Should Child Sodomy Rapist Kurt Mitman Be a Professor and Editor?

This is part of the split-up post, Should Rapists Edit Scholarly Journals?

So we have a sodomy child rapist as a professor in Sweden and joint managing editor
of a top journal, the Review of Economic Studies (the “Review of Economic Studs”, as we’d joke about in graduate school— not to be confused with the “Journal of Political Sodomy”, whose editor was recently suspended for two weeks for the grievious crime of saying it was silly to proposed defunding the police). Remember not to be confused, this was not consensual: this was forcible fellatio. And the victim was a boy Mitman was supposed to be taking care of, as a residential assistant at a summer camp.

I will split my answer. I don’t think he should ever be a professor, anywhere. Even if he has repented— which I’ve never heard of, despite all the articles about him for which the reporters surely called him and asked if he was sorry—even if he has repented, he should not be exposed to temptation. Rafael Robb beat his wife, but he did not abuse his authority or give in to sexual temptation; it was a different kind of offence. So Robb could be a professor again, but not Mitman.

On the other hand, why shouldn’t Mitman be an editor? I would oppose any effort to kick him off of the Review of Economic Studies. His fellow editor is his PhD advisor, whom he is not about to rape. He would not deal with students. He would have great influence, and might be tempted to trade article acceptance for sexual favors, which can be done in subtle ways, but his fellow editor could monitor that to some extent, as well as whoever is on the journal’s board, and it would show up, be visible, as a reduction in the journal’s quality that would stand out if it were too extreme. Mitman is undoubtedly intelligent, and if he is really good enough to be an editor, which I would assume is true or they wouldn’t risk controversy by appointing him, then that is a very good vocation for him, much better than being a professor. Indeed, he really ought to be in a 100% research job, away from students, and that is true whether he’s repented or not.

I know people disagree, because they think that being a journal editor is too great an honor for someone like him. Being a journal editor is indeed an honor. But it is an honor we give to people because they are (a) good at research, and (b) seem to have ordinary fairness, good taste, diligence, and sense of duty. We do not award it to people for moral virtue. If we did, we would have to check out whether they were faithful their wives, whether they were good Christians, whether they did drugs, whether they fought for the weak and unpopular, whether they were kind to little children, and so forth. We don’t, and I would guess that in general journal editors are not especially moral people, except when it comes to intellectual integrity (and there maybe I’m being naive)– just especially smart and hard-working people. Mitman is very likely typical in those dimensions, whatever vile things he may do when he goes home from the office.

ps. Someone on EJMR wrote:

Hi there, I am the one sending these emails. I am also the OP of the now-closed KM thread. I am indeed a PhD student at Chicago (not a candidate, as, apparently, there is a difference — silly me). Thanks for pointing out the shortcomings of this email, I’ve rewritten it considerably since then. So far, I have sent over 200 personalized emails to Mitman’s coauthors, people he interacted with on twitter, the entire REStud Board of Directors, Editorial Board, all its foreign editors, etc. I have received 7 responses, all from tenured professors, including one member of the Board of Directors of the REStud and one of its foreign editors.
I would like to summarize key points of these responses:
1) Two respondents said that they are aware about Dr. Mitman’s background and, because he served the jail time already, they don’t think there should be any consequences for Dr. Mitman’s tenure as the REStud managing editor. Both respondents are macroeconomists who published their papers in the REStud in the past.
2) One respondent, who is a foreign editor of the REStud, says that they weren’t aware of this fact. They say that, at the moment, they aren’t sure how to react to this new information, but they assured me that they will be taking this matter up the ladder very soon.
3) Another respondent, who is a member of the Board of Directors of the REStud, said that they were only made aware of Dr. Mitman’s past in December, when he was appointed the new managing editor. They say that there has been a growing opposition within the Board of Directors and the Editorial Board to this decision. They point out that Dr. Mitman hasn’t been handling any papers submitted to the journal since his appointment last year.
4) Two respondents said that they were not aware of Dr. Mitman’s background. They said that this new information will definitely affect their further interactions with Dr. Mitman, and that they will be contacting REStud leadership regarding Dr. Mitman’s suitability as a managing editor.
5) The last respondent said that they weren’t aware of this information, and they are not sure how to react to this at the moment, but agreed that it is very disturbing. They assured me, though, that things are not as bad in the profession as people on #EconTwitter paint them.
Unfortunately, I have no new responses from the media at this time. Stay tuned.
12 GOOD 4 NO GOOD