[econoclectic] EclectEcon: Dumb, Malicious, or Both?

[Email subscription to blog articles]

Posted by EclectEcon:
Dumb, Malicious, or Both?
http://econoclectic.powerblogs.com/posts/1186006493.shtml


   Steve Levitt has pretty much admitted that he defamed John Lott.
   Levitt had written to John McCall that Lott's special edition of the
   Journal of Law and Economics contained papers that were not
   peer-reviewed. But now, as part of a settlement, Levitt has written a
   letter of "clarification" to McCall. From the [1]Chronicle of Higher
   Education ($):

     By some measures, Mr. Lott appears to have won little from his 15
     months of litigation. No money will change hands, and the
     settlement does not require a formal apology from Mr. Levitt.
     But on certain points of reputation and pride, Mr. Lott might take
     some satisfaction. Mr. Levitt's letter of clarification, which was
     included in Friday's filing, offers a doozy of a concession. In his
     2005 message, Mr. Levitt told Mr. McCall that "it was not a
     peer-refereed edition of the Journal." But in his letter of
     clarification, Mr. Levitt writes: "I acknowledge that the articles
     that were published in the conference issue were reviewed by
     referees engaged by the editors of the JLE. In fact, I was one of
     the peer referees."
     Mr. Levitt's letter also concedes that he had been invited to
     present a paper at the 1999 conference. (He did not do so.) That
     admission undermines his e-mail message's statement that Mr. Lott
     had "put in only work that supported him."
     In his letter of clarification to Mr. McCall, Mr. Levitt said, "At
     the time of my May 2005 e-mails to you, I knew that scholars with
     varying opinions had been invited to participate in the 1999
     conference and had been informed that their papers would be
     considered for publication in what became the conference issue."

   Some people may have wondered why I tended to support Lott in this
   controversy, especially since Levitt appears to be so gentle and
   likable. But what Levitt wrote to McCall was just plain lies. In light
   of these statements, it seemed downright malicious to me.
   For more on Lott v. Levitt, indicating malice, see what [2]Craig
   Newmark has posted.

References

   1. http://chronicle.com/daily/2007/07/2007073003n.htm?=attn
   2. http://newmarksdoor.typepad.com/mainblog/2007/08/more-on-lott-vs.html#more