The real question is whether I am making this stuff up

(PS: The answer in this case is, sadly, yes!)

Thanks to Roger Ailes for pointing out today’s Thomas Sowell column about the Supreme Court’s decision on the University of Michigan’s affirmative action case. Sowell argues that the NYT “dismissed the dissenting arguments of Justice Clarence Thomas.” Ailes says the argument is a “crock of crap.” It turns out it’s much, much worse.

Sowell argues that the NYT prevented “its readers from knowing what the arguments are against it [affirmative action.]”

Really? Sadly, no!

Let us count the ways:

The article quotes the following from O’Connor’s opinion:

“holistic” and “individualized”
“context matters when reviewing race-based governmental action under the Equal Protection Clause.”
“are not theoretical but real, as major American businesses have made clear,”

This compares to the following quotes from Thomas’ dissent:

“I must contest the notion that the law school’s discrimination benefits those admitted as a result of it,”
“cruel farce of racial discrimination.”
“The law school tantalizes unprepared students with the promise of a University of Michigan degree and all of the opportunities that it offers,”
“These overmatched students take the bait, only to find that they cannot succeed in the cauldron of competition.”
“test subjects,”
“Who can differentiate between those who belong and those who do not?”
“The majority of blacks are admitted to the law school because of discrimination, and because of this policy all are tarred as undeserving. This problem of stigma does not depend on determinacy as to whether those stigmatized are actually the `beneficiaries’ of racial discrimination. When blacks take positions in the highest places of government, industry or academia, it is an open question today whether their skin color played a part in their advancement.”
“The question itself is the stigma ? because either racial discrimination did play a role, in which case the person may be deemed `otherwise unqualified,’ or it did not, in which case asking the question itself unfairly marks those blacks who would succeed without discrimination.”
“forced to choose”
“Michigan has no compelling interest in having a law school at all, much less an elite one.”

The article has 21 paragraphs. 6 are devoted exclusively to O’Connor. Two cover both justices. The other 13 deal with Thomas’ dissent, and include examples of bias about his dissent such as:

“Roger Pilon, vice president for legal affairs of the libertarian Cato Institute and long an admirer of Justice Thomas, said that “without question, he is speaking from the context of someone who’s pulled himself up by the bootstraps.” In an interview, Mr. Pilon added: “It may seem incomprehensible to liberal do-gooders that there are people who want to make it on their own.””

When will the NYT stop its campaign to deprive its readers from knowing the arguments against affirmative action?

Sowell, having lied about the contents of the NYT article, closes with: “Media bias is still alive and well at the New York Times, and so apparently is the spirit of Jayson Blair.”

Sadly, the only things alive here are Sowell’s inability to read a newspaper article, as well as his willingness to appeal to an unrelated (although entirely justified) criticism of the NYT. Rather than invite his readers to read the Supreme Court opinion, he should invite them to read the NYT article.


Comments: 6


Thomas Sowell is an American treasure. If by American, I mean crazy, and if by treasure, I mean crazy.


I am curious to see if anyone will join me on this, the oldest Thomas Sowell thread in the Sadly, No! archive.


At least one person will!


I confess that I really really like Creed. All that stuff in those other threads was bluster to hide my shame. My words were my pulpit while Creed remained my wetsuit and dildos.

Shorter Scott Stapp



(comments are closed)