Racial Preference and Jayson Blair

Jayson Blair, the New York Times reporter who engaged in fraudulent practices against his employer and the public, is black. Although the Times fired him – and explained why at great length – Blair has become a target for those who oppose racial preferences.

I oppose racial preferences in all circumstances except two: recruitment and advancement in the armed forces, and correcting an established history of racially discriminatory practices in any place of employment.

In the latter situation, I support using a court order, limited in scope and duration, that meets the Supreme Court doctrine known as "strict scrutiny." That doctrine requires a tailored approach to each situation. It allows – for a limited period of time – race-based hiring practices when no other non-racial remedy can do the job.

I support racial preferences in the armed forces, not simply because Colin Powell stated that he is the product of affirmative action. Is there anyone who believes, absent such a program, Powell would not have made it on his own?

I support racial preferences in the selection of officers and non-commissioned officers in the armed forces, as is now being done, for national security reasons. Adding to the comfort level of soldiers is warranted because of the unique sacrifices demanded of them.

If there were any doubt about Jayson Blair's character, he revealed himself as a charlatan in an extraordinary interview by Sridhar Pappu in the New York Observer. Blair admitted to "abusing alcohol and doing drugs, cocaine to be specific." The extent of Blair's self-immolation was evident in his description of himself as a "former total cokehead."

Apparently still delusional in his Observer interview, Blair stated he was not an "affirmative action hire." The plain truth is that Blair got his job at the Times and was promoted because of a program of racial preference.

Howell Raines, the Times’ executive editor, recently admitted this much when he stated: "Our paper has a commitment to diversity and by all accounts he appeared to be a promising young minority reporter. I believe in aggressively providing hiring and career opportunities for minorities. Does that mean I personally favored Jayson? Not consciously. But you have a right to ask if I, as a white man from Alabama, with those convictions, gave him one chance too many by not stopping his appointment to the sniper team. When I look into my heart for the truth of that, the answer is yes."

Times op-ed columnist Bob Herbert, one time city editor of the Daily News and Daily News City Hall bureau chief for part of the time when I was mayor, writes, "The race issue in this case is as bogus as some of Jayson Blair’s reporting."

Herbert explains that there are white reporters on other papers – such as Mike Barnicle, the former Boston Globe columnist – who committed similar abuses. The difference is Barnicle was not hired because he was white. His fraud was seen, says Herbert, as "individual."

Herbert resents the differentiation, writing, "But the folks who delight in attacking anything black or anything designed to help blacks have pounced on the Blair story as evidence that there is something inherently wrong with The Times’ effort to diversify its newsroom and beyond that, with the very idea of a commitment to diversity or affirmative action anywhere."

Our country has had racial preference programs for more than 35 years. I am sure they have helped many young blacks to advance. But I also believe they have done an even greater harm to race relations and to the dignity and self-appraisals of many blacks, like Herbert, who have made it on their own talent yet know they are often lumped derisively with affirmative action hires.

They have also created anger in white communities where individual whites have been passed over in favor of less qualified minority applicants. And there are no affirmative action programs for poor or poorly educated whites and, strangely, not many, if any, for poor blacks.

The Michigan law school case now before the U.S. Supreme Court hopefully will decide once and for all the use of and limitations on such programs.

Whatever the Court's decision, in order for racial and ethnic set-asides to be effective, these programs necessarily discriminate against individual white applicants whom an employer or university conclude are better qualified when fairly rated against competing minority candidates. Calling such discrimination and racial preference "diversity" is a euphemism and should not be allowed to disguise what is taking place.

Stanley Crouch, columnist at the Daily News, writing on this issue said: "Should, therefore, any white person in a position of authority on a job refuse to consider helping a talented black man or woman in the very same way that he might help a talented white man or woman? Let us hope not."

Let us all say "amen."