In 1998, the voters of Washington state emphatically rejected racial preferences in college admissions as a way to attain a diverse student body.

Last year, the Legislature passed a law that will go a long way toward achieving the same goal, but it wasn’t the subject of acrimonious debates about “reverse discrimination,” even though it does extend special treatment.

That’s because the preference is based on class, instead of race.

The College-Bound Scholarship targets middle-school students from low-income families. In 2006, that meant an annual household income of $38,000 for a family of four.

All others need not apply.

The result is that more minority students will be able to attend college, because they’re overrepresented in low-income households. And the reason for that is what gave rise to affirmative action in the first place.

But instead of getting into that argument, let’s just be glad that a similar result will be achieved in a more harmonious fashion.

Not fit to print. Why couldn’t they wait? That’s what I wonder about the editors after reading the New York Times’ article on U.S. Sen. John McCain possibly getting too close to an attractive female lobbyist eight years ago.

With the poorly reported articles on Iraq’s nuclear-weapons capabilities in the recent past, you would think the Times would’ve taken more care with a story that could blow up in its face. The prospects of publishing an article about an anti-corruption candidate sleeping with a lobbyist and then doing favors for her clients is obviously tantalizing. But the closest we get to proof of an affair is that a couple of campaign aides back then were worried that it might be occurring. The editors must’ve known that readers would react to that with, “Well, was he literally in bed with a lobbyist?”

Apparently, the Times doesn’t know. So in place of evidence, the article embarked on a long journey back to The Keating Five scandal and McCain’s self-described conversion as a reformer bent on cleaning up Washington, D.C. But, come on, with that picture of the lobbyist in the gold party dress, is it unreasonable to expect that the article would return to the juicy details?

Sure, there’s the part where McCain looks hypocritical for taking flights on corporate jets and placing calls to a federal agency, but this is not a blockbuster story without sex and favoritism hooking up.

This election was shaping up as a refreshing contest relatively free from low-grade distractions, so it’s disappointing that the Times would lob the first stink bomb. If it can’t clear the air soon, its reputation – not McCain’s – will be damaged.