In their eagerness to make the case that *The New York Times* has become a tool of the radical left, conservatives have made a habit of highlighting a growing list of prominent op-eds that the paper’s editors have refused to publish.
Their latest cause célèbre is a piece by a conservative law professor at the University of California, Berkeley named John Yoo. Yoo sent his op-ed to the *Times* on May 3 and was told that it would not be published. Josh Barro, a former *Times* reporter who is now a prominent blogger, reported on the decision in a lengthy Twitter thread last week, slamming it as part of a “pattern of refusals by the *Times* to publish conservative views.”
But Yoo’s op-ed, which was published in full on Wednesday by the *New York Post*, may have made the paper look foolish. It was more a piece of historical analysis than an opinion column, and it provided a level of context and nuance that is often lacking in the paper’s news coverage of abortion.
The crux of Yoo’s argument was that Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court’s landmark 1973 decision that legalized abortion, was based on an “unwritten right” to privacy that was unique to the 20th century. He argued that the Court’s conservative justices will likely overturn Roe because they “see no historical tradition of a right to abortion.”
This is a contentious argument, but it is one that deserves to be aired in the *Times*. It is a view that is held by many legal scholars, and it is one that has been gaining traction in recent years. The *Times*’s decision not to publish Yoo’s op-ed may have done more to make the paper look like a partisan mouthpiece than anything Yoo could have written.
The paper’s refusal to publish Yoo’s op-ed is even more puzzling given that the *Times* has published a number of pieces in recent months that have been critical of the conservative legal movement. In March, the paper published an op-ed by the law professor Jonathan Turley arguing that the conservative justices on the Supreme Court were “leading us down the road to tyranny.” And in April, the paper published an op-ed by the former federal judge Michael Mukasey arguing that the conservative justices were “making America less free.”
By refusing to publish Yoo’s op-ed, the *Times* has sent the message that it is not interested in publishing a diversity of views on the issue of abortion. This is a mistake. The paper’s readers deserve to hear from a variety of perspectives on this important issue, and the paper’s refusal to do so is a disservice to its readers.
The *Times*’s decision is also a missed opportunity. Yoo’s op-ed was more than just a partisan screed. It was a piece of serious scholarship that provided a unique perspective on the abortion debate. The paper’s readers would have benefited from reading it, and the paper’s reputation would have been enhanced by publishing it.
The *Times*’s decision to refuse to publish Yoo’s op-ed is a blow to free speech and a disservice to its readers. The paper should reconsider its decision and publish Yoo’s op-ed in full..
