[OPE-L:5040] Re: Discrimantion and Proving it

From: Gerald_A_Levy (Gerald_A_Levy@email.msn.com)
Date: Thu Feb 22 2001 - 19:08:04 EST

Re John's [OPE-L:5038] :

(although this is a response to John, I think it incorporates a response to
Andrew's 5039 as well)

> Why
> you're on your high horse on this is beyond me.

I consider the charge of  intentional suppression of thought to be a serious
one.  If it is a false charge then the characters of  some good people are
being  unfairly impugned. If the charges are true, then this is unacceptable
practice for any economics journal -- particularly any radical one.

>  I note that at no point do
> you suggest that you'd like to see some of the rejected > papers as well
> the reviewer's comments.  Seems
> to me that that would be the only convincing evidence.

The following is also an answer to a similar question from Andrew: I am
willing to look at *any* evidence. Bring it forward. My point is only that
if one makes this charge then one should be prepared to back it up (a point
Andrew evidently agrees with).

But, I'm not the conference (in fact, I represent no one but myself!) and
whatever I may or may not find convincing will almost certainly not be the
same judgment of all others who are presented with the same information and

> My comment:   Seems to me that if x out y are rejected > you'd at least
> to sit down and read some of the papers as well as the comments of the
> reviewers.

See above.

  > You and I have both read statements on this list that reject TSS without
> looking into the
> matter.  This is not to say all rejections are in this category but
> certainly some have been.
> Why would you not think that this may occur when it comes to RRPE?

The question isn't whether it "may" occur -- the issue is whether
suppression *did* occur.

I didn't say that it *did not* occur, but I will have to be convinced. It
seems to me that the burden of proof is on the person or persons making the

Yes, there have been some that have dismissed the TSSI unfairly without
reading the relevant papers, *but* one can not then deduce from this that
the _RRPE_ did the same.

> Hopefully,  the conference will take up matters other than this nonsense.


In solidarity, Jerry

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Mar 01 2001 - 14:01:40 EST