Fired NYT reporter discusses false accusations, mistreatment by paper

The saga began when an article about McNeil was published in The Daily Beast detailing allegations that he made racist remarks while on a student trip to Peru which was hosted by the Times. McNeil was accused of using the N-word, defending blackface, and denying the existence of white privilege and systemic racism.

According to McNeil, The Daily Beast reached out to him for comment prior to publishing their story, but the Times did not let him respond. "[The associate managing editor for employee relations] instructed me to say nothing in reply, to not take any reporters' phone calls, to just let Corporate Communications handle it."

Despite being told not to respond, McNeil wrote a reply as the Times correctly believed that it could turn into a big story. In the reply McNeil authored, he explained that while he did use the N-word, the context in which he used it matters. He also denied the other allegations made against him.

According to McNeil, he had used the N-word in response to a question posed by a student.

"A student asked me if I thought her high school’s administration was right to suspend a classmate of hers for using the word in a video she’d made in eighth grade," McNeil wrote. "I said 'Did she actually call someone a ['offending word?'] Or was she singing a rap song or quoting a book title or something?"

McNeil said he would be willing to apologize for using the slur, but felt insistent on clarifying that he did not use it in a "wildly racist and offensive way."

When asked if he believed in systemic racism, McNeil explained that his response was along the lines of "[yeah], of course, but tell me which system we’re talking about." He said that he was never asked about the existence of white privilege.

As for the accusation that he defended blackface, McNeil explained that context matters, and he was defending the use of it by coloured people in South Africa. "So what do you say to them? Is it up to you, a white American, to tell black South Africans what is and isn’t their culture?" McNeil asked a student on the trip.

McNeil discussed the initial disciplinary action taken against him for the trip to Peru over a year before the story in The Daily Beast was published. Aside from the complains made in the Beast's article, McNeil was also accused of making fun of shamans, being overly hostile to or dismissive of the opinions of students on the trip, making inappropriate comments, making jokes about Jewish mothers and doctors, among other complaints.

He was ultimately barred from attending future trips to Peru with the paper, but that was the extent of the disciplinary action taken against him at the time.

The Times rejected McNeil's proposed response, telling him that he should simply apologize and move on. "My comments were offensive and I should not have made them, and I apologize," they suggested he write.

McNeil did not like the idea, arguing that he "felt that was tantamount to admitting that the Beast story was accurate," as he believed it made him out to be a racist when he is not. "If I can't give the context I offered, I'd prefer to say nothing," he said.

The story ended up being published without comment from McNeil, immediately sparking controversy at the Times. Pressure began mounting within the paper for McNeil to be disciplined.

The Times still wanted McNeil to issue a public statement, but continued to reject his desire to respond to the accusations in full.

The next day, McNeil was told that he had "lost the newsroom."

"People are hurt. People are saying they won’t work with you because you didn’t apologize," Dean Baquet, the paper's executive editor, told him.

"[You've] lost the newsroom. A lot of your colleagues are hurt. A lot of them won't work with you. Thank you for writing the apology. But we’d like you to consider adding to it that you're leaving."

The demand for him to leave the paper came in spite of the fact that he had already been disciplined well over a year ago for what took place in Peru.

McNeil asked since when the newsroom gets to decide who they work with. He was told that other complaints were made against him, but when he inquired into what those were, he received no response. "[It] felt like an attempt to intimidate me," McNeil said.

At this point, McNeil began to lawyer up.

However, it was too late. Even if he did not get fired, McNeil would have been moved to a dead-end position within the paper until he decided to quit on his own, an action which is typical of employers who want to get rid of an employee without good cause.

A few days later, McNeil allowed the Times to announce his resignation from the paper.

"We do not tolerate racist language regardless of intent," the Times wrote.

McNeil appears to believe that his dismissal from the paper had to do with previous conflicts he had with management over union benefits after one of his emails regarding the dispute was leaked. "Since then... it has felt as if I'm constantly getting in trouble," McNeil said.

The New York Times has not yet commented on McNeil's position regarding the story.