The New York Times Runs Interference For A Racist To Manufacture A Fake Scandal About Zohran Mamdani

The New York Times has had a rough few decades when it comes to being manipulated by bad actors. But their latest embarrassment—a complete non-story about NYC mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s college application to Columbia University from 2009—represents a new low in journalistic malpractice that combines hacked materials, racist sources, and a breathtaking willingness to be used as a vehicle for right-wing propaganda. Oh, and all for a story that has zero news value and zero insight into Mamdani’s qualifications to be mayor of New York City.

Here’s what happened: The Times published a story claiming that Mamdani, who was born in Uganda to parents of Indian descent, checked both “Asian” and “Black or African American” boxes on his Columbia University application all the way back in 2009. The implication, pushed by the story’s framing, was that this was somehow scandalous—a case of gaming the system for affirmative action benefits.

As he runs for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani has made his identity as a Muslim immigrant of South Asian descent a key part of his appeal.

But as a high school senior in 2009, Mr. Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, claimed another label when he applied to Columbia University. Asked to identify his race, he checked a box that he was “Asian” but also “Black or African American,” according to internal data derived from a hack of Columbia University that was shared with The New York Times.

Columbia, like many elite universities, used a race-conscious affirmative action admissions program at the time. Reporting that his race was Black or African American in addition to Asian could have given an advantage to Mr. Mamdani, who was born in Uganda and spent his earliest years there.

I’m genuinely curious about the Times’ logic here. Person born in Uganda checks “African American” box. Where’s the lie? Did Uganda move? Is it not in Africa anymore? Are we really going to pretend that America’s racial categories, designed primarily for descendants of American slavery, map perfectly onto the global complexity of human identity?

If there is a story, it is solely about the Times’ decision and later justification for publishing this non-story.

Mamdani has a complex racial and ethnic background that doesn’t fit neatly into America’s crude racial categories. As he told the Times: “Most college applications don’t have a box for Indian-Ugandans, so I checked multiple boxes trying to capture the fullness of my background.” He also noted that he wrote in “Ugandan” in the space provided for additional information.

Oh, and for all the “could have given an advantage to Mr. Mamdani” reporting in the piece: it didn’t. He didn’t even get into Columbia. Even though his father is a professor there.

So much for gaming the system.

But here’s where it gets really ugly: The Times obtained this information from a massive hack of Columbia’s database, and their source was Jordan Lasker, who goes by the online handle “Cremieux” and whose hobbies include arguing that Black people are genetically inferior. Yes, really. The Times initially described him merely as “an academic who opposes affirmative action,” but as The Guardian previously reported, Lasker regularly argues that Black people are mentally inferior to other races and has written posts defending the idea that African countries have “average national IQs at a level that experts associate with mental impairment.”

But wait, it gets worse. The NY Time’s description of him as “an academic” is generous at best (or perhaps just credulous). His own sister claimed that the family has no evidence he ever graduated and that he didn’t walk at the graduation ceremony that year and his name wasn’t listed in the graduation program. An analysis by another account noted that while he was a PhD student between 2021 and 2024 at Texas Tech, the only academic publication they could find by him turned into a huge scandal that got the professor he co-authored with fired. The paper was not just racist pseudoscience—it also involved lying to the NIH to get access to data. Two-fer!

That article also suggests Lasker (in that paper) lied about his supposed affiliation with the University of Minnesota. When asked about it, the University of Minnesota revealed that Lasker had been a “non-employee” “data consultant” and they had asked him not to claim an academic affiliation:

So, to summarize the Times’ sourcing: They granted anonymity to a person whose identity was already publicly known, who promotes ideas about racial hierarchy that would make a 1930s eugenicist blush, who may have lied about his academic credentials, and whose main claim to fame is getting a professor fired for publishing racist garbage research. And this seemed like a credible source to them for a story attacking a Muslim candidate of color.

What could possibly go wrong?

The Rufo Connection Makes It Even Worse

If this sounds familiar, it should. As Semafor reported, the Times rushed to publish this non-story because they were afraid of being “scooped” by Chris Rufo, the right-wing activist who has openly bragged about manipulating mainstream media to advance his culture war agenda.

The paper believed it had reason to push the story out quickly: It did not want to be scooped by the independent journalist Christopher Rufo. Two people familiar with the reporting process told Semafor that the paper was aware that other journalists were working on the admissions story, including Rufo, a conservative best known for his crusade against critical race theory.

Rufo literally announces his manipulation tactics on Twitter. He’s written about how he plans to get outlets like the Times to amplify his disingenuous and misleading campaigns. And yet, the Times still falls for it every single time, then acts surprised when people point out they’re being played.

As Jamison Foser noted months ago about this dynamic, this isn’t really about the Times being “manipulated”—it’s about the Times wanting to publish these stories and using figures like Rufo as an excuse to do what they already wanted to do.

The Times had a choice: they could have ignored this obvious non-story, or they could have served as a willing vehicle for racists and right-wing propagandists to manufacture a fake scandal. They chose the latter. And then they doubled down on it.

But here’s what kills me: they could have written a fascinating story about how a network of racist activists was trying to weaponize hacked university data that revealed nothing particularly interesting to attack a Muslim mayoral candidate. They could have exposed the whole operation. Instead, they decided to become part of it. It’s like if Woodward and Bernstein, upon discovering Watergate, had decided to focus their expose on how the security at the Watergate Hotel was top notch, with an anonymous quote from G. Gordon Liddy.

The Double Standard Is Glaring

The Times’ decision becomes even more indefensible when you consider their recent editorial choices. They refused to publish hacked materials about JD Vance during the 2024 election and declined to explain why. But when a racist hands them a hacked college application from 2009 that reveals nothing of public interest, suddenly those ethical concerns disappear.

The paper also famously decided not to endorse candidates in local elections—except when it came to Mamdani, whom they specifically urged voters not to rank at all on their ballots. Interestingly, they didn’t issue similar “please don’t vote for this person” guidance about Andrew Cuomo, the disgraced former governor who resigned over sexual harassment allegations and has been plagued with scandals from his mismanagement during the pandemic. Apparently checking the objectively accurate box on a college application is more disqualifying than a pattern of sexual misconduct and mismanagement.

Manufacturing Controversy To Justify Bad Journalism

Perhaps most galling is the Times’ response to criticism. When readers and media critics pointed out how absurd this story was, an anonymous Times source told Semafor that the controversy proved they were right to publish this:

“The fact that this story engendered all the conversation and debate that it has feels like all the evidence you need that this was a legit line of reporting,” one senior reporter told Semafor.

But that’s not how any of this works. At all. Sometimes the “conversation and debate” is about how you should have known better.

Times editor Patrick Healy also doubled down, claiming—in a lengthy rambling thread on ExTwitter—that Mamdani responding honestly to their questions about this made it into a story.

The Times then published a follow-up piece asking readers about frustrations with racial categories on forms—a transparent attempt to retroactively justify their original story by suggesting there’s some broader conversation about racial identity that needed to be had.

But there was already a conversation about racial identity. It’s been going on for centuries. The Times didn’t need to platform a racist and manufacture a fake scandal to contribute to it.

The Real Story They Missed

As Margaret Sullivan, the Times’ former public editor, noted in The Guardian, this story tells us nothing about Mamdani’s qualifications or policy positions. It’s the journalistic equivalent of spending your time investigating whether someone returned their elementary school library books on time instead of, you know, whether they’d be competent at running a city.

Traditional journalism ethics suggests that when news organizations base a story on hacked or stolen information, there should be an extra high bar of newsworthiness to justify publication. Much of Big Journalism, for example, turned their noses up at insider documents offered to them about JD Vance during last year’s presidential campaign, in part because the source was Iranian hackers; in some cases, they wrote about the hack but not the documents.

The Mamdani story, however, fell far short of the newsworthiness bar.

The real story here is how easily America’s supposed “paper of record” can be manipulated by bad actors who openly announce their manipulation tactics. It’s about how the Times’ apparent opposition to certain candidates leads them to abandon basic journalistic standards. And it’s about how the paper’s desperate desire to appear “balanced” makes them perfect marks for right-wing propagandists who understand exactly which buttons to push.

As Hell Gate put it: “The failing, bumbling New York Times” has become a vehicle for race science and manufactured outrage, all while pretending they’re just doing journalism.

So who does this put the Times in league with? Much like its coverage of trans youth, it’s helpful to look around and see who else is pushing the same line of coverage. It’s hard-right ideology laundered as legitimate journalistic inquiry. The article’s print edition on Sunday ran under the title “Mamdani Faces Scrutiny Over College Application.” From who? For what? The Times clearly doesn’t feel all that interested in answering these questions, other than its providing cover for fascistic ideologues. The Times is coordinating with people whose work is actively eroding what’s left of America’s attempts at racial equity. 

Again, it’s hard to tsk-tsk a newspaper that said it wasn’t endorsing candidates in local elections anymore, and then revised that to actually be like, “unless you’re thinking of electing a socialist, which in that case do not do that and instead vote for this sexual harasser.” Having failed spectacularly at stopping Mamdani, the Times is now unveiling its tried-and-true strategy to drum up controversy—and question the legitimacy of a person’s humanity—by doing the dirtiest of work for the worst-faith actors.

The Times owes its readers an explanation for why they thought this was a story worth telling. Why they granted anonymity to a person who promotes racial pseudoscience. Why they rushed to publish obvious non-news to avoid being “scooped” by a known manipulator. And why they continue to provide aid and comfort to people whose stated goal is to manipulate them.

But the paper has shown no inclination toward introspection. Instead, they’ve doubled down, claiming that the controversy they manufactured proves they were right to manufacture it.

In the meantime, the rest of us can learn something from this debacle: when someone tells you who they are, believe them. Chris Rufo has told us he manipulates mainstream media. Jordan Lasker has told us he believes in debunked racist pseudoscience about “racial hierarchy.” And the New York Times has told us that they’re willing to amplify both of them if it serves their editorial agenda.

We should believe them all.