This morning's New York Times carries a news article and a "Metro Matters" column about a new study comparing the performances of New York's government-run schools and its Catholic schools.
The news article reports that the study "was conducted by a public school advocate teamed with a proponent of taxpayer support for private and Catholic schools in the form of vouchers." The article identifies Raymond Domanico as the "public school advocate." That's an oversimplification. Here's Mr. Domanico, speaking to the Heritage Foundation in 1993: "we are by no means hostile to private schools. We simply differ with voucher proponents on tactics. We have always believed, and we are beginning to see evidence which bears this out, that policies that open up the public school system to parental choice and autonomy and entrepreneurship would begin to yield some school initiatives which challenged the conventional distinctions between the public and private sectors."
In any event, being a "proponent of taxpayer support for private and Catholic schools in the form of vouchers" is not necessarily inconsistent with being a "public school advocate," as the Times seems to suggest. Many proponents of vouchers propose them on the grounds that they would improve the government-run public schools by exposing them to competition.
The Metro Matters column claims, "The parochial schools do not provide special education, a costly endeavor." That's just false; the parochial schools sure do provide special education. A quick check of the Web site of the Archdiocese of New York shows a series of special education programs, from the Cooke Center for Learning and Development on Riverside Drive in Manhattan to the Seton Foundation for Learning in Staten Island.
Sorry: Here's how a news article in the metro section of today's New York Times reports on an increase in the fares for PATH trains. "Sorry, PATH train riders. You'll have to pay more, too." Imagine if the Times brought this sort of directness to its coverage of the tax cut debate in Washington. Every time the Democrats blocked a Republican tax-cut proposal, the newspaper's article could begin, "Sorry, taxpayers. You'll have to pay more." In the case of the PATH fare increase, the Times is taking a narrow view of the matter. The article could just as easily have begun, "Congratulations, non-PATH-train-riding taxpayers. The subsidy you provide to users of public transportation will get smaller." Smartertimes.com has a vague memory that at one point the Times believed in the principle that the newspaper was supposed to neither apologize for the news nor rejoice in it but merely deliver it in a straightforward manner. Sorry, readers, but that time seems to have passed.
One-Sided: An item in the world briefing column in the international section of today's New York Times reports that "the United States rebuked Mary Robinson, the United Nations commissioner for human rights, suggesting she had taken a one-sided view in a report on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." It sure would be nice to know which one side of this conflict the United States thought Ms. Robinson was on. The Times leaves that question unanswered.