Media Taboo on Affirmative‑Action Tradeoffs

Some elite outlets routinely label discussion of harms or tradeoffs from affirmative‑action policies as a delusional or discredited 'concept' rather than engaging the empirical claims; that editorial frame delegitimizes opposing evidence and channels public debate into moral denunciation instead of comparative policy analysis. The practice shapes administrative enforcement (EEOC complaints), legal strategies, and voter perceptions about fairness. — If major news organisations habitually mark contested policy tradeoffs as taboo, they can mute legitimate empirical inquiry and distort democratic policymaking on race, admissions and employment.