The New York Times Hit Job on Zohran Mamdani

I had considered not writing a blog post today since it is a holiday, or possibly writing about how today would be a good day to remember that the 4th of July celebrates this country's forefathers ridding themselves of a tyrant's rule and creating a political system in which there is no King. Those seem to be lessons lost by many Americans, particularly among those who like to call themselves "patriots". However, the New York Times published an article about Democratic candidate for Mayor of New York City Zohran Mamdani's application to Columbia University in 2009. Because everyone else seems to be writing about that, I thought I should as well. If I wait until Monday, there will probably be a half-dozen other things about which I will want to write. So, here is a holiday special about the New York Times, which has shown itself quite clearly to be an enabler of fascism.

First the facts: Zohran Mamdani was born in Uganda. His father was of Indian origin, but from a family that had lived in East Africa for over 100 years. Mamdani's mother was born in India, but had lived in the United States before moving to Uganda. Mamdani lived in Uganda until he was 7, when his family then moved to the United States. Mamdani became a U.S. citizen in 2018.

Last night, the New York Times went to press with what the newspaper seems to have considered to be a major scoop. Three reporters were bylined on an article that said that on an application to Columbia University, in a section of the application asking about race and ethnicity, Mamdani had checked both "Asian" and "Black or African American". Mamdani was not accepted by Columbia, and the Times could find no other instance in which Mamdani had identified himself as either Black or African American. This is it. That's the scoop the New York Times found worthy of the front page of its website.

Let's consider the worst-case scenario here, a scenario that the Times implies and that MAGA posters online have fully embraced. That is the idea that Mamdani lied about being Black or African American in order to game the system of affirmative action and gain extra points towards admission to Columbia. If that was Mamdani's intention, he failed. He was not accepted by Columbia. Mamdani is running against the current Mayor of New York City, Eric Adams, who was previously indicted for corruption only to conclude a corrupt deal with cult leader, convicted felon, and failed President Donald Trump to have the charges dropped. Former New York Governor, Andrew Cuomo, who Mamdani defeated in the primary, may run in the general election. Cuomo faced multiple corruption scandals when he was governor. Against two candidates with long histories of corruption, the New York Times is front-paging how a 17-year-old high school senior chose to identify himself 15 years ago.

Let's stipulate that "African-American" has a particular connotation in the United States in which it refers to Black people. We would object, for instance, to Elon Musk describing himself as "African-American". But, at the same time, we should also admit that a 17-year-old of Asian descent who was born and lived in Africa and never lived in Asia might struggle with how to appropriately identify himself given the limited options available. The Times also reported that in a section allowing for additional information to be provided, Mamdani wrote that he was “Ugandan," which was his nationality at the time. There is reasonable room here to accept Mamdani's explanation that "I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background".

At any rate, if that was all there was to this, the article would be a head-scratcher but little more. However, there is more to the story. Not about Mamdani. With regard to him, that's all there is. But with regard to the New York Times. The real scandal is not what the article revealed, but that it was published at all. The source of the information about which boxes Mamdani checked was data stolen in a hack of Columbia University. The hacker apparently shared the information with a blogger who goes by the pseudonym Crémieux. The Times originally identified Crémieux as "an academic and an opponent of affirmative action" and did not reveal his real name. Both the description and withholding of Crémieux's true identity were strange. The Guardian had previously identified Crémieux as Jordan Lasker, "a long-time proponent of eugenics." The Guardian also pointed out that on his Substack, Lasker had defended the work of Richard Lynn, a “self-described scientific racist." Lasker has been a proponent of Lynn's ideas that Europeans and Asians have high IQs while Africans have low IQs. Lasker is not really an "academic" as described by the Times. He has one academic publication which is titled, "Global Ancestry and Cognitive Ability." His co-author on the publication was later fired by Cleveland State University. Lasker is not employed at a university and may not be connected to academia at all. Essentially, the New York Times attempted to hide the fact that the source of the hacked data is a leading proponent of race science who posts racist creeds on his blog. As journalist Alex Goldman wrote on X:

The New York Times collaborated with a self admitted race scientist to bring you a story of a man with a very complex ethnic and cultural background ticking a box on a website 15 years ago. Boffo journalism from the "paper of record".

But, there is still more. As I have mentioned, the data upon which the Times relied was stolen during a hack. As many will remember, both the Times and Trump were once proponents of stolen data. Trump famously called on Russia to hack former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's emails and strongly supported publishing data stolen from Hunter Biden's laptop. The Times itself was one of the leading purveyors of emails stolen from John Podesta. But, when Trump's campaign was hacked by Iranians in 2024, Trump's spokesperson warned that "Any media or news outlet reprinting documents or internal communications are doing the bidding of America’s enemies and doing exactly what they want". Dutifully, the Times — who had been a recipient of hacked documents including vetting documents related to now Vice President J. D. Vance — withheld from publishing the stolen material. There was considerable media introspection at the time regarding the ethics around publishing stolen data with the Times apparently deciding against it. That position has now changed. A vetting document about our current Vice President apparently — in the view of the New York Times — is not of public interest. The boxes checked by a high school senior 15 years ago, however, are important enough to publish. Note that hacked data is just fine when it is stolen from Democrats, but not fit for publication when Trump was the target of the hack. No bias there whatsoever.

While I am on the topic of the New York Times’ biases, let me deviate from the main point of this post for just a moment. The New York Times has reported frequently on allegations that Mamdani has been antisemitic. Most of these articles focus on the phrase, "Globalize the Intifada", a phrase that Mamdani has not himself used, but which he has explained as referring to non-violent resistance in support of Palestinian rights. The Times has written entire articles about these words, which again, Mamdani has not used. But, last night Trump, while speaking in Iowa about the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that had just been passed by the House of Representatives, said, "No death tax, no estate tax, no going to the banks and borrowing some from, in some cases, a fine banker and in some cases shylocks and bad people". As PBS News reports, "Shylock refers to the villainous Jewish moneylender in Shakespeare’s ‘The Merchant of Venice’ who demands a pound of flesh from a debtor." As far as I can tell, and I just conducted another search of the New York Times’ website, the Times has not reported Trump's use of this antisemitic slur. So, again, Mamdani gets entire articles about words he does not use and Trump's actual use of an antisemitic trope is ignored.

The New York Times has attempted to create a scandal where there is none, while breaking a recent policy of not reporting stolen data and hiding that the newspaper's source was a racist blogger. Along with the failure to report on Trump's use of an antisemitic slur while repeatedly implying that Mamdani is antisemitic due to a phrase he doesn't use, the pattern of bias is fairly clear. Just last year, the Times announced that it would no longer make endorsements in local elections. Then, just before the recent mayoral primary, wrote a back-handed endorsement of Cuomo. Policy changes that disadvantage Mamdani are starting to be a trend at the Times. What is increasingly clear is that the New York Times, far from being a bastion of liberalism as many would have it, actually favors corruption and anti-democratic leaders. The Times politicizes antisemitism, using it to hurt candidates it dislikes, and covering for those of whom it approves. As such, the New York Times is a leading enabler of fascism.