Arthur Sulzberger Says Compensation Was Not a Part of Jill Abramson’s Firing

A day after New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger, Jr. abruptly fired executive editor Jill Abramson and replaced her with managing editor Dean Baquet, media observers are parsing rumors and stray details that range from the peculiar to the infuriating.

First, the New Yorker’s Ken Auletta reported that Abramson—the paper’s first female executive editor—had recently discovered she was being underpaid relative to predecessor Bill Keller as well as to a previous occupant of her prior role, prompting a furious response surrounding pay discrimination. A Times spokesperson claimed the report was false, then added that Abramson’s compensation was “not meaningfully less” than Keller’s, further fueling suspicion that Abramson had set Sulzberger off by asking her lawyer to look into the salary issue.

On Thursday, well after a Times article on the developments came and went without further comment from the paper’s top brass, Sulzberger broke his silence and sent a memo to Times staff. Here’s a relevant portion:

It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessor. Her pay is comparable to that of earlier executive editors. In fact, in 2013, her last full year in the role, her total compensation package was more than 10 percent higher than that of her predecessor, Bill Keller, in his last full year as Executive Editor, which was 2010. It was also higher than his total compensation in any previous year.

Sulzberger notes that comparing pensions is more complicated, because those figures are dependent on years of service, and Times pensions were frozen in 2009. “Compensation played no part whatsoever in my decision that Jill could not remain as executive editor,” he wrote. “Nor did any discussion about compensation. The reason – the only reason – for that decision was concerns I had about some aspects of Jill’s management of our newsroom.”

Another wrinkle emerged late Wednesday night, when Janine Gibson, the editor-in-chief of The Guardian’s Web site, confirmed that she had been approached by the Times. Baquet was reportedly infuriated that Abramson had not consulted him regarding the potential hiring—Gibson would have been made co-managing editor. Sulzberger eventually heard of the dispute, which is said to have figured into his decision.

There was also criticism of Sulzberger’s abrupt dismissal of Abramson. She “got fired with less dignity than Judith Miller, who practically started the Iraq War,” Buzzfeed’s Kate Aurthur wrote. “I hope tattoo removal has advanced significantly.” (Abramson has a “T” tattooed on her back, a nod to her many years with the paper.) “Brutal for Sulzberger to deny Abramson a chance to address the troops—to relive her highs and lows as a top editor for 16+ years,” N.P.R. media reporter David Folkenflik tweeted. (Auletta reported that Abramson elected to skip the announcement of her dismissal.)

Also on Wednesday, Wake Forest University confirmed that Abramson would give the school’s commencement address on Monday. The previously scheduled engagement takes on a new meaning and important in the context of Abramson’s dismissal. C-SPAN will cover the address.

Meanwhile, Abramson’s daughter posted an Instagram of the ousted editor wearing boxing gloves. The caption read: “Mom’s new badass hobby #girls #pushy.”

Sulzberger’s entire memo is available below.

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to you because I am concerned about the misinformation that has been widely circulating in the media since I announced Jill Abramson’s departure yesterday. I particularly want to set the record straight about Jill’s pay as Executive Editor of The Times.

It is simply not true that Jill’s compensation was significantly less than her predecessors. Her pay is comparable to that of earlier executive editors. In fact, in 2013, her last full year in the role, her total compensation package was more than 10% higher than that of her predecessor, Bill Keller, in his last full year as Executive Editor, which was 2010. It was also higher than his total compensation in any previous year.

Comparisons between the pensions of different executive editors are difficult for several reasons. Pensions are based upon years of service with the Company. Jill’s years of service were significantly fewer than those of many of her predecessors. Secondly, as you may know, pension plans for all managers at The New York Times were frozen in 2009. But this and all other pension changes at the Company have been applied without any gender bias and Jill was not singled out or differentially disadvantaged in any way.

Compensation played no part whatsoever in my decision that Jill could not remain as executive editor. Nor did any discussion about compensation. The reason – the only reason – for that decision was concerns I had about some aspects of Jill’s management of our newsroom, which I had previously made clear to her, both face-to-face and in my annual assessment.

This Company is fully committed to equal treatment of all its employees, regardless of gender, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation or any other characteristic. We are working hard to live up to that principle in every part of our organization. I am satisfied that we fully lived up to that commitment with regard to Jill.

Arthur