The Seattle Times applauds the overreaction to the Seattle teacher who used an inappropriate word in front of his class. The editorial closes:
Parents and students have the right to expect vigilance against discrimination. And if it occurs anyway, they should expect swift recourse.Indeed. But this particular incident wasn't about "discrimination", it was about a clumsy attempt to use an offensive word in order to teach a lesson against, uh, discrimination.
But fair enough, we should be vigilant against "discrimination", which Merriam Webster's defines as:
to make a difference in treatment or favor on a basis other than individual meritHow does the Seattle Times do on this score?
The Times published this pro-affirmative action op-ed in 1998 during the campaign for anti-discrimination ballot measure I-200 (the text of the measure was:
Shall government be prohibited from discriminating or granting preferential treatment based on race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin in public employment, education, and contracting?The op-ed said
Will the University of Washington provide a better educational environment if the already small percentages of African-American students (3.4 percent), Latinos (3.8 percent), and Native Americans (1.6 percent) are reduced?) We learn elsewhere that the percentage of Whites at the University of Washington is 60.5% and Asians 21.9%. Meanwhile, according to the US Census Bureau, the State of Washington as a whole is 81.8% White, 5.5% Asian, 3.2% Black and 1.6% Native American. In other words, Washington Blacks are already slightly "overrepresented" at the state university, Native Americans are proportionately represented, while Whites are dramatically "underrepresented" and Asians enormously "overrepresented". No matter, the Times published numerous editorials against the anti-discrimination initiative, apparently agreeing that the university needs to discriminate on the basis of race to change its racial composition.
And even in the last month, the Times has published supportive editorials and sympathetic news articles defending the Seattle School District's legal fight to continue to discriminate on the basis of race in making school assignments.
Yes, we should all be vigilant against discrimination, and so should the Seattle Times.
After reading the Seattle Times for a few days, do you think you'll ever miss the San Francisco Chronicle? :-)
After we discriminate, do we have to recriminate? or just criminate? Maybe we should just incriminate.
Posted by: ipsofacto on May 19, 2003 08:47 PM