While I don't really have the time to give the thoughtful response to Bob's urging that I think it deserves, here are some quick thoughts. Note that I have not given considerable thought to this and while I expect others to comment, this will be my last posting on the subject as I have too much work to do.

First, I should be clear that my reservations have more to do with the recent missive than the whole project. Outside of the top schools, colleges and universities have a variety of faculty to choose from and for this reason I tend to agree with Bob's earlier comments about living up to their own claims of intellectual diversity, although I have concerns about focusing on the fairness of outcomes rather than processes. My statements here are focused on the most recent article by Klein discussing the research by McEachern on political affiliations of editorial boards of top journals.

1. I don’t reject Dan’s right to undertake this project and I don’t disagree with the reasons for doing so. I am a huge fan of shame. I think we need more William Lloyd Garrisons.

2. What I disagree with is the approach. For me, political affiliations (or donations) tell me nothing of relevance since Republicans are no less interventionist than Democrats. To be honest, a journal comprised of Republicans (not libertarians) might focus on different issues but would not produce the type of scholarship that Klein seems to want.

In my opinion, focus on political affiliations obscures the point and does nothing to change the root of the problem. To me, the most powerful thing about Dan’s most recent piece was his discussion of Miron’s article on prohibition in the JEP and the lack of similar articles in the years since. That is the problem.

Fundamentally, it seems to me this is all about the lack of acceptance for classical liberal political economy at the top journals (and the top of the profession). Criticizing the make-up of the editorial boards of the top journals would be appropriate, it seems to me, if it were not reflective of the top of the economics profession. Yet it is. How many classical liberals are on the faculties of the top 25 economics departments? Two, perhaps three? An inclusion of even one classical liberal on the editorial board of a top journal is probably statistical overrepresentation.

3. To me the solution is for classical liberals to work harder, engage those we disagree with, and to get more individuals with classical liberal inclinations into top graduate schools.

I apologize if I have inferred any motives to Dan Klein here that he does not have or if I have misread his reasoning behind his project. Regardless, I think that the focus on party donations and affiliations obscures rather than clarifies the real problem in academic economics, which Klein himself addressed in “The Ph.D. Circle in Economics.”

Ultimately, shame will only work if there is work similar to Miron's being rejected from top journals. Is that the case? How many articles along the lines of Miron's article have been submitted to the top journals? That would be interesting to know.