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
The Chicago Tribune reports:
A scholar known for his work on guns and crime filed a defamation lawsuit Monday against University of Chicago economist Steven Levitt, co-author of the best-seller "Freakonomics."
John Lott Jr. of Virginia, a former U. of C. visiting professor, alleges that Levitt…
When we last visited Lott's lawsuit against Levitt, Lott was asking the judge to reconsider the dismissal of his case against Freakonomics.
Well, the judge denied this, so now Lott wants to amend his complaint. The new complaint adds is now about another sentence in Freakonomics as well:
Then…
Ever since Lott started at the American Enterprise Institute there have been people there who have wanted to get rid of him.
I was forwarded a copy of Lott's final email to AEI staff. It suggests that he was abruptly forced to leave:
From: John Lott
Sent: Sun 4/2/2006 4:00 AM
To: Everyone…
More interesting analysis of Lott's lawsuit from Ted Frank. First, after looking at the examples of the use of "replicate" he concludes:
I appear to have been too generous to Lott's complaint when I first criticized it.
Then Ben Zycher, who once mounted a defence of Lott consisting of nothing…
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.