Die-hard defenders of that offensive Times headline might make the following argument: Though it's true you would never call black U.S. citizens "Africans in U.S." or Caucasian U.S. citizens "Europeans in U.S.," that's because in those cases alternative terminology is available: "black" and "Caucasian," respectively. In the case of Asian-Americans, there is no comparable ethnic term. So, if you want to describe members of the Asian ethnicity who live in the United States, you have to say "Asians in U.S."

There are three problems with this argument.

The first--somewhat technical--problem is that "Asian" is not the term used by anthropologists to encompass the ethnicity indigenous to East Asia, Southeast Asia, Indonesia, and so on. "Mongoloid" is. (Not a headline writer's dream, I admit.)

Second, even if I granted that "Asians" and "blacks" are comparable terms, the fact is that we generally say "U.S. blacks," not "blacks in U.S." And the only reason it's even tolerable to say "blacks in U.S." is because the term doesn't misleadingly suggest--as would "Africans in U.S.," and as does "Asians in U.S."--that we're talking about outsiders.

Finally, even if I granted that "Asians in U.S." is the only way to describe people of Asian ethnicity who are within U.S. borders, the Times headline would still be wrong. Because the DNC memo wasn't talking about people of Asian ethnicity who are within U.S. borders--it was talking about a subset of that group: Asian-Americans.

There's no denying that those skinny Times columns make it hard to write good headlines. But there's also no denying that this particular headline was wrong, and wrong in a very consequential way.