Sadly, Bari Weiss, one of the last sane and rational writers in the New York Times opinion section, has resigned from the paper.

However, her resignation letter to NYT publisher A.G. Sulzberger leaves zero doubt as to why she is leaving. It isn’t a secret that Bari Weiss, who is center-left, was routinely bullied by other, supposedly “liberal” and “tolerant” writers at the paper. When editor James Barrett was ousted over the publishing of Senator Tom Cotton’s editorial, Weiss commented that the battle for the newspaper had broken out into the open – and that incensed those who would be the cancellors.

The civil war inside The New York Times between the (mostly young) wokes the (mostly 40+) liberals is the same one raging inside other publications and companies across the country. The dynamic is always the same. (Thread.)

— Bari Weiss (@bariweiss) June 4, 2020

The entire thread is worth the read, because it precisely explains what was happening. Well, in an internal meeting – which, surprise!, was leaked out – the “woke” staffers wanted Weiss’s job because she “badmouthed” them.

Today, Bari Weiss published her resignation letter on her website.

She proves two things:
1) The New York Times is blithely committing suicide in the name of “social justice,” and
2) She is a damn good writer.

Twitter is not on the masthead of The New York Times. But Twitter has become its ultimate editor. As the ethics and mores of that platform have become those of the paper, the paper itself has increasingly become a kind of performance space. Stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences, rather than to allow a curious public to read about the world and then draw their own conclusions. I was always taught that journalists were charged with writing the first rough draft of history. Now, history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”

We know the above is true, because the NYT tacitly admitted they did not want to cover attacks on the Jewish community in New York by young black men, because the narrative must be preserved. And when they did, they blamed “gentrification” by the Jewish community as the excuse. How many more “inconvenient” stories have been pushed aside in favor of the preferred narrative? We already know that one Tom Cotton op-ed piece was able to cause an outright revolt in the ranks. Now, imagine working in that environment, day after day.

Bari Weiss did, and she lets Sulzberger – and the public – know what it was like.

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.”

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.”

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.”

If I were a lawyer, I’d be emailing or DM’ing Bari Weiss right about now, asking if she wants to sue the Times, and just how many receipts did she keep from those company-wide Slack channels? Also, all the employees of the NYT are probably looking over their past comments on those same Slack channels to see if they could have been possibly screenshot. How comfortable do you think they feel right now, not knowing if their written words are being saved somewhere to use against their employer for harassment? And how about those “masthead editors,” huh?

The important dimension of this letter is that it goes beyond asking for freedom of thought and points out that this revolution is being accomplished by treachery and harassment, while the adults in the room break their promises. https://t.co/X4SRpCnYIf

— Michael Brendan Dougherty (@michaelbd) July 14, 2020

But the real truth bomb lies in this paragraph (though everyone should read the entire letter).

What rules that remain at The Times are applied with extreme selectivity. If a person’s ideology is in keeping with the new orthodoxy, they and their work remain unscrutinized. Everyone else lives in fear of the digital thunderdome. Online venom is excused so long as it is directed at the proper targets.”

And this is how Nikole Hannah-Jones won a Pulitzer for her error-ridden “1619 Project,” why James Bennett was fired, and why the college radicals who once took over their campus newspapers now feel like they can turn the Old Grey Lady of record into the New “Woke” Times. They are the gatekeepers of the narrative, and they will frame, bend, ignore, bully, and deceive in order to preserve their narrative.

The Nikole Hannah-Jones wing of the NYT staff is probably cheering and patting themselves on the back today for claiming the scalp of Bari Weiss (oh, wait, they probably wouldn’t have said anything like that because it would be offensive to Native Americans). They are congratulating themselves for the “purification” of the paper, getting those terrible subversive ideas off the pages of the NYT and her unclean presence off their Slack channel. There must be inclusivity and purity of thought and ideals here! Maybe someone is cheering on that Slack channel. It should probably start with a “heil,” but we all know that they can’t see the irony in that.

Featured image via Pixabay, cropped, Pixabay license