6/To those who call my position political correctness, being woke, an example of cancel culture, I say the following. A profession's decisions on how to allocate opportunities has dimensions that define its professional ethos and culture. There are spillover effects that matter.

5/ Please do not suggest that there is any sense in which Summers contributions are unique or essential, that is simply nonsense. It is not how social science works, with exceptions too rare to disprove a general rule.

4/ Summers is welcome to publish papers via peer review like anyone else. He should not be a leader of the profession, given plums such as invited publications, lectures, made integral to programmatic policy statements, etc. Doing so implies that gross sexism is regarded as triviality.

3/The mistreatment of women in economics has long been an open secret. I have felt the obligation to discuss sexism in the profession with every female graduate student I have had starting as an Assistant Professor to this day.

2/The continuing treatment of Summers as some sort of Peer of the Realm (to use a phrase I take from Sam Haselby) is unacceptable by the economics profession if it serious about addressing the problems documented at the time Casselman wrote. These problems continue today of course.

Me, applying for an admin position: I'll do x, y, and z, these are all my big plans

Search committee: you know the budget isn't even $200k

Me: ...

Them: ...

Me: I am a humanist, do you know how much damage I can do with like $12 and a toothpick?

So when big industry reports say: this is the factor that matters, this is the construct that matters

we are allowed to say: why? What's your proof? Why this and not others?

And "it's what we did for the past x years" isn't a persuasive form of evidence. At all. It's just proof of convention.

everyone saying “she was a consenting adult“ either can’t read or doesn’t want to deal with the fact that even a woman who is consenting to a relationship is at an inherent power differential with *the president of the fucking United States*

The guy whose distinction as a presidential candidate was being a gay mayor in a midwestern red state has some big concerns about identity politics.

Part of the reason that a lot of establishment Dems are trying to blame identity politics is not because they were too focused on it (they weren't) but that they were too focused on placating wealthy donors.