Times pushed ahead to avoid being scooped on Mamdani Columbia story

Over the weekend, the Times’ story has been the subject of heated debate and intense external criticism from Mamdani supporters and some media critics.

Some critics defended Mamdani’s decision to identify on the admissions form as African American, noting that he was born in Africa. Others questioned why the Times would publish an entire piece based on leaked details of a teenager’s rejected college application. But much of the criticism focused on one of the paper’s sources, an pseudonymous academic on Twitter whose views on affirmative action and race and IQ have faced intense criticism.

The piece also seemed to divide staff, and reignited years-old internal tensions between some younger, more left-leaning members of staff and management.

“People are really upset,” one Times journalist told Semafor.

In a series of posts on Bluesky, Times columnist Jamelle Bouie said, “i think you should tell readers if your source is a nazi.” On Friday, he deleted his posts, saying they violated the Times’ social media guidelines. Bouie also deleted subsequent posts on Sunday that also seemed to express frustration at the Times’ decision to publish the story, and shared a post that said “NYT & many of its elite white readers are still obsessed with race-conscious college admissions.”

The paper would not comment on whether it had compelled Bouie to delete the posts.

Times columnist Lydia Polgreen did not comment on whether the story was newsworthy, but wrote that as a biracial person with African parents, she easily understood why Mamdani checked a box on his college admissions form identifying as Black or African American.

“I can see why a political young man like Zohran might fill out his college application the way he did,” she wrote on Twitter. “Because if you are like me, you struggle to be known in this country. Our visual sorting is so simplistic and quite brutal.”

Despite some public criticism and internal grumbling, the paper’s leadership has continued to back the piece.

One person familiar with the editorial process noted that the Times’ senior editors were aligned on whether to publish the piece, which was read and greenlit by multiple top editors before its publication. Others on staff that spoke with Semafor on the condition of anonymity said the reaction to the piece showed why it was important to tackle it.

“The fact that this story engendered all the conversation and debate that it has feels like all the evidence you need that this was a legit line of reporting,” one senior reporter told Semafor.