Over at the conservative blog RedState, diarist Leon Wolf notes that in a 2003 interview, the National Review’s resident racist John Derbyshire proudly proclaimed his lack of tolerance for African-Americans:
I am not very careful about what I say, having grown up in the era before Political Correctness, and never having internalized the necessary restraints. I am a homophobe, though a mild and tolerant one, and a racist, though an even more mild and tolerant one, and those things are going to be illegal pretty soon, the way we are going.
The National Review has tried to distance itself from Derbyshire’s views, but the magazine has gone silent on whether it will take any action. As Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates writes to National Review: “’Derb’ told you what he was in 2003. And National Review continued to employ him. That’s who they are.”
RedState’s Wolf states, “[Derbyshire] is not, as his defenders at the execrable Taki mag say, confronting the world with uncomfortable truths, he is proudly declaring himself to be a racist and arguing that it is correct to be racist.” Thus, says Wolf, “The longer this drags on without a definitive severing of the relationship, the more damage will be done to National Review. I cannot imagine what sort of deliberation is required to make this decision, but I hope, for National Review’s sake, that it can be completed before the weekend is over.”
At the Daily Caller, conservative pundit Matt Lewis writes, “In one fell swoop (actually, Derbyshire has a history of flirting with this sort of thing, but it has finally caught up with him), he has done more harm to the conservative cause than any liberal ever could. … I believe in free speech — especially unpopular speech. But that doesn’t mean National Review has to subsidize it.”