The New York Times exasperates again

The Saturday NYT editorial is called "An Anti-Quota Smoke Screen" and castigates President Bush for opposing the University of Michigan's admission policy. It is a classic example of the logical fallacy known as petitio principii -"begging the question." Or, as my Encarta dictionary explains: "logically fallacious reasoning in which what has to be proved is already assumed."

Bush claims the Michigan admission policy amounts to a quota system for minorities. The NYT disagrees and explains thusly: "Michigan's admissions system does not use racial quotas." Oh. Well, that certainly is compelling reasoning. Why go through the tedious details when you can just proclaim (we're the Paper of Record for God's sake)? With the premise that the Michigan admission policy is *not* a quota system neatly dispensed with, we can move on to attacking Bush.

"But the administration has clearly decided the best way to appease its right-wing supporters without alienating the rest of the country is to disguise its anti-affirmative-action agenda as an anti-quota crusade."

Gosh, I know that Bush was concerned about shoring up his conservative base. According to the latest polls, Bush's approval rating has slipped into the mid-90s.

"The university gives applicants extra points for belonging to an underrepresented racial or ethnic minority. But it also gives diversity points to applicants who come from an underrepresented part of the state, like Michigan's largely white Upper Peninsula, scholarship athletes, and men in the nursing program."

Here's the calculator used to determine who gets into Michigan – 100 points out of 150 means you're in. Coming from Michigan will garner you +10 points while coming from "underrepresented areas" will gain you +16 points; thus the "largely white" applicants from the Upper Peninsula will get a +6 advantage. Men in the nursing program? (Another under-represented area, I assume) +5 points. The handful of athletic scholarships will gain +20 points and, let's face it, they're going to the football team. What the New York Times leaves out is that a perfect SAT score will gain you +12 points while if your skin is the right color, you'll pull in +20 points. The greatest essay written in the long history of college essays will get you +3 points.

Nevermind, sez the NYT, no quotas to see here. Move along!

"The administration has suggested that the University of Michigan's program is unusually flawed. In fact, most highly selective educational institutions rely on similar admissions criteria. If the Supreme Court holds Michigan's procedures to be unconstitutional, it will force an overhaul in admissions policies nationwide."

Super. Hurry up.

"Mr. Bush insisted this week that he strongly supports "racial diversity in higher education." But it does no good to support having underrepresented minorities in selective colleges and graduate schools without providing mechanisms that will get them there."

Wha? What mechanisms? Mechanisms like super-slanted point systems? Why that sounds like rigging a quo…quo…quo…um…QUOTA.

"President Bush singled out for praise programs in California, Texas and Florida that guarantee college admission to graduates in the top 10 percent of every high school. But since those programs apply only at the high school level, they cannot ensure minority access to graduate and professional schools, a key issue in the Michigan case. They are also flawed because they rely on segregated elementary and secondary education to integrate higher education."

Let's do some simple math. State A, with 20% minority students, is perfectly integrated. The top 10% of a senior class, including 2 minority students, gets automatic admission to a state university. Horrible state B is segregated with 80% white schools and 20% minority schools. But for the top 10% of every school, eight white students along with two minority students are automatically admitted to state schools. Stupid NYT.

Mickey Kaus recently suggested that the New York Times change their slogan from "All the News Fit to Print" to "A Crusading Liberal Newspaper". Why deny it? This editorial is yet another chapter in the long, deluded, biased, self-satisfied, recent history of the Times. It's almost sad.