Safire: Discrimination Expert?

To the New York Times Magazine editor:

In Sunday's New York Times Magazine, William Safire takes time out to render a judgment on whether or not the term "urchin" is offensive. Safire says it is not.

I don't have an opinion on how suitable the term "urchin" is for polite conversation about African adoptions, though I suspect that Dickensian children are not a protected class in the eyes of contemporary law.

But I do have my doubts that William Safire of all people is qualified to render judgments in such matters. He's a former Nixon speechwriter for god's sake. And he's staunchly opposed to the bulk of the contemporary civil rights agenda, from affirmative action to redistributive taxation to any given social justice effort. But because he's made a second career out of rendering grammatical judgments, Safire gets to make judgments on offensiveness as well?

And so clearly he lays down his decision:

"The word is neither racist nor sexist."

Again, Safire gets to decide this? How about we let those being described as "urchins" (and those close to them) decide? A descriptive view of the vocabulary of taking offense is far preferable to a proscriptive view--no matter what your take on the grammar of Standard Written English.

In any case, I hope the urchins of the world have protectors of more repute than William Safire to look after them.