While I cannot verify it yet, because the Spectator website does not show the opinion section at this point, I was told by the editor of the opinion section that they have printed an apology for allowing Adam Sacarny’s piece to run. What disturbs me, though, is that she wrote this:
Additionally, the ratio of pieces in favor of and against “Columbia Unbecoming” is actually representative of the letters and submissions we have been receiving (on Tuesday we are running pieces by the head of the David Project and by Bari Weiss, both in favor of the documentary). I did not print your letter because I had just printed one in the previous issue with two of the same co-authors, and because the letter did not respond to content — it merely expressed support for Professor Massad.
First of all, the idea that letters or op-eds need to be proportional–that is absurd. That allows a tyranny of the majority, which is exactly what a free press is supposed to counter. Second, the letter we wrote was directly in response to the email sent by Moshe Rubin and quoted in the Spectator, and a new version of it was sent a week after the Spectator printed the letter by LionPAC–signed by only one of the co-signers on the letter I sent in. The way that both of these justifications are written, I am still not convinced that the Spectator isn’t being “very careful” about how they deal with MEALAC. Or, let me rephrase that: it is becoming ever clearer that the Spectator are not the watchdog one would hope they would be as an independent publication, but are rather MEALAC’s lapdog.