NYT doing NY Crimes

"I do not think Israel is the aggressor here", he said. "Insofar as getting the story right helps Israel, I guess you could say I'm trying to help Israel."

The controversy gained massive attention online, leading to then-president Donald Trump tweeting, "lightweight journalist Bret Stephens, a Conservative who does anything that his bosses at the paper tell him to do! He is now quitting Twitter after being called a 'bedbug.' Tough guy!"

In a December 2019 column titled "The Secrets of Jewish Genius",[42] in which he contended that Ashkenazi Jews have a history of alternative thinking which has led them to be successful. This article led to accusations of eugenics and racism. The column originally said that "Ashkenazi Jews might have a marginal advantage over their gentile peers when it comes to thinking better. Where their advantage more often lies is in thinking different."[43][44] Following widespread criticism, The New York Times editors deleted the section of the column in which he appeared to claim that Ashkenazi Jews are genetically superior to other groups.[45] The editors said that Stephens erred in citing an academic study by an author with "racist views" whose 2005 paper advanced a genetic hypothesis for the basis of intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews.[45][46] The Times's deletion was criticized by Jonathan Haidt, Nadine Strossen, and Steven Pinker, who called it "surrender to an outrage mob".[47]

In February 2021, Stephens wrote a column critical of the Times's dismissal of Donald McNeil for using a racial slur against African Americans in the context of a discussion with students of the slur's usage. Six students present on the occasion said that McNeil had used the word "in a way that they perceived as casual, unnecessary or even gratuitous", but one of them added that "McNeil's opinions didn't disparage African Americans".[48] The Times spiked the column,[49][50] but it was leaked to the New York Post, which published it.[51] Stephens principally argued against the editor's initial position that the newspaper would "not tolerate racist language regardless of intent";[49][51] the editor subsequently backed down from that position.