Randy Barnett adds his voice to those calling for the American Enterprise Institute to conduct an investigation into Lott's conduct. He also writes:
Since Jim Lindgren's unsuccessful effort to verify some of Lott's claims from the criticisms of Tim Lambert, I have not defended Lott publicly in any way. Nor would I now rely on his empirical conclusions absent some outside examination of the sort that was eventually given the work of Michael Bellesiles.
Ralph Luker writes
Lott's sponsors, primarily the American Enterprise Institute, but also the Federalist Society, may now want to distance themselves from him.
More like this
John Lott and Michael Bellesiles are both mentioned in a new book, Historians in Trouble by Jon Wiener. Wiener argues that the reason why Lott still has his job but Bellesiles doesn't is power:
The answer briefly is power---especially power wielded by groups outside the history…
Mark Kleiman writes:
What seems to me even more striking, though Mooney doesn't mention it, is the difference in the way the two are treated in the mainstream press: while no news article about Bellesiles could fail to mention the controversy about Arming America, Lott---who made up an on-line…
Stuart Benjamin writes:
[John Lott's] core thesis, though, was called into doubt by a number of researchers, most prominently in a study (and reply, both complete with data sets) written by Ian Ayres and John Donohue, two top empirical economists. They concluded that the data did not support…
Via Ralph Luker I find Andrew Ackerman's correction of a Boston Globe article that downplayed Michael Bellesiles' misconduct. The Emory panel rightly found Bellesiles guilty of falsification and other academic misconduct. It is disgraceful that the American Enterprise Institute…