A Clear Sign of Disrespect for Voters Who Have Lifted Zohran Mamdani to Prominence

The New York Times recently published a lengthy investigation into Zohran Mamdani's statement about his racial identity as a college applicant in 2009. The article, titled "Mamdani Identified as Asian and African American on College Application," was based on a hack of Columbia University admissions records by a right-wing white nationalist and suggested that at 18, Mamdani lied about his identity in his application to Columbia. The ensuing controversy has done nothing to hurt Mamdani politically but has engulfed the Times, further damaging the paper's credibility.

The article is a clear sign of the New York Times' out-of-touchness with progressives, especially when it comes to issues related to Palestine. By publishing this story, the Times is not only targeting Zohran Mamdani, but also perpetuating the notion that people with complex identities are somehow less legitimate or authentic. This kind of thinking is deeply rooted in racism and colonialism.

Mamdani's statement about his racial identity was based on a desire to capture the fullness of his background, given that many college applications do not have a box for Indian-Ugandans. He explained that he checked multiple boxes trying to convey this complexity. However, the Times has chosen to focus on a single aspect of his statement and blown it out of proportion.

The article's gravity and length are disproportionate to the accusation being made against Mamdani. The charge's weakness was clear when House minority leader Hakeem Jeffries was asked about it on MSNBC and changed the subject. This indicates that many people, including those who would typically support progressive candidates like Mamdani, know that this is a baseless claim.

Meanwhile, the outrage over the article has put the Times on the defensive once again. Editors have sought to justify the investigation, but their attempts are not convincing. The paper's columnist Jamelle Bouie was forced to delete his post after expressing support for the source of the information used in the article.

The investigation is absurd and malignant for several reasons. First, even if one buys the premise that Mamdani stretched his identity at 18 to try and get into Columbia, the story is laughable. We all know kids who have played up one part or another of their identity. Big deal. And anyway, the evidence is not convincing.

Mamdani's father was a professor of political science at Columbia at the time, so the admissions office likely knew who he was. Moreover, Mahmood Mamdani had lately published a book, "Good Muslim, Bad Muslim," in which he identified himself as a "third generation East African of Indian descent" who "grew up in Kampala, Uganda." This undermines the Times' claim that Mamdani is somehow dishonest about his identity.

The most disturbing line in the article is when it asks if any of Mamdani's family had intermarried while in East Africa. The implication is that Mamdani would not be a legitimate "African" if his South Asian family had mixed its blood with blacks. This logic is not just racist but also colonial, defining belonging by blood and ancestry rather than by history, biography, or lived experience.

Being African doesn't mean fitting into the NYT's racial boxes. It means being born, shaped, or rooted in Africa. The paper's promotion of such racial essentialism undermines progressive movements like Mamdani's, which seek to dismantle the very structures of exclusion and colonial thinking that have plagued our society for far too long.

In conclusion, the New York Times' investigation into Zohran Mamdani's statement about his racial identity is a clear sign of the paper's out-of-touchness with progressives. The story perpetuates racist and colonialist notions about identity and belonging, which are deeply damaging to progressive movements and communities.

A Missed Opportunity to Reflect Progressive Values

The New York Times has traditionally been seen as a liberal voice in American politics. However, its recent coverage of Zohran Mamdani's campaign for mayor has shown that the paper is out of step with progressive values, especially when it comes to issues related to Palestine.

Mamdani's campaign is built on a vision of inclusivity and optimism for the future. He offers a stirring alternative to the status quo, which has been shaped by decades of Israeli occupation and violence. However, the Times has refused to reflect this progressive movement, instead choosing to focus on a single aspect of Mamdani's statement about his racial identity.

This is not just a matter of editorial choice but also a reflection of the paper's underlying biases and values. The NYT has consistently demonstrated its support for the Israeli government's actions in Palestine, including its escalations in Gaza.

The Times' acceptance of the genocide in Gaza is best captured by a piece by Nicholas Kristof, a liberal columnist at the paper, when he wrote in April, "the Netanyahu government is now again escalating in Gaza. Is this really the best use of American weaponry?" This morally idiotic question reflects the paper's deep-seated commitment to pro-Israeli policies.

As the progressive movement continues to grow and mobilize around issues like Palestine and racial justice, it is essential that newspapers like the New York Times reflect these values in their coverage. Anything less will only serve to further marginalize and alienate progressive voices.

The Real Story Behind the NYT's Investigation

The motivation behind the Times' investigation into Zohran Mamdani's statement about his racial identity is not a genuine concern for accuracy or fairness but rather a desire to discredit him as a candidate. By focusing on a single aspect of his statement, the paper has created a narrative that Mamdani is somehow dishonest or untrustworthy.

This strategy has been successful in mobilizing pro-Israeli groups and right-wing media outlets, which have quickly jumped on the story to attack Mamdani as a "commie Muslim liar." However, this criticism has had little impact on voters who support Mamdani.

Democratic voters do not care about Mamdani's racial identity when it comes to his policies or vision for the city. In fact, many are drawn to his proposals for a stronger social safety net and more equitable economic development.

The Times' failure to recognize this is a clear sign of its out-of-touchness with progressive values. By focusing on a single aspect of Mamdani's statement, the paper has missed an opportunity to reflect the diversity and complexity of modern American identity.

The NYT's Dismissive Coverage of Progressive Values

The New York Times has a long history of dismissive coverage of progressive values. From its initial skepticism about Barack Obama's candidacy in 2008 to its recent criticism of Zohran Mamdani's campaign, the paper has consistently demonstrated its support for pro-Israeli policies and its dismissal of progressive voices.

This is not just a matter of editorial choice but also a reflection of the paper's underlying biases and values. The NYT has traditionally been seen as a liberal voice in American politics, but its recent coverage of Mamdani has shown that this label is increasingly out of touch with reality.

The paper's dismissive coverage of progressive values is not just limited to Zohran Mamdani's campaign. It has also been applied to other progressive voices and issues, including the debate over Palestine and racial justice.

This kind of thinking is deeply damaging to progressive movements and communities. By dismissing the concerns and experiences of marginalized groups, the NYT is perpetuating a narrative that ignores the very real struggles and injustices faced by these communities.

The Unforeseen Consequences of Racialized Identity Politics

The New York Times' investigation into Zohran Mamdani's statement about his racial identity has highlighted the unforeseen consequences of racialized identity politics. By perpetuating racist and colonialist notions about identity and belonging, the paper is not only damaging progressive movements but also contributing to a culture of exclusion and marginalization.

Race is a social construct, of course, which the Right refuses to acknowledge. However, affirmative action based on race and gender has handed the Left a powerful tool to counter the Right's attacks. The NYT's promotion of such racial essentialism undermines this effort.

The paper's logic is not just racist but also colonial. It defines belonging by blood and ancestry rather than by history, biography, or lived experience. This kind of thinking ignores the complexities and diversity of modern American identity.

The NYT's failure to recognize these complexities has led to a missed opportunity to reflect progressive values and promote inclusivity and optimism for the future. Instead, the paper has perpetuated a narrative that is deeply damaging to progressive movements and communities.