I know you’re sick of him, but can you stand one more analysis of Jayson Blair?

For those of you who have spent the last three weeks in a sensory deprivation tank: Blair is black, 27 years old, and was a reporter for The New York Times until it was discovered that he had lied and plagiarized his way through dozens of articles. Now he is the most reviled man in American journalism.

Some critics have claimed that this is what you get from “diversity,” that newspapers have been forced to lower their standards in order to hire unqualified blacks and other minorities. No, seriously, that’s what some fairly reputable observers have said.

A few days ago, in a rambling interview with The New York Observer, Blair offered this equally offensive take: Racism made him do it. Or, at the very least, racism was a factor in his decision to do it.

“Anyone who tells you that my race didn’t play a role in my career at The New York Times is lying to you,” says Blair. “Both racial preferences and racism played a role. And I would argue that they didn’t balance each other out. Racism had much more of an impact.”

He shared no anecdotes or evidence that might give a clue what form the supposed racism took. Still, it’s difficult to imagine he encountered some new species of bigotry during his four years at The Times that black folks in other newsrooms and professional environments have never experienced.

Yet, for all their frustrations, most of those folks don’t decide to violate the basic tenets of their profession. Indeed, most of them continue to do their jobs to the best of their abilities.

Blair’s other mewling rationalizations — that he was dependent on drugs and alcohol, that he was too young for such a high-pressure job — are similarly unconvincing. Like his cries of racism, they can only explain why he found the environment difficult, not why he chose to lie, cheat and betray.

I didn’t think it was possible for me to have less respect for Jayson Blair. I was wrong.

But then, I get vexed any time anybody uses racism as a lazy excuse. Because the fact is, there are racial issues of pressing importance out there that demand attention. Many Americans resist giving that attention under the best of circumstances, resentful of being prodded to deal with things that challenge their complacency.

Now Blair comes along, crying wolf. And it becomes that much easier for resistance to harden into refusal.

I doubt he gets it. I doubt he gets a lot of things. In the Observer interview, Blair seems a supremely self-absorbed individual. He is amused that he was able to get away with so much for so long. He calls his editors “idiots.”

Blair comes across as a man of oblivious arrogance and astonishing immaturity. Which leads me to think he did what he did mainly because he wanted to. Because it made him feel clever.

At one point, Blair compares his treatment with that of Stephen Glass, a white reporter who worked for The New Republic until he was discovered to be writing fiction under the guise of fact. “I don’t understand,” says Blair, “why I am the bumbling affirmative-action hire when Stephen Glass is this brilliant whiz kid, when from my perspective — and I know I shouldn’t be saying this — I fooled some of the most brilliant people in journalism.”

It’s one of the few trenchant points he makes and yet even here, what comes across is not so much the inequity of his treatment as his indignation that his genius has gone unrecognized. This angry little man feels that he is too cool for the room and it bothers him that so few people recognize it.

You should know that Blair is already shopping a book proposal, apparently hoping to leverage his infamy into a check with many zeroes. Some observers will find the idea of his cashing in on his misdeeds unbearably sleazy, but maybe they shouldn’t judge the young man too harshly.

Maybe racism made him do that, too.