NY Times' scruples

Powerline has a post on a subject they have been following lately. Namely the anti-Semitism on the Columbia University campus by certain professors, and the school's flat out refusal to do anything about it. In fact the school investigated it and let all the professors off the hook.
But that's not the true jaw dropper in the post. It's this:

A front-page article on Thursday described a report by a committee at Columbia University formed to investigate complaints that pro-Israel Jewish students were harassed by pro-Palestinian professors. The report found "no evidence of any statements made by the faculty that could reasonably be construed as anti-Semitic," but it did say that one professor "exceeded commonly accepted bounds" of behavior when he became angry at a student who he believed was defending Israel's conduct toward Palestinians.

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.

Under The Times's policy on unidentified sources, writers are not permitted to forgo follow-up reporting in exchange for information. In this case, editors and the writer did not recall the policy and agreed to delay additional reporting until the document had become public. The Times insisted, however, on getting a response from the professor accused of unacceptable behavior, and Columbia agreed.

So hear that? Contrary to any journalistic ethics and the Times' own policy, the New York Times decided to be a patsy for a school that is trying to protect an anti-semitic teaching staff.