On Tuesday, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission sued the New York Times, accusing the newspaper of violating the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race or sex.
The case, filed in federal court in Manhattan, alleges the newspaper’s diversity goals influenced its decision not to promote a white male employee to a real estate editor role. According to the suit, only nonwhite and female candidates were considered.
Recommended Stories
A spokeswoman for the New York Times, Danielle Rhoades Ha, denied the allegations, calling them “politically motivated.”
Perhaps. But there are also reasons to believe the claims are true.
The New York Times’s own reporting highlights the company’s 2021 “Call to Action,” a report designed to recruit more minority candidates. Slack messages and emails also reportedly show newspaper leaders discussing how to increase diversity, perhaps at the expense of the unnamed New York Times employee (who was allegedly passed over in favor of “a non-white female with little to no experience in real estate journalism” despite his own “extensive experience”).
The New York Times has hardly been alone in embracing DEI goals. As the paper itself noted, DEI has become “big business” over the past decade. An entire industry emerged to help companies avoid “unconscious bias” and prevent “racism, sexism, and misgendering.”
Alas, combating bias often meant adopting explicitly discriminatory practices in the other direction.
It’s easy to forget how quickly diversity became a cultural obsession. Today, few universities require diversity statements, but just a few years ago, applicants to elite schools were often expected to explain how they would advance demographic (though not ideological) diversity, equity, and inclusion.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with diversity. The problem lies in how it is pursued. By their nature, DEI efforts to “redress” inequalities often require treating people differently based on group identity. Supporters may dispute that, but the way these policies have played out tells a clear story.
At their peak, DEI norms were so widely accepted that the language was often openly exclusionary. Job postings seeking “nonwhite” candidates were not hard to find, and there are first-person accounts of managers saying things like “we don’t need another white guy.”
Many accepted this because they viewed diversity as an implicit good and DEI as the mechanism to achieve it. Others no doubt feared being labeled racist for opposing efforts to promote diversity.
Many ethical and logical problems accompany using racism to fight racism, but the biggest hurdle for DEI has always been its legality.
Discriminating in hiring on the basis of race is illegal in the United States — regardless of which race is targeted or excluded. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes this clear. Yet for years, firms got away with it because courts applied different standards in discrimination cases. Minority plaintiffs faced one bar; majority-group plaintiffs — white people, men, and heterosexuals — faced a higher one.
The result was a strange reality: A law meant to ensure equal treatment was enforced unequally. Legal standing depended on a person’s racial identity. That changed in 2025.
This past summer, the Supreme Court addressed this issue in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services. The court sided with Marlean Ames, who was denied a promotion and later demoted because she was heterosexual. Lower courts had rejected her claims under a rule requiring majority plaintiffs to show “background circumstances” suggesting the employer was unusually likely to discriminate against the majority.
The decision reshaped the legal landscape. Discrimination in hiring was already unlawful under Title VII, but after Ames, majority-group plaintiffs had real recourse. That’s why I argued Ames would be a death blow to formal DEI efforts.
With its lawsuit against the New York Times, the EEOC seems intent on putting a stake through DEI’s heart. One can almost feel bad for the newspaper. When the paper was making what could be perceived as diversity hires, the high court had not yet delivered its ruling on Ames. Still, the New York Times disputes the heart of the EEOC’s suit.
“Our employment practices are merit-based and focused on recruiting and promoting the best talent in the world,” Rhoades Ha said in response to the EEOC’s allegations.
THE WORLD MUST CHOOSE: STAND WITH AMERICA OR YIELD TO IRAN?
The word “merit-based” is noteworthy. For years, classical liberals and conservatives have argued that merit is precisely what hiring decisions should be about. Ironically, for saying hiring should not be about race or gender, many were accused of being racist or sexist.
The notion that people should be treated as individuals — and promoted accordingly — isn’t sexist or racist. It’s a noble idea, and a deeply American one.
The fact that the New York Times seems to be ditching DEI for merit, fairness, and equality is a sign that our country is healing from years of overtly discriminatory practices.
