Agree. So let’s write a letter in defense of free speech and set up a google forms? Even so, we all sing it anonymously symbolizing the ultimate form of free speechz
First, big names should come out of cover, in public, defending public speech in the profession. No need mentioning U.
Maybe should be written by Publius
Agree. So let’s write a letter in defense of free speech and set up a google forms? Even so, we all sing it anonymously symbolizing the ultimate form of free speechz
First, big names should come out of cover, in public, defending public speech in the profession. No need mentioning U.
Can you start it?
Agree. So let’s write a letter in defense of free speech and set up a google forms? Even so, we all sing it anonymously symbolizing the ultimate form of free speechzFirst, big names should come out of cover, in public, defending public speech in the profession. No need mentioning U.
Can you start it?
You don't to write a new letter. Just adapt the Chicago statement on free speech to apply to JPE. Something like this (with an acknowledgement that most of it is taken verbatim from the statement).
In a word, JPE’s fundamental commitment should be to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the economic profession to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the profession, not for JPE as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose. Indeed, fostering the ability of members of the profession to engage in such debate and deliberation in an effective and responsible manner is an essential part of the journal's mission.
He can say Jay Cutler is the best QB, that Michael Jordan could've made the baseball hall of fame, and that deep dish pizza should be illegal. Why is free speech so hard to understand? He can be an editor so long as he does the job of editor competently. On the other hand, we have HH who says "all the right things" and then is totally incompetent in her job.
You are forgetting Heckman
Honestly - I may not agree with you fully - but by Gd, you Sir have co. jones. I wish you all the best, and I hope you can resist the moxb that is about to hit you.
The sheer hypoxcrisy, two-facexdness and virxtue signaxlling of the rest of this profession is revolxting and I thank you for being the only voice of reason and dissent.
PS - I have now attempted to make this post about 7 times. I have no idea why the bot deletes this. I suppose it only emphasizes my point.
OP from different IP - honored to have hit the 100 goods club (I am a long-time, registered user and only managed this once before under my nick). Shameful that my first 100 good thread was funny, light-hearted and fun and reflected a better academia many years ago. This thread is testament to the twisted world economics is becoming.
I strongly disagree with this guy. I assume that I'd despise him and his worldview. Ultimately, that's irrelevant - as a socialist, I support protecting people's rights to voice their opinions respectfully and openly. Unless his actions as an editor suggest that he's harming the careers of scholars interested in issues of race, he should remain in place.
It's getting worse. Of course.
Gabriel Mathy: We shouldn't fire Uhlig because he could be replaced by someone even more racist like Heckman.
https://twitter.com/gabriel_mathy/status/1270737253183062016?s=20
Insanity. Destruction of the economics profession.
So you managed to dig up someone even less important than Aufhammer.