EclectEcon

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had written to John McCall that Lott's special edition of the Journal of Law and Economics contained papers that were not peer-reviewed.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 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 Craig Newmark has posted.