The cancel culture twitter mob comes to economics

Last week we learned  the twitter mob has taken over economics too.

In case you aren't following, here is the short version of the story. Harald Uhlig, a distingushed macroeconomist at the University of Chicago,  sent out a few tweets questioning the wisdom of quickly "defunding the police." The twitter mob, led by Paul Krugman and Justin Wolfers, swiftly attacked. A petition circulated, reportedly gaining 500 signatories, demanding his removal as editor of the Journal of Political Economy. That petition has been taken down and I can't seem to find it to verify just who did sign it. But I saw an astonishing number of tweets from economists that I formerly respected and considered to be level headed, fact-and-logic, cause-and-effect analysts of public policies pile on.   The media piled on, with coverage at  New York Times, Wall Street Journal Chicago Tribune and a bit of a counterpoint at Fox News Breitbart and others. By Friday, the University of Chicago caved in and threw Harald under the bus.

Start by actually reading Harald's tweets.

Harold criticizes  the "core organization @Blklivesmatter" -- the political organization, not the self-evident proposition that Black Lives Matter -- for  "#defundthepolice : 'We call for a national defunding of police.' " Harald called for "sensible adults to enter back into the room and have serious, earnest, respectful conversations about it all: e.g. policy reform proposals by  @TheDemocrat and national healing." And, yes, he made a little fun of protesters, some of whom might just be indulging in the usual habit of youth to disregard the full consequences of revolutionary ambitions.

Now, every sensible person here -- including Harald -- recognizes that we need fundamental reform of police, and well, "serious, earnest, respectful conversations" about why minority communities are doing so poorly, and better ways than police to address the high crime rates in those communities. As a long-run goal, I happen to think a lot less police is a good policy goal.

But that's beside the point. Are Harald's views here, or even his tone, so beyond the pale that he must be instantly shunned and de-frocked?  An immediate "defund the police" is one particular policy avenue advocated by one particular segment of our political debate to address what we all recognize as a pressing problem. Is the wisdom of "defund the police" no longer debateable?

The Chicago Sun-Times thinks it is, in a moving article documenting the first Sunday of protest, in which 85 people were shot, and 24 killed while the cops were busy. Eventually, perhaps, an army of social workers can remove root causes of crime, but if there are no police tomorrow, it seems at least worth discussing whether tomorrow will see another 24 people killed.

Chicago's Mayor Lori Lightfoot commented on defunding the police:

“I don't think that's an appropriate action at this time. I think that the people in our neighborhoods want and have been begging for more police support,” she said. “In light of what's happened over the last couple days, it would be irresponsible for me to even entertain any idea that we would cut back on our public safety resources at this time.“

The race was on to call Uhlig a racist. Per the Wall Street Journal Maximilian Auffhammer came close.

 a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, tweeted on Tuesday a link to a letter that called for Mr. Uhlig to step down from his post at the journal, with encouragement for others to sign it.

“Prof. Uhlig is welcome to say whatever he wants. But his comments hurt and marginalize people of color and their allies in the economics profession,”

And Lori Lightfoot's comments do not?  But others soon filled in. I don't know who gets the prize. A twitter search for "Uhlig racist" turns up lots of tweets.

The pile-on moved past the usual suspects on twitter. The New York Times reports

Janet L. Yellen, the former Federal Reserve chair, said in an email on Wednesday that “the tweets and blog posts by Harald Uhlig are extremely troubling” and that “it would be appropriate for the University of Chicago, which is the publisher of the Journal of Political Economy, to review Uhlig’s performance and suitability to continue as editor.”

Janet Yellen is not just an accomplished economist, a former Federal Reserve Chair, and a very nice person, she is the sitting president of the American Economic Association.  She is entitled to her views as much as Harald is entitled to his. But here, as in a  letter sent to the membership instructing us how to think and behave on such matters (more later), she speaks on behalf of that association.

This is to my knowledge the first and only pronouncement by a President of the AEA, without disclaiming official capacity, on whether tweets issued by members disqualify those members for employment. It is the first such pronouncement that anyone should be investigated for their speech.

The AEA has a "code of conduct," which encourages

"perfect freedom of economic discussion."  This goal requires an environment where all can freely participate and where each idea is considered on its own merits.  Economists have a professional obligation to conduct civil and respectful discourse in all forums

The Presidents of the AEA have been silent at, say, Paul Krugman's history of tweets, columns and even books that violently contravene this code of conduct. Krugman, the King of ad hominem, violates the code in the third word of the title of his book, "Arguing with Zombies," and over and over again in its pages.  Anyone who disagrees with Krugman is a Zombie? (An insult, by the way, with a dark racial history. Where are you, twitter mob?) He writes that other professional economists are "evil," "stupid," and accuses them of being bought.

One might with some justification complain about Uhlig's tone, though Harald critcized protesters and political organization, whose violent language is common, not other economists or people engaged in "respectful discourse."  Are all protesters beyond Harald's criticism, even looters who destroyed many Chicago neighborhoods? (Mayor Lightfoot's phone call with aldermen is a bit critical of some protesters too.)

But neither Krugman, nor most of the twitter mob, nor the AEA have the beginning of a leg to stand on for a charge that Harald's tone is way out of line.  Yet Harald's are the first tweets to receive public reprimand from the sitting president of the American Economic Association.

That was enough for the Chicago Fed, who fired Uhlig from his consulting arrangement.

The beginning of the end at Chicago came June 11 via this explosive tweet

June 12 Harald was toast. The JPE sacked him.

Now, the JPE advisory board (Robert Shimer Lars Peter Hansen Steve Levitt and Philip J. Reny, all good friends and great economists, so my pain here is deep at having to criticize their action) carefully say nothing about the tweets, media coverage, and protest. They cite instead the accusation of discriminatory conduct in a classroom setting. Now, such conduct is a very serious charge.

But this account of events does not hold water.   Ba, now a professor at U C Irvine, was sitting in -- not taking for credit -- a class in 2014, six years ago. At the University of Chicago, there was always the issue for classes that meet on Mondays, how do you reschedule the class that would normally take place on Martin Luther King day? It was always a mess.  In that discussion, Harald said something that Ba found offensive -- that much is undeniable. What "fun" did Harald make of Dr. King? Precise words would help. Clearly in this interaction tone of voice -- whether Harald's inquiry to offense was "sarcastic" or well intended -- mattered as much as what was actually said. Yes, this merits investigation, to the extent that one can investigate  comments made in classes six years ago reported via tweet.

But there is no way on this green earth that a tweet made on Thursday about a comment made in class six years ago leads to being fired from the JPE on Friday, absent a mob demanding just that head for previous tweets about defunding the police.  Suspend Harald from teaching classes, maybe.

I spent much of my last few years of teaching petrified that I would say something that could be misconstrued to be offensive to someone. I probably did. I used to tell a lot of jokes. Three hour evening classes are pretty long. I am glad I don't teach any more. I advise anyone who does, to record every second of every interaction with any students.

I also learned the hard way, don't talk to reporters who are out to destroy you, and that  includes anyone from the New York Times or the New Yorker. Compare the Times article to the unedited transcript of Uhlig's interview. I think Harald just learned another sharp lesson.

Why do I write? Sure, I'm just as terrified by the Red Guards of our twitter mob as the rest of you. I keep deadly quiet on these issues too. The Krugmans, Wolfers, and other assorted Jacobins are waiting for me to write or tweet one sentence that can be taken out of context and demand my head. I doubt the upper levels of administration at Stanford have any more spine in defense of conservative and libertarian speech than do those of Chicago. But we must speak before it's too late.

Do you think this is wrong?  Defund the University of Chicago. Seriously, if you are a donor, say loudly that you are not giving another cent until the University starts to mean the free speech for which it claims to stand, and will stand up to twitter mobs, witch hunts and our new Red Guard. Defund Stanford (except Hoover!) until it even can garner the guts to put out the statement on free speech for which Chicago was previously famous.



from The Grumpy Economist https://ift.tt/2N3rjZ8