Zohran Mamdani graduated from a small (but wealthy) liberal arts school, Bowdoin College, with a degree in Africana Studies. It’s a good and reputable degree from a reputable college, so that’s nothing to complain about, but the NY Times sent a reporter to talk to professors at Bowdoin, transparently with the intent to find dirt on Mamdani’s education.

The article has been published, and as expected, it’s an exercise in slimy innuendo that tries to indict the whole educational system as leftist political propaganda. You can expect nothing else from the NY Times. Here’s the summary of what the article said.

Mr. Mamdani graduated in 2014 from Bowdoin College, in Brunswick, Maine, with a bachelor’s degree in Africana studies. And his experience there—readings of critical race theorists in the classroom and activism for left-wing causes on campus—is emblematic of the highly charged debate over what is taught in American universities.

Critics say the growth of these programs, which aim to teach about historical events from the perspective of marginalized and oppressed groups, has turned colleges into feckless workshops for leftist political orthodoxy.

Bleh. I’m not linking to the NYT, because, as I’ve been saying for over 20 years on this blog, they’re a disgrace, a he-said-she-said crapshow that advances the conservative cause with weasely evasiveness. Somehow this is the most prestigious news source in the country, probably because billionaires back it.

Far more interesting is this delightful essay in which one of Mamdani’s former professors comments on the NYT hatchet job.

“Critics say” is the tell, and does it ever go on telling. First, note that this criticism (“Majors like Africana studies, or any of its siblings such as women’s studies, these critics charge, promote a worldview that sees little to admire in American history. Some disparagingly call the entire field ‘grievance studies’”) gives to the article the whole of its contrapuntal structure of argument: these scholars and teachers say Mr. Mamdani’s education is substantial, yet critics say something else. But then note as well that this counter-position is substantiated, in its length and breadth, by: J. D. Vance and the National Association of Scholars (NAS), the former a man whose fervid anti-intellectualism needs no introduction, the latter a conservative 501(c)3 flush with money from the Olin, Bradly, and Castle Rock Foundations, and more lately affiliated with the Heritage Foundation and its delirious “Project 2025” document. The author refers to the group as “conservative-leaning,” which, ok. I guess you could say Latvia was a little antisemitic-leaning during the war.

Oh man, that “critics say” phrase is infuriating. What critics? Name them. Explain why these anonymous critics are making these accusations. It ought to be standard journalistic practice that you back up claims with details, rather than vaguely waving in the direction of the opposition while leaving them unscrutinized.

When writing to a journalist friend, I just said that it’s a bit unravelling, right now, to be on the receiving end of this kind of belated real-time education in elite metabolization. Like so many other bits of Times coverage, the whole of the piece is structured as an orchestrated encounter. Some people say this; however, others say this. It’s so offhand you can think you’re gazing through a pane of glass. Only when you stand a little closer, or when circumstances make you a little less blinkered, do you notice the fact which then becomes blinding and finally crazymaking, which is just that there is zero, less than zero, stress put on the relation between those two “sides,” or their histories, or their sponsors, or their relative evidentiary authority, or any of it. Instead, what you get is a piece making the various more or less bovine noises of studious grey-lady impartiality, with the labor of anything resembling “appraisal” surgically excised.

That’s a perfect description of the NYT’s MO.