From the article:

"The difference is that this approach [Slate's in Current Year] is now tempered by other, graver duties—the need, for instance, to avoid equivocation on matters of morality, fundamental policy, and human rights."

I find this puzzling, due to the realtive nature of morality. Morals are plastic and variable based on popular persuasion and general consensus. If "morals" are a pillar of intellectual identity, isn't this just a subtle way to say Slate will just go with the majority regardless of objective facts and subjective opinions of merit?