Former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright left George Mason University’s “ASS Law” under a cloud of allegations, most of which he admits to in his defamation suit against his accusers. But how is academia — in particular the antitrust corner of the academy where Wright was a star — handling the situation?
It seems like there might be some high academia weirdness going on.
ProMarket, the journal from the University of Chicago’s Booth Business School, promises “Insights shaping the future of capitalism,” and in pursuit of that mission opted to host a symposium addressing the new proposed merger guidelines. As they describe it, “In two rounds, 12 antitrust experts will provide their comments on the draft Merger Guidelines and respond to each other’s comments.”
But did they always plan on “12” antitrust experts?
Because Wright is not listed among the participants. But he has an article offering his thoughts on the guidelines… under the symposium’s banner… with an editorial note listing his piece as his “round-one comments.” But it’s all buried under an “Uncategorized” tag on the journal’s website.
Invitations were issued “prior to contributions,” huh?
Professor Hovenkamp offers a rosy interpretation of the journal’s move, but it just raises further questions. If Wright wasn’t invited prior to contributing… then why did he write an article at all? Why was that article then editorially framed as part of the symposium? Does the journal routinely just publish unsolicited contributions to its symposia?
Of note, the ProMarket piece is dated August 8, which would put it within hours of the first public attention Wright earned for skeeviness — when Cleveland State Law’s Christa Laser shared a story on social media about Wright, as chair of the hiring committee at ASS Law, seeming to dangle a non-existent job as a pretext to proposition Laser.
The cynic might posit that the publication planned to include Wright in the symposium until that point.
Not that there’s anything wrong with sidelining a submission pending further inquiry into a participant with a Title IX complaint and multiple former students alleging that he engaged them in sexual relationships as early as their 1L years (or as SOMEONE on Wikipedia wants to cast it: “flirting”). But if that’s the case, it would seem that best practices for academia would require being forthright about that move rather than just trying to memory-hole the submission by stripping it of its tags.
Because that sends the signal that the publication just wants all the benefit of continuing a relationship with the former professor while obscuring that from the public.
Earlier: We Shouldn’t Have To Say This, But Job Interviews Are Not Your Personal Dating App
Sexual Harassment Allegations Mount Against Former FTC Commissioner & Law Professor
Ex-Law Professor Sues Former Students For $108M Over Sexual Harassment Allegations
Law School’s ‘Restrictions’ On Professor’s Contact With Students During Sexual Harassment Probe Apparently Didn’t Cover Auctioning Off A Date
SOMEONE Keeps Editing Joshua Wright’s Wikipedia Page To Downplay The Whole ‘Sleeping With 1Ls’ Thing
ProMarket Pulled Our Piece For Being ‘Uninteresting.’ Why?
Joe Patrice is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer. Feel free to email any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on Twitter if you’re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search.
