Yesterday there was another racial circle jerk at The New York Times as the paper of record published a story that went beyond merely informing readers that The Harvard Law Review has elected its first black woman president to ask “why did it take so long?”
Many will recall that the prestigious 130-year-old publication elected its first black president in 1990 who went on to become the first black president of the United States. Since then there have been “female, Hispanic, Asian-American, openly gay and black” presidents.
It should be noted, however, that the new president, Imelme Umana, is a certain “type” of black woman. She majored in government and African-American studies at Harvard College; she has no plans to work in corporate law and dreams of becoming a public defender. As with Obama, The Harvard Law Review truly sees “diversity” as only skin deep.
However, in light of the Times’ very publicly advertised recommitment to “truth” in this dark new age of fascist alternative facts, it seems odd that the editors didn’t want to mess up a perfectly good puff piece designed to boost the future political career prospects of Ms. Umana by asking the difficult question that should be on everyone’s mind:
Why has The Harvard Law Review never elected a “transgender” president?
Certainly, it seems odd that ALL past Harvard Law Review presidents have been individuals whose gender identity matched their biological gender.
Are we to believe that there are NO transgender students at Harvard Law School who are fully qualified and capable of fulfilling the role of president?
Why does the Times not ask these difficult questions? What inhibits the Times writers from “speaking truth to power”? Why does the Times think that its readers can’t handle the truth–and why does it cover up what can only be anti-transgender bias at The Harvard Law Review?