Here's an interesting timeline:
- 31 March: Lott's abrupt departure from the American enterprise institute.
- 10 April: Lott files his lawsuit alleging that Levitt has defamed him.
- 12 April: First Anniversary of Freakonomics publication.
I think all three events are connected.
There is a one year statute of limitations on libel, so April 11 was the last day he could sue Levitt. There are many reasons why AEI might want to let Lott go, but none of them are new. So it may well be that Lott's determination to sue Levitt was the last straw and caused his dismissal.
The AEI's refusal to investigate Lott's misconduct has been a disgrace, but this lawsuit seems to me to be much better than an AEI investigation. Levitt's defence gets to investigate Lott's conduct and question people under oath.
More like this
I don't know what it is about the beginning of a year. I don't know if it's confirmation bias or real, but it sure seems that something big happens early every year in the antivaccine world. Consider. As I pointed out back in February 2009, in rapid succession Brian Deer reported that Andrew…
Brad Delong points us to a New York Times profile on "rabidly anti-gun" Steven Levitt. The whole thing is worth reading, but this part is especially interesting to me:
The year after he was hired, his wife gave birth to their first child, Andrew. One day, just after Andrew turned a year old…
Last time I commented on Lott's claims about the Baghdad murder rate, I noted his pathological refusal to admit that he was wrong about the rate. Even though dozens of newspapers have reported that there are hundreds of murders each month in Baghdad (see the table with some of…
by Anthony Robbins, MD, MPA
The current issue of Mother Jones offers an article on the troubling and growing list of State "gag laws" which make it a crime to disclose contamination and abuse in animal breeding and slaughter houses. Ted Genoways in "Gagged by Big Ag," describes the events and…
It might be that if the lawsuit goes wrong it could do harm to AEI as well as to Lott, and they made it clear to him that he'd have to step down if he wanted to pursue it.
I wonder if Lott might have resigned because AEI was lukewarm or hesitant about the lawsuit. He's always struck me as someone who genuinely believes that he's not at fault for his actions or misdeeds, he even seems to have rationalized the Mary Rosh stuff. People who behave that way don't often like people challenging their fabrications (even slightly).
For those of us aching to see our friend Mr. Lott eat some serious humble pie, a lawyer friend of mine offers a cautionary note: most of these lawsuits are settled and then sealed. Maybe we should pass the hat for a Steven Levitt defense fund - but only on the condition that he not settle. I'd kick in a few bucks for the discovery phase alone.
The Freakonomics authors also have a very interesting blog. Great post recently put up about the link between nutrition and violence.