The New York Times is reeling in embarrassment this week because, in its zeal to achieve "diversity," it turned a blind eye to the prolific mistakes of a young journalist.

The so-called "newspaper of record" yesterday devoted some 7,000 words to an investigation of reporter Jayson Blair's four-year career with the Times. It is a remarkable story. It is clear the 27-year-old black reporter, hired as part of a program to promote diversity on the editorial staff, began his career with the paper by faking an interview with the mayor of Washington, D.C.

Despite numerous warnings by editors about inaccuracies, suspected plagiarism and general sloppiness in Blair's work, he was promoted from a city reporter to the national desk, given some of the biggest stories to cover and finally self-destructed with a well-documented wave of fictionalized reporting that would make Janet Cooke blush.

The New York Times hasn't learned its lesson, though. Sure the paper is humiliated by the mistakes. But it refuses to acknowledge what is obvious to even the most casual outside observer: The Times asked for this trouble. It invited this embarrassment. It courted it by making "diversity" a higher ideal than accuracy or good journalism.

Here's the proof. Here's the smoking gun.

In 2001, Howell Raines, executive editor of the New York Times, spoke to the convention of the National Association of Black Journalists. In his remarks, he specifically mentioned his young prodigy, Jayson Blair, as the kind of diversity prize the Times was seeking.

"This campaign has made our staff better and, more importantly, more diverse," Raines said.

Asked by National Public Radio if he learned anything from the Jayson Blair scandal that might force him to rethink "diversity" as a higher ideal than a better staff, Raines said: "No, I do not see it as an illustrating point. I see it as illustrating a tragedy for Jayson Blair, that here was a person who under the conditions in which other journalists perform adequately decided to fabricate information and mislead colleagues. And it is – you know, I don't want to demonize Jayson, but this is a tragedy of failure on his part."

Of course it is a failure by a young reporter. But the Times' own investigation reveals it did not heed the warning signs, it did not pay attention to poor performance reviews by editors and it did not scrutinize his high track record of mistakes needing published corrections. Instead, despite a plea by the metropolitan editor to top editors to fire Blair, he was promoted.

That's the way the diversity game goes.

When diversity is a higher ideal than accurate journalism, than better staff, than credibility, a news organization is going to be burned.

The New York Times – at least publicly – shows no signs of ending its crusade for diversity at all costs. It hasn't learned its lesson.

"The sad fact is that the Times would not have retained Mr. Blair if he were a middle-aged Caucasian reporter who accumulated 50 corrections in four years," said William McGowan, author of "Coloring the News: How Political Correctness Has Corrupted American Journalism." "Blair's violations reflect a profound contempt for his editors, for his readers and for the concept of journalistic trust."

Not surprisingly, the New York Times has never even bothered to review McGowan's book.

The Times continues to contribute heavily to the National Association of Black Journalists. It is more than a club for reporters and editors of African-American background. Think of it as a media lobbying group that makes a profound impact not only on the hiring practices of the Big Media, but on the way newspapers and other news organizations cover stories.

I'm all for diversity. I've hired more than my share of minority journalists in my long career as an editor. I do believe it is important to have a staff that reflects the demographics of the community you cover.

But the only kind of diversity that really means anything in the news business is philosophical diversity – bringing together a staff that doesn't necessarily think exactly alike. The New York Times and the rest of the Big Media have shown little or no interest in working toward that ideal.

And that's why the paper today is suffering from its biggest public humiliation in history.

If you'd like to sound off on this issue, please take part in the WorldNetDaily poll.