The Washington Post Resists Objectivity and Humor

Ever since President Bush nominated Judge John Roberts for the Supreme Court, left-wing interest groups have been frantic with worry that there are not enough damaging and controversial positions in Roberts' past to block him. The desperation to find a quote, a memo, anything to stop him has led to some rather comical overreaches by the Left, such as NARAL's (now aborted) attack ad that falsely claimed Roberts supported bombing abortion clinics.

Seeing the opposition to Roberts floundering, the Washington Post today rode to the rescue with a thinly disguised hit piece, subtly headlined, "Roberts Resisted Women's Rights." That's right, cue the evil, ominous music: Roberts is a male authoritarian who wants to keep women barefoot, pregnant, and at home. This article is the first in a series; the Post is also set to reveal that Roberts enjoys taking lollipops from poor children, and that he hates sunshine and puppies.

The article is based on recently-released memos from Roberts' days as assistant general counsel in the Reagan administration. The partisan purpose of the article is clear from the opening paragraphs:

Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts Jr. consistently opposed legal and legislative attempts to strengthen women's rights during his years as a legal adviser in the Reagan White House, disparaging what he called "the purported gender gap" and, at one point, questioning "whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good."

In internal memos, Roberts urged President Ronald Reagan to refrain from embracing any form of the proposed Equal Rights Amendment pending in Congress; he concluded that some state initiatives to curb workplace discrimination against women relied on legal tools that were "highly objectionable"; and he said that a controversial legal theory then in vogue -- of directing employers to pay women the same as men for jobs of "comparable worth" -- was "staggeringly pernicious" and "anti-capitalist."

In a July 31, 1985, memo, Roberts noted that, as an assistant dean at the University of Richmond law school before she joined the Reagan administration, Arey had "encouraged many former homemakers to enter law school and become lawyers." Roberts said in his memo that he saw no legal objection to her taking part in the Clairol contest. Then he added a personal aside: "Some might question whether encouraging homemakers to become lawyers contributes to the common good, but I suppose that is for the judges to decide."

Roberts' remark about homemakers becoming lawyers is obviously a joke, but the humorless Post breathlessly reports it as a stinging indictment of Roberts' sensitivity--never mind the fact that his wife is a lawyer herself. Roberts' writings are filled with brief forays into lawyer jokes, which are always funniest when told by lawyers. I, for one, find it refreshing to see that Roberts is a man whose impressive legal credentials have not diminished his ability to make light of his profession.

But the Post's snippy reporting continues. Not only do the writers report the quote as a serious remark, darkly suggesting that it provides some deep insight into Roberts' evil male soul, they then ask Kim Gandy, the president of the National Organization for Women, for her reaction: "Oh. Wow. Good heavens. I find it quite shocking that a young lawyer, as he was at the time, had such Neanderthal ideas about women's place."

Who knew NOW was so touchy about lawyer jokes? It was left to White House spokesman Steve Schmidt to explain that, uh, guys, it's called a joke. Happens all the time.

But what really makes the article's headline misleading and biased is its smugly liberal assumption that anything less than the wholesale adoption of NOW's agenda is to be against women's rights. Roberts wrote these memos during a time when feminist groups were demanding that the government force employers to pay their male and female employees equally for equal work. Now, I'm all for employers treating their employees fairly. But, like Judge Roberts, I don't see any constitutional support for forcing employers to abide by pay scales imposed by the government. I agree with the goal in principle, but not the Left's method of achieving it.

It seems clear to me that Roberts was writing not out of a sinister motivation to keep women underpaid, but out of the mindset that government should not be micromanaging the incomes of every employee in the nation. He showed admirable conservative restraint, a trait that speaks well of his judicial temperment and philosophy.

A more accurate headline would have been, "Roberts Resisted Government Takeover of Nation's Pay System," or "Roberts Resisted Expanding the Power of Government." But those headlines wouldn't have been nearly as inflammatory, or as helpful to the Post's goal of stirring up as much controversy as possible in these slow news weeks ahead of Roberts' confirmation hearings.