The New York Times is Feeling the Pressure Over Its I-Word Stance

The Times is standing by its use of the word "illegal" in reference to undocumented immigrants. But they're taking heat for it.

By Mónica Novoa Oct 4, 2012

The New York Times public editor and readers' representative, Margaret Sullivan recently deliberated on the i-word and decided she was for keeping it. In a span of a few days she read through multiple reasons and a compelling case delivered by leading linguists, scholars, lawyers, readers from across the country, the Drop the I-Word campaign, Times editorial board member, Lawrence Downes and Pulitzer-prize winning journalist Jose Antonio Vargas who kicked off the conversation with her a little more than a year after coming out as undocumented (not as "illegal") in the pages of the Times.

Sullivan weighed in saying that she sees "no advantage for Times readers in a move away from the paper's use of the phrase 'illegal immigrant.'" She said "It is clear and accurate; it gets its job done in two words that are easily understood. The same cannot be said of the most frequently suggested alternatives - 'unauthorized,' 'immigrants without legal status,' 'undocumented.' She said this, all after linguists and attorneys have weighed in with expertise on the opposite. Now, in a welcome and exciting turn, colleagues in the field of journalism are calling out the Times, too.