Discover more from Karlstack
Economics' #MeToo Moment: A Witch Hunt Just in Time for Halloween
This isn't about defending women -- this is about power, revenge, retaliation, vigilantism, and funding from the Koch brothers.
The economics profession is in the midst of being rocked by the biggest #metoo scandal in its history — at least 7 senior economics professors were #metoo’d last week.
Lawsuits will be next. Or at least they should be.
I am not writing this article to condemn any of the accused, nor am I seeking to exculpate them. I seek only the truth.
At the center of this implosion is a professor of economics at Texas A&M University (TAMU) named Jennifer Doleac. Doleac has been feuding with the forum https://www.econjobrumors.com (EJMR) for the better part of a decade, desperately trying to get them scrubbed & banned from the internet like the good little censorious Stalinist she is.
Stop attacking my friends on EJMR, you weird fascist.
Here are some relevant EJMR threads about Doleac:
Let’s get into the substance of the allegations. By my estimation there are 7 different men that have been #MeToo’d by Doleac, to varying extents.
Philip Dybvig is the Boatmen's Bancshares Professor of Banking and Finance at Washington University in St. Louis, and notably, the winner of the 2022 Nobel prize in economics.
Armin Falk is Professor of Economics at the University of Bonn and Chief Executive Officer of briq.
Dan Houser is the chairman of the George Mason University economics department, and Editor-in-Chief of Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization.
Randall Wright is the Ray B. Zemon Chair in Liquid Assets in the Department of Finance at the University of Wisconsin.
Greg DeAngelo is an associate professor in the Department of Economic Sciences and director of the Computational Justice Lab at Claremont Graduate University.
Scott Cunningham is an economics professor at Baylor University and author of Causal Inference: The Mixtape, which you can buy on Amazon here.
Mark Hoekstra is an economics professor at TAMU.
To do these 7 scandals justice, this article really should be split up into 7 separate articles, but in the name of pragmatism I will synthesize them into one coherent narrative. Again, I am not saying any of these men are guilty or innocent; I am saying that thanks to Jen Doleac they are all lumped in together and nobody is treated as an individual. Mud sticks to everything.
Doleac clearly hates men and wants to see the entire gender burn. She’s a sexist. Does she realize that the suicide rate for the demographic she is targeting is 4x the suicide rate for women? If she is wrong about any of these allegations — because what could go wrong with a histrionic, unhinged witch hunt? — someone could die.
Doleac only cares about one thing, though: how does this affect Doleac’s career?
Sources tell Karlstack that Doleac failed a vote last week that would have promoted her to full professor at TAMU.
Hmm… she failed her promotion vote… and then one week later she goes nuclear?
Almost makes one suspect this is a personal vendetta rather than any sort of search for objective truth.
#1 - Philip Dybvig
I start with the Dybvig case because 1) it is most high-profile, 2) it has the least substance.
It is the most high-profile because Dybvig won the Nobel prize in economics less than a month ago.
Hmmm…. Pretty suspicious… he is metoo’d within a few days of winning the Nobel Prize? That’s a huge red flag, as we all know that whenever a man achieves greatness, it is (sometimes) the nature of scorned women to instinctively seek to tear him down.
Hell hath no fury.
On the other hand, the timing might actually make sense. Now is when the trauma of the alleged victims is trudged up, and now is when the media might actually care.
A key aspect of this story is that Dyvbig is a weird looking dude.
Being weird isn’t a crime… in fact I would argue that academia needs more weirdos, and less conformists.
The rumor floating around is that he flirts with asian female students.
I suspect this cartoon is what is happening:
Again, I can’t stress this enough: I have no proof. Neither does Doleac.
If it comes out next week that Dybvig is proven to be a diabolical abuser, I don’t want to be on record defending him. I am merely advocating for due process, something that Doleac never afforded him.
Is statement this true? Literally, yes, because there have been allegations of sexual misconduct and worse against Armin Falk, and allegations of flirting against Dybvig which is sort-of-sexual-misconduct construed broadly, and allegations of slander against Jennifer Doleac, which counts as “worse” than flirting.
But is it fair? Of course not. It leaves the implication that there are allegations of serious misconduct such as rape or adultery and non-sexual-misconduct against Dybvig, and of sexual misconduct against Doleac. When you say there are unproven allegations against someone, you should say what they are.
You know who also doesn’t have any proof? His accuser, who refuses to speak to the media. The entire weight of the allegations, as far as I can tell, come from the comment section under a WeChat post.
These allegations are very thin: he’s accused of “touching my hand” and “I caught a glimpse of the open email, and there were many drafts beginning with ‘Hello Sweet Girl’, and the recipient was not me.”
The most damning piece of evidence I dug up is this anonymous EJMR comment from ~*5 years ago*~ from a thread titled Sexual harassement in academia: are there any Weinsteins or Cosby's among us?
This commenter immediately follows up by saying they have no evidence.
Bloomberg & NPR started investigating the Dybvig allegations 2 weeks ago, and I assume a bevy of other outlets did too, for how could they resist? I’m sure their mouths salivate at the prospect of tearing down the most recent Nobel prize winner.
This is clout chasing 101.
I find it noteworthy that neither outlet has reported on the allegations yet.
I emailed both NPR and Bloomberg; both informed me that their articles are pending, for lack of proof.
The only outlets to report this so far are whoever this Chinese guy is:
Also a sketchy website called “Eastern Sun Rising” which was launched in October 2022. The first article “Eastern Sun Rising” ever posted is attacking Dybig and complaining about “asian fetizisation” with no proof, which makes me think this is a CCP psyop.
Some commenters on Twitter also think it is a CCP smear-job:
The idea behind this conspiracy theory is that Dybvig worked at a university in Chengdu from 2010-2021.
He then moved to the Washington University in St. Louis (WUSTL) in 2022, and promptly won the Nobel prize.
So, the theory goes that China is angry that the Nobel isn’t attributed to them.
Are the CCP really that petty and desperate for prestige that they would launch a misinformation campaign to take him down? You tell me.
I reached out to WUSTL to inquire whether they were investigating, and did not receive a response.
#2 - Armin Falk
The Falk case is the most complicated, and also the most straightforward.
It is straightforward in the sense that every detail you could possibly desire is self-contained in a 60+ page EJMR thread called Armin Falk must be terminated. This thread will hit 100 pages soon, and then 200 pages as the story continues to develop. You can always find the latest update there.
It is complicated because, well, it just is. For starters, these allegations came to light in a series of 6 Instagram videos where his accuser, Dr. Nora Szech from the University of Bamberg, laments in German while having an apparent breakdown.
I will refrain from commenting on the substance of these videos because 1) I don’t understand German, and 2) I have not seen the deleted videos. I have to rely on second-hand accounts from EJMR:
After the EJMR thread appeared, the briq – Institute on Behavior & Inequality — where Falk is the CEO — released this dumpster fire of a statement:
The key portion is:
Okay, so, Armin Falk has already lawyered up. Smart move, I guess, but extremely stupid to communicate his legal posture via the briq institute.
You see, Falk *is* the briq institute, and the briq institute *is* Falk.
It’s a joke for him to pretend like he is impartially investigating himself. An even bigger joke to threaten the alleged victim with legal action one sentence after he announces an impartial investigation. Would you trust an "external investigation" that is announced by an anonymous "supervisory board" accompanied with a threat against the alleged victim?
It should be noted that the briq institute is financed by Deutsche Post Foundation.
Klaus Zumwinkel, the president of the foundation, was convicted for tax fraud.
Johannes Haushofer, professor of economics at Stockholm University, explains in a twitter thread why this is problematic.
While I don’t trust briq to investigate, I do trust Bonn University (alma mater of Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx!). Here is a statement from Bonn:
I guess there is nothing to do but wait for that investigation to play out.
In the meantime, please don’t automatically assume Falk is guilty. We haven’t heard his side of the story. For starters, they are both adults, and there is a non-zero chance there is a spurned lover component, who knows. Love and sex can be messy.
My point is that this Falk stuff might be unethical but not illegal. It might be neither. It might be both. It might’ve been consentual, it might’ve been non-consentual. I don’t know. Neither do you.
Econ professors sleep with their students all the time, this is normal, many families are formed this way, such as the winners of the 2019 Nobel prize in economics, Abhijit Banerjee and Esther Duflo.
Why doesn’t Doleac say anything about Duflo marrying Banarjee?
She often complains about how gross it is for professors to marry students.
Who made you the marriage police?
Oh, wait, I know why she doesn’t call out down Duflo.
She’s her friend who she interviews on her little podcast for clout.
Again: a clear pattern of going scorched earth on her enemies, and letting her friends off the hook.
One of the grossest aspects of this Armin Falk case is Stefano DellaVigna, a professor at Berkeley and a briq Visiting Professor. He is apparently close friends with Falk and there is 0% chance he was unaware of the allegations against Falk when he tweeted this:
A blatant attempt to shift the blame away from Falk onto Dan Houser.
We see what you are doing, Stefano.
#3 - Dan Houser
After the first 2 guys got MeToo’d, Doleac was on a roll. Why stop now?
So she dropped a bombshell that she “had 1 more name to add to the list.”
She did not present any proof.
Here is the EJMR thread: Doleac adds Houser to the list
She’s destroying this man's name and reputation over the rumor of a rumor.
This is not ethical, this is not right, this is not credible, this is not moral.
Dan Houser is the chair of the econ department at GMU.
Hmmmmm…. it’s an odd coincidence that last week Doleac got a big fellowship out of the woke part of GMU, the Insitute for Humane Studies (IHS).
The IHS runs seminars on critical race theory, and their reading list includes such gems as “Demarginalizing the intersection of Race and Sex: a black feminist critique of antidiscrimination doctrine, feminist theory and anti racist politics.”
Emily Chamlee-Wright is the president and CEO of the Institute for Humane Studies.
Chamlee's big thing is trying to synthesize critical race theory (CRT) with Austrian economics (lol) — she wrote an entire book on that. Sources tell Karlstack that Chamlee-Wright is likely courting wokesters like Doleac to offset the baggage of being tied to Koch*** money & improve her odds at getting a college president appointment (word is she's applied to several).
*** GMU, and the two Koch-controlled political organizations that are formally affiliated with GMU, the Mercatus Center and the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS), received a combined $23.4 million in 2019. GMU, Mercatus, and the IHS have received over $179 million from Charles Koch’s foundations since 2005.
Doleac’s allegation against Houser was later substantiated by Georgia Michailidou, an economist at New York University Abu Dhabi:
He did what exactly — he groped you?
You can’t just drop a bombshell like that and not even elaborate in the slightest. Be specific. What did he touch and for how long? Was it an amicable hug that went on for one second too long? Or did he viciously molest you? If you’re going to speak up, speak up.
This accusation is like someone who posts a selfie from a hospital bed with a cryptic message, hoping for attention, but doesn’t want to talk about it.
Rather than elaborate on any of the facts, she started gushing about her feelings.
I did not receive a reply to this inquiry:
Georgia was then backed up by Alex Imas, a professor at UChicago Booth, who at first blush seemed to corroborate her story.
Note that Imas never says he actually witnessed the assault itself, yet he writes it in such a manner that people will think he saw it the assault.
What he really says is that he heard something from someone — I believe courts refer to that as “hearsay.”
Furthemore, if Dr. Imas knew about an assault, why didn’t he contact the police? It’s like when Mike McQueery witnessed an assault in the Penn state bathroom and only reported to his coach rather than the police. Where’s the culpability?
Worst of all is this statement from Leto Copley, the American Economic Association’s famously bumbling fool of an ombudsperson.
In this case she is supposed to be tasked with being an impartial arbiter but immediately believes one side — “I’m so sorry this happened to you.”
Can you imagine a judge saying this at the start of a trial?
Wouldn't the correct response be, "Thank you for reporting this information, we will investigate as our bylaws require”?
Following Houser being accused of groping, he was removed from the The Economics Science Associations editorial boards of its journals.
I reached out to GMU administration to inquire whether they were investigating, and did not receive a reply.
#4 - Randy Wright
Doleac wasn’t done. The next domino to be accused was Randy Wright, a professor at UW Madison. His life was set on fire based on “four emails” that Doleac unilaterally decided were “credible.”
It would be helpful if people who characterize allegations as “credible” would explain what that means, and what they would regard as an accusation that wasn’t.
For example, some people hold that when a woman accuses a man, we should always believe her. Thus, every accusation is credible if a woman makes it, no matter how outlandish. Reasonable people, though, would need to know something about the circumstances and about the accuser and whether the accuser had a grudge against the accused for something else (such as a rejected publication).
Beyond this tweet from Doleac there are zero details, so I will abstain from speculating.
Although I will say that that which can be asserted without any evidence can be dismissed without any evidence.
Doleac has heard accusations about over 24 men.
How does she decide which 8 of the 24 to doxx, and which to grant mercy? Based on who her friends are? She’s certainly shown that she has a track record of capriciously playing favorites. The fact that JD hasn't even tried to make the process of why/how she is revealing certain accusations over others is appalling.
I reached out to Dr. Wright, I will let him respond to this accusation directly:
My answers will be quite long and I hope you don’t edit them too harshly because I would like to say a few things in detail. Anyway, as to your first question, I was made aware of this by friends who told me the other day. My reaction? Well, naturally shocked and very upset. I don’t know what to think about your question “does it surprise me?” Without knowing what is being suggested, I am just not sure what to think.
I can say for sure that I have never engaged in any form of harassment based on sex, race, religion or anything else. All my grades, letters of evaluation, editorial and referee activities, and so on have been based on merit without regard to other considerations (well, sometimes maybe I am easier on younger people in my editorial duties because I like to give them a fighting chance to get their careers in track).
I think I work well with students, colleagues and coauthors and do not discriminate. I have gay coauthors and coauthors of color. I haven’t counted recently but I bet I have the highest, or one of the highest, but it may well be the very highest, number of published papers with female coauthors in economics. I might have to check that. Anyway, I believe my students, coauthors and colleagues respect me and I certainly respect them.
However, I am all too well aware many people in the profession do not like me. It’s mostly my own fault for being too “flamboyant” but maybe it’s more accurate to say I can be a “jerk” or worse - “asshole” might be fair - in terms of, e.g., harshly criticizing others’ work. But this is because I am passionate about research and always intend my comments to be constructive. Maybe they don’t always come across that way though. I guess I can over do it at times. Still I admit that I am often too loud, for sure, if not outright obnoxious, and sometimes tell stupid jokes (but never meant to offend), and I regret to say I have used the f word at a conference in the heat of debate, with one of my best friends, actually, so I don’t think he was offended. Still, I regret that kind of behavior and have tried to make efforts to not get so carried away. But I think that sums up the extent my “unprofessional behavior.” No harassment or discriminatory behavior.
Now in the old days it is true that I dated some economics people but not students in my classes nor anyone who could be considered to work for me or where there was any kind of power relationship. It is not uncommon for people to date in the profession. Indeed I married one! And so have very many other people in this business. But I have to say this: Both in my relationships within the profession and outside of it I have never engaged in any activity that was not fully consensual and explicitly agreed. I feel I have been approached as often as I approached others over my life about this kind of thing. To me the standards should 100% clear and here is what I mean by way of example. Person 1 says “say what would you think about…” Person 2 might say “I don’t think so…” or maybe simply “no”. Person 1 should say “I hope it was not too wrong to bring it up…” Person 2 says “it’s fine as long as the answer is accepted” and of course Person 1 says “yes of course.” I believe that is reasonable. On the other hand sometimes the answer is “sure” or even “yes please” - but either way both parties must respect the others wishes. What is important to remember is that if a third party sees two people together they may not know what might have led to it and hence may arrive at the wrong conclusion. But to reiterate the most important point: everything always must be fully consensual. Everything.
I reached out to the University of Wisconsin and a spokesperson told me:
“With respect to the allegations shared on social media, we are looking into the matter and following applicable policies and procedures. We encourage anyone with additional information to contact the Sexual Misconduct Resource and Response Program. “
#5 - Greg DeAngelo
Every villain has an origin story… Greg DeAngelo is Jennifer Doleac’s. She has spent the past several years trying, and failing, to take him down, even going so far as publicly begging newspapers to cover it.
I wonder why no paper ever covered it. Did they not find her credible?
Central to this story is a woman named Anna Harvey, a professor of political science at NYU and president & CEO of the Social Science Research Council.
Harvey and Doleac are coauthors.
Below is the sequence of events as I understand them.
I sent this timeline to both Doleac and Harvey before publishing this article.
In response, Doleac sent me — and tweeted — her own heavily cherrypicked and redacted timeline of events.
Harvey responded to me with a string of legal threats:
to which I responded:
to which her lawyer responded:
to which I responded:
to which he responded:
to which I responded:
Without further adieu, here is the timeline.
I. Anna and Greg and the Lab
Anna served as the chair of the department of Politics from 2000-2004 and was the interim dean of the graduate school of arts and sciences between 2015-2017. She stepped down and started the Public Safety Lab which provided “data science and social science support to communities and law enforcement agencies to reform their criminal justice practices.”
At some point around the time she was involved with starting the Lab, Gregory DeAngelo was hired to do data science work. Greg was an assistant professor at West Virginia at the time.
At some point, the two of them began an affair. They were both in long-term cohabitating relationships with other people. It was reported the affair continued for around a year.
Greg was awarded a $5.4 million grant from the Koch foundation to start his own Computational Justice Lab.
It is unclear what precisely caused the tension between Anna and Greg to form. It is my understanding that she began to insist on the data and programs belonging to the lab.
She then told Greg that she was going to be telling his partner about the sexual relationship. Was this a result of him refusing to turn over some of the data or programs he was collecting for his own research? In any case, Anna eventually tells the partner and continued to make contact with them both. Greg hired an attorney to issue a cease and desist all contact.
II. Title IX complaints
After Greg goes to CGU, there is a conference. It was reported to me that Anna books a ticket to come, despite all the animosity between herself and Greg’s family. Greg tells his provost. The provost communicates to Anna something to the extent that it would not be a good idea for her to come. There may have been an offer to pay for her ticket to return.
Anna then files two Title IX complaints: one to CGU and one to Claremont McKenna. Both Title IX lawsuits were dismissed.
At some point an AMA shows up on EJMR – allegedly written by Scott Cunningham.
Here is that AMA where around page 7, someone asks why Cunningham would be friends with Greg, a “known rapist” or something to that effect. The writer shares all of the above – about the relationship with Anna, her being his employer/supervisor, her being full and former dean of NYU, them being in an affair, all the rest and the results of the AEA investigation. The AMA continues for around 33 pages.
III. AEA and 16 Signatures to Koch
The day after Greg is awarded the Koch funding, Anna Harvey files a complaint with the American Economics Association against Greg. The complaint alleges systematic predatory behavior by Greg.
Jen Doleac uses the two Title IX complaints Anna had filed, the AEA complaint filed by Anna, and previous allegations at Greg’s prior institutions to then write up a letter to get 16 signatures, many of whom are senior economists in the area of the economics of crime to sign.
Patrick Bayer, Gilhuly Family Distinguished Professor of Economics, Duke University
Christopher Blattman, Ramalee E. Pearson Professor of Global Conflict Studies, University of Chicago
Kristin Butcher, Marshall I. Goldman Professor of Economics, Wellesley College
Philip Cook, ITT/Terry Sanford Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Public Policy Studies, Duke University
Benjamin Hansen , W.E. Miner Professor of Economics, University of Oregon
Justin McCrary, Paul J. Evanson Professor of Law, Columbia University
Emily Owens, Professor of Criminology, Law, and Society, University of California - Irvine
John Pepper, Merrill S. Bankard Professor of Economics, University of Virginia
Anne Piehl, Professor of Economics, Rutgers University
Amy Ellen Schwartz, Professor of Economics and Public Administration and International Affairs, Syracuse University
Justin Wolfers, Professor of Public Policy and Economics, University of MichiganEconomics is in something of a moment, with a number of women coming forward (and naming names) with some very disturbing revelations of sexual harassment and sexual misconduct by senior male economists. See 's timeline for a blow-by-blow of each revelation.
Note that Justin Wolfers’ life partner is Betsey Stevenson, a prominent member of the AEA leadership. Was Betsey involved in Greg’s AEA investigation or did she recuse herself?
Stephen Billings, Associate Professor of Real Estate, University of Colorado at Boulder
Jennifer Doleac , Associate Professor of Economics, Texas A&M University
Amanda Agan, Assistant Professor of Economics, Rutgers University
Jillian Carr, Assistant Professor of Economics, Purdue University
Michael Mueller-Smith, Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Michigan
I contacted these signatories and offered them the chance to respond to the question, “In retrospect, do you regret signing it? Why or why not? Do you feel duped? Or do you stand by your decision?” None of them responded.
I did manage to get in touch with one Kevin T. Schnepel, a tenured professor of economics at Simon Fraser University, who was aware of the letter at the time but refrained from signing it.
“I did not sign because I was a junior (untenured) faculty at the time and feared the impact that retaliation actions such as the cease and desist notices sent to university administrators would have on my career,” wrote Schnepel to Karlstack. “I admired my colleagues who decided to stand up and say something at the time and still admire their actions today.”
The letter signed by the 16 individuals was sent to Koch requesting removal of funding, who were funding Greg’s grant. Worth pointing out Doleac also has a criminal justice research lab, as does Mike Mueller-Smith.
Was there enough funding for all the research labs?
Who was Greg harassing? Where is his victim?
Is Anna Harvey in need of protection from Greg? Which leads me to suspect this isn’t really about protecting women from sexual harassers… could this be all about those sweet, sweet research bux.
Good on Koch for not bending to the mob.
IV. AEA result
At this point, Jen begins to publicly name Greg DeAngelo. She also makes comments on twitter about Greg’s lab as a bad place for women.
The AEA investigation happens around the spring of 2020. How much did they spend on it?
The result comes out. Greg’s lawyers write letters to all 16 signature writers in which the results are described. My understanding of the substantive findings are:
- AEA could not find a victim
- AEA could not find a witness
In any case, the case was closed. A finding was made.
Why is Jen inserting herself in this matter? Was she legally allowed to have the documents from the AEA investigation? No. Why does she have the documents? She then decides to tweet out a cherry picked section from the documents.
Jen says that the AEA does not have the ability to protect so-called victims - who? Anna Harvey?
It is worth noting that Greg has no police record. He was not arrested or charged with a complaint of sexual assault or rape, despite Jen saying in private DMs to people there were several rape charges against him.
One could argue that systems in place have not done their jobs. But Greg has been through numerous formal investigations. At what point will Jen call off her attack dogs? Do we live in a society in which a few individuals – who are severely compromised by conflicts of interest - get to determine the guilt or innocence of an individual?
You may not like Greg, or his past actions, but at what point do Jen’s actions count as stalking and harassment?
Jen should be removed from the AEA, and removed from her role in CSWEP.
There should be a formal investigation against Jen Doleac.
I reached out to Dr. DeAngelo for comment, who in turn directed me to his lawyer, who told me this:
One of the reason that this trend is so distressing, whether it’s in the world of economics or any other profession, is that the target of the defamatory attacks — in our case, Dr. DeAngelo — can never really escape the damage he suffers because there are no specific/detailed allegations to respond to. And unfortunately, not only does the subject of the defamation become the victim, but the people affiliated with the target the subject -- such as Dr. Cunningham -- become collateral damage, they become victims as well, because these attacks paint everyone with them the same brush: as a sexual predator, or affiliated with, and therefore approving of, a sexual predator.
The reason that no journalists have taken up [Doleac’s] cause against [DeAngelo], is that there are no specifics facts, underscoring that her agenda is more important than facts. The fact that this is something she keeps coming back to every few months without any new additional information is very troubling, how do you ever escape anything like this?”
Jen Doleac is a terrible person who is taking advantage of victims of harassment to elevate her own status. She neither has the legal expertise to help anyone, nor can guarantee anyone’s anonymity due to open record laws that makes her work email publicly accessible. It is not accidental that she has decided to use her work email to solicit information from victims. She knows that this is the way to give access to journalists to any information being shared with her even if the victims have requested anonymity. She is a terrible opportunist that will make the academic climate for women much worse. Be aware and stay as far away from this nonsense as possible. Universities and the AEA have formal channels of reporting. If you want to help, educate yourself about those channels and become an advocate for improving those channels. Slandering people on Twitter and taking advantage of victims is not the way to do good. I hope she gets into a huge legal trouble for the harm that she is causing.
— Anonymous economist
#6 - Scott Cunningham
What happens next is straight-up lawsuit territory. Doleac calls Scott Cunningham a harasser because he defends DeAngelo and agrees with the AEA report.
“I increasingly warn people about Scott Cunningham and Mark Hoekstra as well,” tweets Doleac. “I don’t trust them to keep women safe.”
People are definitely afraid to speak up after seeing what Jennifer Doleac did to Scott Cunningham for just defending the rights of the accused.
I've had probably a dozen different economists tell me off the record that they are disgusted by how Doleac is handling this, that it has clear witch hunt elements, etc. But say that publicly, and she will sic the mob on you.
— Anonymous economist speaking to Karlstack
Obviously distraight at being labelled a “danger to women” (which could hurt his business as a teacher and author — those are $$$ damages), Cunningham then shut down his podcast:
And deleted his Twitter account. This was his parting statement:
"You're cowards. You're free riders. You're enablers. You're liars -- to yourself, if no one else. I have no time anymore for extending myself to this place in an effort to create community. You can come to my substack, you can come to my workshops, you can text me. We can bbq.
I am disgusted though. Disgusted by ppl who write papers and see fu--ing publishing as though it is a substitute for loving people, standing up against injustice, and watching idly by out of FEAR of being sanctioned by a bully.
And do not pretend we do not both know that you are AFRAID of Jen Doleac. You are a grown ass adult. You have got to get over those fears. None of this is real. So, I will be cancelling my account, this time for good. I want to vomit just seeing people on here now."
#7 - Mark Hoekstra
Hoekstra works in the same TAMU econ department as Doleac.
Is it possible that Hoekstra voted against her promotion?
If so, it’s pretty clear she is slandering him in retaliation.
The timing is just too perfect.
TAMU is now investigating Doleac.
This episode will result in the most predictable outcome of all time: men will implement the “Mike Pence rule”.
Who can blame them? Supporting their families is more important than mentoring the next generation of women.
This article shows decreased collaboration between men and women and the consequent reduced productivity of women after MeToo:
In other words: women in the profession will be greatly & irreparably harmed by Doleac’s witchhunt. Because of Doleac, there's renewed talk of not coauthoring with women, not hiring women, and other forms of discriminating against or avoiding women.
Do we gain any insights from this witchhunt, at least? Is there any upside?
I’m not sure… I don’t think so.
There are a lot of injustices in the world, and a lot of hurt. I would like to believe that we all are trying to make the world a better place, and just have different ideas about how to go about doing that.
My way of making the world a better place, for example, involves exposing fraud, corruption, and unscrupulous women who lie about being abused.
Take no part in the worthless deeds of evil and darkness; instead, expose them.
— Ephesians 5:11
Please subscribe. The more subscribers I get, the more corruption I can expose.
I’m also not suggesting that we shouldn’t validate people who have faced harassment, or stop people from harassing others.
At the same time, it is important to continue to reflect, remembering that we don’t have all of the facts. In trying to help and protect others, we may be the ones who end up doing the most damage, victimizing others.
Sometimes we stand with stones in hand, trying to protect someone – who may indeed be a true victim. At the same time, are you being the bully and the victimizer as you throw those stones at others?
There are wrongs in this world that need to be righted. But vigilante “justice”, public accusations, and assumptions of guilt are not the right solution. These are hurtful and can ruin lives. We all can work on taking a step back and question our beliefs.
I for one have made a lot of mistakes in my life, and I’ve thrown more than my fair share of stones, but at least I have the humility to admit how incredibly flawed I am... I know what I am. I know my shadow.
Do you know yours, Jen?
It takes more courage to examine the dark corners of your own soul than it does for a soldier to fight on a battlefield.
― William Butler Yeats
P.S - It’s sad that abused children do not generate the same outrage in the econ profession as privileged women.
By ignoring Mitman's crimes, economists are forced into the position of having to play nice with a convicted child rapist if they wish to advance their careers.
That is objectively much worse than being forced to play nice with a guy who allegedly groped an adult at a conference once.
Where is #EconTwitter on this? Hello? Anyone? Where are the thousands of tweets?
To any feminist who thinks that Kurt Mitman has served his time in jail and thus has repayed his debt to society, therefore there is no problem with him being the most powerful gatekeeper in the profession, I would ask you this:
Would you still say that if he were a conservative man who raped a female child? No? Then why do you say it when he is a liberal man who raped a male child? What’s the difference? Why the double standard?