The embattled New York Times refused to publish a piece written by columnist Bret Stephens because it was critical of the paper's leadership, but the New York Post obtained the column and published it in full on Thursday.
Stephens planned on bashing the paper’s handling of recently ousted Times reporter Donald McNeil Jr., who announced his resignation on Friday after he was accused of using the "n-word" while leading a student trip in Peru. McNeil explained the context of the slur in his resignation letter, sparking a heated clash among Times staffers when he claimed he said it during a conversation about someone else’s use of the word. Stephens’ attempt to publish his thoughts on the internal spat was rejected by Times opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury.
Stephens reportedly claimed that Kingsbury's boss, publisher A.G. Sulzberger, "killed" his column from being published, which had been circulated among Times staffers. One of the staffers apparently leaked the column to the Post, which was published with the headline: "Read the column the New York Times didn’t want you to read."
The Post noted that it did not obtain the story from Stephens himself.
NEW YORK TIMES REFUSES TO RUN BRET STEPHENS COLUMN CRITICAL OF PAPER'S LEADERSHIP
"Every serious moral philosophy, every decent legal system and every ethical organization cares deeply about intention," Stephens began the op-ed, according to the Post. "It is the difference between murder and manslaughter. It is an aggravating or extenuating factor in judicial settings. It is a cardinal consideration in pardons... It’s an elementary aspect of parenting, friendship, courtship and marriage."
Stephens declared, "A hallmark of injustice is indifference to intention," which seemed to allude to Times executive editor Dean Baquet's shifting stance on intent after it was reported that McNeil used the "n-word" but the slur was uttered during a discussion about the word itself.
"We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent," Baquet and managing editor Joe Kahn had said before walking the comment back on Thursday during a staff meeting. "Of course intent matters," Baquet later told employees.
"This is not a column about the particulars of McNeil’s case. Nor is it an argument that the racial slur in question doesn’t have a uniquely ugly history and an extraordinary capacity to wound. This is an argument about three words: 'Regardless of intent,'" Stephens reacted, according to the Post. "Should intent be the only thing that counts in judgment? Obviously not. Can people do painful, harmful, stupid or objectionable things regardless of intent? Obviously. Do any of us want to live in a world, or work in a field, where intent is categorically ruled out as a mitigating factor? I hope not."
Donald McNeil was the New York Times' longtime science reporter and was one of the star journalists covering the coronavirus pandemic.
The Times columnist stressed that intent is a cornerstone of journalism and pointed to a quote from Republican strategist Lee Atwater that also uses the "n-word" but in the proper context, something that, according to Stephens, The Times has printed in its paper "at least seven times," and compared the slur to its censored alternative that is gently written.
"Is this now supposed to be a scandal? Would the ugliness of Atwater’s meaning have been equally clearer by writing 'n—, n—, n—'?" Stephens asked. "A journalism that turns words into totems — and totems into fears — is an impediment to clear thinking and proper understanding. So too is a journalism that attempts to proscribe entire fields of expression. 'Racist language' is not just about a single infamous word. It’s a broad, changing, contestable category... The idea is absurd. But that’s the terrain we now risk entering."
"We are living in a period of competing moral certitudes, of people who are awfully sure they’re right and fully prepared to be awful about it. Hence the culture of cancellations, firings, public humiliations and increasingly unforgiving judgments. The role of good journalism should be to lead us out of this dark defile. Last week, we went deeper into it," Stephens concluded, according to the Post.
The Times did not immediately respond to Fox News' request for comment regarding the publishing of Stephens' column in the Post.
Kingsbury previously told Fox News: "I have an especially high bar of running any column that could reflect badly on a colleague and I didn’t feel that this piece rose to that level."
Kingsbury said she made the decision to spike the column because she believed Baquet planned on walking back his initial claim that the paper would not tolerate racist language "regardless of intent," which caused a divide among employees.
Kingsbury was apparently aware that Baquet planned to clarify his stance -- which he did.
"In our zeal to make a powerful statement about our workplace culture, we ham-handedly said something you rightfully saw as an oversimplification of one of the most difficult issues of our lives. It was a deadline mistake and I regret it," Baquet told Times staffers.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
"Of course intent matters when we are talking about language in journalism. The author and his purpose also matter, the moment matters. The slur we’ve been discussing is a vile one. I’ve been called it. But it appears in our pages and it will no doubt appear in our pages again," he continued. "It should not be used for effect. It comes with a grim history and it’s a blow to the gut … each use should be put to the test. That’s why we have a style book. But the main thing is of course intent matters."
McNeil, 67, was the Times' longtime science reporter and was one of the star journalists covering the coronavirus pandemic. He had worked for the Gray Lady since 1976.
Fox News' Brian Flood contributed to this report.
Get all the stories you need-to-know from the most powerful name in news delivered first thing every morning to your inbox