In exchange for an early look at Columbia University’s report absolving itself of charges of bias in the classroom, The New York Times agreed not to speak with any of the students who lodged the complaints:

With a highly sensitive report coming out about allegations of misconduct by anti-Israel professors, Columbia University officials turned to the news organization they trusted most to handle the delicate subject: the New York Times.

Representatives of the two institutions then struck a deal: Columbia would grant the Times exclusive early access to the report if the Times agreed that its reporter wouldn’t seek comment on the report from interested parties, or do additional reporting until the next day when the report was made public. As it happened, the newspaper, with Columbia’s permission, did seek comment from a faculty member whose conduct was criticized in the report, Joseph Massad, but it kept its promise not to solicit comment from the Jewish students who had come forward with the complaints against the professors.

This deal, first reported by The New York Sun’s Jacob Gershman late last week, allowed Columbia to present its spin in The New York Times unchallenged by the students until the following day, when the Times produced a follow-up report that included quotes from the students. Today, the Times finally acknowledged this egregious oversight in journalistic ethics:

The article did not disclose The Times’s source for the document, but Columbia officials have since confirmed publicly that they provided it, a day before its formal release, on the condition that the writer not seek reaction from other interested parties.

Aside from the Times and the school’s own Columbia Spectator, no other media outlets were given a sneak peek at the report. In fact, when a reporter from the Sun went to Columbia seeking a copy of the report (it has since been made public), she was threatened with arrest.

It’s no wonder the school favors the Times; in all the reporting of the recent controversies at Columbia, the Times has consistently provided the most favorable coverage to the university. But what does the Times get out of the deal? A one-day scoop on a report that makes no news? (”Stop the presses! Huge organization investigates self, finds self innocent!”) Or it is another example of the Times using its news pages to push its political views? (”There’s no bias in the classroom. Seriously! The people who run the classrooms told us themselves.”)

For several days earlier this week, I called Karen Arenson—the Times reporter who filed the story—requesting more information on this deal. None of my calls were ever returned. I guess now I know why.