I mean it's difficult to even respond to this article because it is just another example of the NYT doing its thing and wringing its hands about a perceived cancel culture that is ruining publishing/universities/media/insert topic du jour here. A claim within the article that publishing has become too censorious simply links to another NYT article which derides sensitivity readers--the US is seeing actual campaigns and legislation from right-wingers to literally ban certain books from libraries right now, but sure, sensitivity readers are the true censors in publishing.

The author seems familiar with the publishing industry so it is hard to conclude that she is being anything but purposely misleading when she speaks about the industry as if it's sheer luck as to who succeeds and who doesn't. That didn't fly in the recent legal case regarding the Penguin Random House/S&S merger and it doesn't fly here. American Dirt was not a success by accident - it was a success in part because of the hype and subsequent marketing budget assigned to it, because lots of people worked hard to make it so. It sold extremely well despite backlash. There is a film adaptation in the works. Once again, the NYT's "we stand against censorship" line appears to be more of a "we don't like critique and want detractors to keep their opinions to themselves" type stance.