SHOULD I CALL THE NEW YORK TIMES DISHONEST, OR IS THAT REDUNDANT: Here’s how the Times explains opposition to a newly appointed journalism dean at Texas A&M:

McElroy, who once worked as an editor at The New York Times, said she was notified by the university’s interim dean of liberal arts, José Luis Bermúdez, of political pushback over her appointment.

“I said, ‘What’s wrong?'” Dr. McElroy recalled in an interview. “He said, ‘You’re a Black woman who was at The New York Times and, to these folks, that’s like working for Pravda.'” Dr. McElroy left The Times in 2011….

Matthew Poling, the president of [an alumni group opposed to her appointment], said that members did not approve of Dr. McElroy’s work promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.

Diversity, equity and inclusion efforts had been a small part of her journalism and academic career, she said.

You would never get a sense from the article why McElroy was so controversial. I couldn’t believe that it was solely about the fact that she supports DEI, given that basically all academic bureaucrats are required to be on board.

So I googled for about two minutes, and got an answer from this article she wrote. She favors race-based hiring in journalism, calls “objectivity” a “flawed” goal for journalists, calls journalism a “white patriarchal institution.” (In fairness, she adds, “I wholeheartedly believe in journalism’s mission to seek truth and tell it fairly and dimensionally.”)

Also, it turns out that her protestation that “diversity, equity and inclusion efforts had been a small part of her journalism and academic career” is misleading. Her dissertation, as she describes it, was “about black columnists at ‘mainstream’ newspapers,” in which she “challenged Tom Rosenstiel and Bill Kovach’s thoughts about “diverse” journalists included their seminal book “The Elements of Journalism.” So her signature academic project may not have been about DEI “efforts,” but it was about DEI.

Proponents of the autonomy of academic institutions in the name of academic freedom from political interference can still object that her appointment should have been left solely to university officials to consider, without political interference. But even if one strongly takes that position, it doesn’t excuse the Times’ reporter from her obligation to (objectively and?) accurately report on why her appointment was controversial, rather than implying that it was just racism and extremism.