The Washington PostDemocracy Dies in Darkness

New York Times signs contract writer Razib Khan, then dumps him

Here’s the upside of signing 20 new opinion writers in a single strategic move: You make a big splash.

Here’s the downside of signing 20 new opinion writers in a single strategic move: That’s a lot of people to vet.

In a statement released by spokeswoman Eileen Murphy this morning, the New York Times has signaled that it is severing its recently inked relationship with Razib Khan:

After reviewing the full body of Razib Khan’s work, we are no longer comfortable using him as a regular, periodic contributor. We remain open to consideration of submissions from him to our op-Ed pages, both in print and online.

Khan was among the crew of writers that New York Times editorial page editor Andrew Rosenthal brought on board to spice up the paper’s op-ed and Sunday Review offerings. He was ID’d as a “a science blogger, a programmer and a doctoral candidate in genomics and genetics at the University of California, Davis.”

“We were looking for a broad range of viewpoints and subjects and backgrounds and geographical locations and every kind of form of diversity that you can think of,” Rosenthal told Capital New York’s Jeremy Barr. Signees include Michael Eric Dyson, Judith Shulevitz, Roxane Gay and many others. The contracts are short-term arrangements and the idea is to have each contributor write about once a month.

With their already established opining bona fides, the contributors all had an Internet footprint. Slate’s Jamelle Bouie looked into Khan’s and tweeted out some results:

Gawker’s J.K. Trotter mined the archives, finding that Khan had made contributions to Web sites that peddle racist viewpoints. Though the New York Times’s statement didn’t specify precisely what issues it found with Khan’s “full body” of work, Khan has waded into territory like this:

If by “intelligence” once means analytic reasoning skills, it seems that the Northeast Asians – Chinese, Japanese, and Koreans — are somewhat more intelligent than the white norm. (I believe the I.Q. difference is generally listed as somewhere between 2-8 points, depending on the study). Most of the evidence also seems to point to New World Indians` scoring slightly below whites. Thus, Mestizos (white-Indian mixes) would have slightly lower IQs than whites, while Eurasians (white-East Asian crosses) would have slightly higher IQs. The correlation between the increasing blondeness of high I.Q. Eurasians would be somewhat mitigated if the less intelligent Eurasian men happened to import intelligent East Asian women to make up for their competitive disadvantage on the marriage market, while the more intelligent Eurasians would marry less intelligent blondes (i.e., European derived females). The key is how much more intelligent the high status Eurasian males are, and how much more intelligent Asian females are vs. European females

The curious part of the Times’s statement is that the newspaper is offended enough to kill Khan’s contributor arrangement but not enough to declare him off-limits altogether. We’re seeking comment from Khan, who tweeted last night: