|
 he
liberals finally have opened fire against the man President Bush
has picked to head the civil-rights office at the Department of
Education. Oddly, their attack started on the sports pages —
or, more accurately, in a publication of the NCAA.
The forthcoming nomination of Gerald A. Reynolds as assistant secretary
of education very possibly represents "a softening of the government's
enforcement of Title IX legislation" prohibiting sex discrimination,
wrote
Kay Hawes in the NCAA News last week. Yesterday, the
story moved to the front page of USA Today, where Kelly
Whiteside reported that Reynolds "could soften the government's
enforcement of Title IX legislation."
That's a curious confluence of language: Are Hawes and Whiteside
working off the same sheet of Democratic talking points?
Hawes and Whiteside certainly didn't reach their semantically similar
conclusions by studying Reynolds's record, because Reynolds has
never written or said anything publicly about Title IX. In fact,
there is reason to believe he supports Title IX. "He is in favor
of Title IX, to the best of my knowledge," says James Golden of
the Center for New Black Leadership, a group Reynolds used to head.
"I see no evidence that his nomination threatens Title IX in any
way."
The common thread between the coverage of Reynolds in the NCAA
News and USA Today — apart from the cloned rhetoric
— is Massachusetts Democrat Ted Kennedy. He chairs the Senate
committee that will consider Reynolds, and both stories quote him.
"I have serious concerns about Gerald Reynolds," he told USA
Today.
The real beef with Reynolds is that he's been a critic of racial
preferences (which places him in the mainstream of American public
opinion). Some have taken this to mean Reynolds opposes affirmative
action, though in his writings Reynolds has been scrupulously careful
to differentiate these terms. Reynolds supports race-neutral affirmative
action, including educational outreach efforts and other policies
that don't distribute special benefits on the basis of skin color.
Yet racial preferences are not the topic on which Reynolds's foes
have chosen to engage him. Instead, they've invented a non-issue
over Title IX, and so far have failed to provide a single shred
of evidence that Reynolds is hostile to it. Instead of dutifully
quoting Kennedy's assertions, reporters covering this story should
ask a follow-up question: Do you have any proof to back up your
claims?
This salvo against Reynolds is a naked attempt to stir up feminist
opposition. If enough people hear about "a softening of the government's
enforcement of Title IX legislation," they will start to believe
it's true, even if it's not.
The Left's strategy against Reynolds is clear: Plant a few helpful
stories with pliant reporters, gin up parts of the coalition that
don't necessarily have a problem with Reynolds, and later come in
hard with news-making statements against the nominee. The groups
that may be expected to fight Reynolds have not yet said they're
against him — the NAACP has refused to comment and the National
Urban League says it hasn't decided. It seems only a matter of time,
though.
Reynolds deserves an honest assessment of his record and an opportunity
to discuss it in hearings. Right now, the only real reason Democrats
have for opposing him is that he's the nominee of a Republican president.
(Note: Reynolds and NR's John J. Miller were employed at the Center
for Equal Opportunity at the same time several years ago.)
On the Site
NR's editors on
Gary Condit … and Ramesh Ponnuru on
Robert Wright.
|
