NYT allows Republican to twist debate over nondiscrimination for federal contractors

Posted on 18 Apr 2012 at 4:17pm

Linda Chavez

The New York Times ran an editorial today by Linda Chavez, a Reagan White House adviser. In it, she praised President Barack Obama for not signing an executive order that would prevent employment discrimination by federal contractors.

With the Employment Non-Discriminiation Act stalled in Congress, LGBT rights leaders have been pressing the White House to issue an executive order that would require federal contractors to have nondiscrimination policies that include sexual orientation and gender identity.

Chavez misrepresents the executive order. She wrote:

When it comes to granting gays special preference, however, such as in the awarding of government contracts, most people draw the line.

Gays would not be granted preference. The executive order LGBT organizations want Obama to sign is about companies having nondiscrimination policies. It is not about the federal government adding quotas or requiring a certain number of contracts be written with LGBT companies.

She continues:

Anyone who has studied the issue of racial, ethnic and gender preferences in government contracting knows that such executive orders go far beyond simple nondiscrimination. Their purpose is to encourage preferences for certain underrepresented groups.

And concludes with this piece that sums up her totally irrelevant editorial:

There is little evidence that gays are being denied the right to compete fairly for government contracts now — and no reason to give them special preference.

No one has suggested anything like this. No one in the LGBT community wants the billion dollars of federal money that has gone to Exxon in the past few years to go to a gay-owned oil company. The LGBT community simply wants Exxon to stop discriminating against its own employees.

The Washington Post got it right on the executive order. Fox News simply ignored the issue. Does the New York Times suddenly feel the need to be so “fair and balanced” that it allows its editorial writers to lie?

Comments

comments

Powered by Facebook Comments