My quest to detect evidence that the New York Times actually employs copy editors has arrived at success (a day late and an apology short).
TI just discovered that today this article begins with the not absurdly incorrect abstract “Five universities have agreed to pay $104.5 million to settle a lawsuit accusing them of violating an agreement to be “need-blind” when admitting students.”
Recently it began with the absurd abstract which I immedately screen captured.
Now the assertion that they promised “‘need blind'” “financial aid” does bring the word blind to mind, but I would have imagined that any copy editor of normal intelligence (or with a mild to moderate mental handicap) would have noticed that it is nonsense.
What is going on at our paper of record ?