DeMediacratic Nation: The NY Times Editors Deceitful Ways

“The day when the network commentators and even the gentlemen of the New York Times enjoyed a form of diplomatic immunity from comment and criticism of what they said — that day is gone. . . . When their criticism becomes excessive or unjust, we shall invite them down from their ivory towers to enjoy the rough and tumble of public debate. . . . The time for blind acceptance of their opinions is past. And the time for naïve belief in their neutrality is gone.”

The NY Times editorial board continues apace with its “radical” ideas and misconstruing of reality for who knows what cause. This morning they’re babbling on, yet again about a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court; a Supreme Court with a “radical new majority” that “has grown more conservative by the year.”

The 5-4 ruling struck “down voluntary programs to integrate schools in Seattle and Louisville, Ky.” Which the board believes and screams that this is a complete and utter reversal of the now famous Brown vs. Board of Education and a return to the ugly days of segregation.

The editorial board in its efforts to misguide readers and control thought fails to track its own reporting on the decision within the pages of The ~~toilet~~ Paper that reflect a more neutral and matter of fact tone with:

“the decision makes clear that race cannot be the factor deciding whether a student will be allowed to attend a particular school, he said, the court left some room for districts to take race into account.”

According to the article, Gary L. Ikeda, the general counsel for Seattle Public Schools said:

‘“A majority of the Supreme Court affirmed the principle of diversity in public education.”’

Raj Manhas, the district superintendent of the decision and what they will do to abide by it with the room left “for districts to take race into account,” said:

“the district already was taking steps to encourage racial diversity through other means, including placing highly sought after International Baccalaureate and dual-language programs in locations where they are likely to draw a diverse student body.”

Prior to the decision school districts used a variety of tactics in the effort to maintain diversity such as:

“setting numeric ranges for racial representation in schools, strategically locating schools to attract specific racial groups, setting aside some seats in magnet programs for students of a particular race or forbidding transfers that would tilt a school further into dominance by one race.”

These very efforts are what brought the case up in the first place by:

“parents whose children were not allowed to go to the school of their choice because of plans that seek to keep racial balance within a particular range.”

The editorialists don’t feel parents or people in general can or should make decisions for themselves that the individual considers appropriate. Rather than apply a self-imposed fairness doctrine, they will paint the decision and an action of bad, racist, backward moving conservative activist judges. There is no need to allow for a dissenting voice in an effort at painting a broader picture as that does not toe their Liberal line of painting all things Conservative EVIL.

Rather than acknowledge the decision as it is, the board colors their opinion with this broad stroke close (italics mine):

“There should be no mistaking just how radical this decision is. In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said it was his “firm conviction that no Member of the Court that I joined in 1975 would have agreed with today’s decision.” He also noted the “cruel irony” of the court relying on Brown v. Board of Education while robbing that landmark ruling of much of its force and spirit. The citizens of Louisville and Seattle, and the rest of the nation, can ponder the majority’s kind words about Brown as they get to work today making their schools, and their cities, more segregated.”

Justice Stevens harks back to the good old days of being on what he obviously considers the right side of the decision, yet this is 2007 not 1975. Meanwhile, we the people of the nation should prepare for a return to full blown segregation, race riots and all the evil that the “radical new majority” of the court represents.

Some food for thought that the papers editors don’t want anyone eating would be that:

“Many of the nation’s largest urban districts now have so few white students that any large-scale effort at racial balance would be impractical.

New York City was largely unaffected by the decision, although officials in the Department of Education said they were considering using the ruling to seek legal action to overturn two court orders from the 1970s that placed racial quota systems at eight middle schools in Brooklyn and Queens.

Chancellor Joel I. Klein has said those quotas are antiquated and no longer reflect the makeup of the neighborhoods, which have seen white flight and the arrival of scores of new immigrants.”

To the board, like immigration it's a question of black and white and all others that realize there is more to it and race really isn't the underlying issue are just ignorant racist rubes. Count on the board members to continue to misrepresent, deceive and disorganize as it’s the only way for them to fight armed with nothing.

For opinion beyond this site and the Times; read Peter Kirsanow’s “Seattle Grace, A setback for racial bean counters” and The Editorial from NRO “Diversity without Decrees.”

Trackback: http://haloscan.com/tb/blandlyurbane/5465937211977822767

DeMediacratic Nation Blogrolls

Please give this Post/Blog a Vote -