Writers complaining that Bari asked them to think outside the box is such an incredible self-own that I'm excited to see what else this very young day has in store.

It's clear from all this that a lot of ppl who work in, or consume a lot of, journalism don't understand how journalism works. Case in point: all the folks who were comparing Bari yesterday to, say, Ross Douthat do not seem to understand they have *very* different jobs.

Ross is a columnist at the NYT (one of the best on the planet, unquestionably). Bari was an editor at the NYT. Ppl kept treating Bari as if she were solely a columnist because twitter is a place where ppl advertise their ignorance. But the difference is actually really important.

A token heterodox writer is not what changes anything at an institution. Putting Bari in there as an editor with influence over what actually gets published and what *other writers write* suggested a possible serious openness to diversity at the NYT.

Now we know that that openness to diversity does not exist in any meaningful way. But Bari's hire was a gesture at diversity in a way that Douthat's columns never can or will be. Ppl on here keep referring to her as a columnist whose main significance was her own words. Nonsense.

And you saw it with that tweet of the writer complaining that Bari tried to make her think. To those making the comparison, would you be comfortable with Ross Douthat having gatekeeper responsibilities at the NYT opinion? Do you even know what you're saying? You do not.

What ppl wanted from Bari was precisely the tokenism they love about Ross or Brooks. They wanted her ghettoized and powerless, an avatar of opinions and people they hate. They wanted her to sit there quietly in a zoo cage.

But the thing is, Bari is a fantastic editor. Far more experienced and wiser than her critics, they resented her status. She was happy to mentor them, but they would first have to treat her as equally worthy of participating in society as they, and that was a nonstarter for them.