Historians Rip Into The New York Times After It Refuses To Address Requests For Corrections To The ‘1619 Project’

  • The NYT published an editor’s response Thursday alongside a letter from five historians expressing concern over the controversial “1619 Project.”
  • The historians requested that the NYT issue substantial corrections to the project, and the publication declined to do so.
  • Some of the historians responded to the NYT’s refusal to issue corrections, expressing dismay and concern in comments to the Daily Caller Sunday.

Historians expressed their dismay to the Daily Caller on Sunday after the New York Times refused to comply to their request for corrections involving the controversial “1619 Project.”

The “1619 Project” is made up of multiple stories and poems about racism and slavery. It suggests America’s “true founding” was when the first slaves arrived in 1619, and it “aims to reframe the country’s history.” The project has already been implemented in some public schools around the country.

The NYT refused to issue any corrections, it announced Thursday, despite a letter written by five historians concerned about the project’s “misleading” and “factual errors.” Some of the historians that signed onto the original letter expressed frustration and concern to the Daily Caller at the NYT’s unwillingness to issue corrections.

Profs. Victoria Bynum of Texas State University, James M. McPherson of Princeton University, James Oakes of the City University of New York, Sean Wilentz of Princeton University and Gordon S. Wood of Brown University signed the original letter published Thursday in the NYT.

“In the long run the Project will lose its credibility, standing, and persuasiveness with the nation as a whole,” Wood wrote in a follow-up letter he sent to the NYT following the response by Jake Silverstein, NYT Magazine’s editor-in-chief.

The letter was obtained by the Daily Caller Sunday.

Read More
%d bloggers like this: