The NYT deep-sixes columnist Pamela Paul

I am pretty sure I predicted this, though I’m not going to trawl back through my posts to see for sure. Pamela Paul is a heterodox op-ed writer at the New York Times, tackling topics that you wouldn’t expect to see of a regular columnist save established “house conservatives” like Ross Douthat. But Paul wasn’t a designated “conservative writer.” She was a liber and was, for nine years, the editor of the NYT Book Review. I presume she was recruited to the op-ed section for both her writing ability and her depth of analysis. And she chose to take on controversial topics—apparently with a slant not to the paper’s liking.

And I bet they got someone whose work they didn’t expect.  Here are some of her columns, shown just as screenshots. And these are just within the last year!

Of course she got pushback, though what came from inside the paper we don’t know (I bet it was of the nature that Bari Weiss got). Below we see a piece from The Hub arguing that Paul had no right to write about “scholasticide” or to point out that Gaza’s universities were assaulted by the IDF because they sat atop Hamas tunnels, had plenty of weapons inside, and because students were even taught to manufacture weapons. How dare she point that out? Look at the patronizing title by this misguided defender of terrorism who decries Israel’s “US-sponsored genocide.” “Do better,” my tuchas!

The columns above show her defending Israel, going after religion, criticizing the iconic Ta-Nehisi Coates, and, above all, criticizing gender-affirming care, writing about “desisters,” and—the ultimate blasphemy—defending J. K. Rowling! Heresy!

Is it any surprise that an elite white writer, with no protection of minority status, was given the pink slip? Although the NYT gives an unconvincing denial below, I don’t believe it for a minute. Paul wrote with passion, panache, and, above all, sensibility (read the Rowling column).  And the NYT can’t have its “progressive” leftism criticized, not by a white liberal writer.  So they parted ways.  I predicted they’d deep-six her, but hoped against hope they wouldn’t. They did.

Read about it in the New York Magazine column below (archived here).

The piece (my bolding):

The New York Times Opinion section is negotiating the exit of columnist Pamela Paul, according to multiple sources familiar with the matter. Her impending departure is part of a handful of job cuts being made at the section. Last month, Paul Krugman, the Nobel Prize-winning economist who had been a part of Opinion since 2000, announced to much fanfare that he was leaving. Paul was made an Opinion columnist in 2022 after nearly a decade running the Book Review.

Her ouster is sure to raise eyebrows both within and outside the Times. The Opinion section has been the site of the paper’s fiercest culture war battles in recent years, most famously leading to the firing of editor James Bennet in 2020 over an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton calling for the deployment of troops during the George Floyd protests. Since then, under Opinion editor Kathleen Kingsbury, management at the Times has labored mightily to show that it is open to a diversity of thought, an effort that appeared to be spearheaded by Paul, who has taken on challenging, contentious topics such as gender-affirming youth care.

Paul is admired by some of her colleagues for her willingness to buck liberal-left conventional wisdom. She has written a defense of J.K. Rowling and scrutinized the MeToo movement for overreach, while a recent column criticized the American Historical Society’s vote to condemn the ongoing “scholasticide” in Gaza. But others have said she does little more than produce rage bait, with what one Times staffer referred to as “intellectually lazy” positions. “It is a rarity inside the Times for someone to manage to make enemies on every desk they touch; Pamela is indeed a rarity,” one newsroom employee said. “She should have spent time making allies if she was going to be as divisive a figure as she was internally. But she didn’t put the time in there, or at least did not have the interest.”

I’m told, however, that Opinion’s decision to part ways with her is not because of her ideological positions. Kingsbury said, “We don’t discuss personnel matters, but any insinuation I make staffing or editorial decisions based solely on political viewpoints is false.”

Look at that weaselly explanation: she was not let go “based solely on political viewpoints.”  Well, what about IN PART for political viewpoints?

Of course the NYT won’t clarify this further, but the “in part” bit tells the tale. I loved Paul’s columns (she was supposed to be at our USC Ideology in Science conference, but somehow didn’t show up), and grew to like her as a person through her writing. Now she’s gone.  What anodyne “progressive” writer will they replace her with. Some dispenser of religious bromides like Tish Harrison Warren, whose departure was something to celebrate?

h/t: Jez