It was all bullshit. And when a bitter, betrayed populace searches for someone to blame, right-wing demagogues have little trouble finding scapegoats. People know when they're being lied to, but you won't hear any of this from the corporate media. Only independent journalism—powered and funded by people who believe in building a better world—can deliver truly trustworthy daily news. Our Fall Campaign is underway, and we need your help. To power our newsroom through the rest of the year, we need to raise $125,000 by midnight on October 31. So if you share our vision, please contribute whatever you can to sustain our work. |
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.
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.