Former FTC Commissioner Joshua Wright, currently under scrutiny for numerous allegations, was reported to have prestigious George Mason University’s “ASS Law” under considerable controversy. Wright is also said to own up to many of the accusations made against him in his ongoing defamation lawsuit against his accusers. The burning question remains, however, how is academia, specifically the antitrust subset where Wright made significant strides, reacting to these developments?
An air of unusual activity seems to be pervading the higher echelons of academia. For instance, ProMarket, a journal hailing from the University of Chicago’s Booth Business School, planned a symposium debating the new proposed merger guidelines, intending to invite 12 antitrust specialists who would share and respond to each other’s viewpoints.
Surprisingly, no mention of Wright was found amongst the participant list. However, an article from Wright, sharing his insights on the guidelines under the symposium’s emblem, emerged on the website but obscured under an “Uncategorized” tag.
A notable antitrust expert, Professor Hovenkamp, on Twitter explained that the invites were sent out “prior to contributions,” implying that Wright or his article was not intended as part of the symposium. This merely intrigued the legal community further leading to questions such as why did Wright write an article at all and why was it presented as part of the discussion?
It is worth reminding readers that Wright’s allegations became public around the same time ProMarket published the article, leading some to speculate that Wright may have been initially intended to be part of the symposium.
Those closely monitoring the issue argue that the procedural way for journalism and academia to deal with such a situation will be to make public their decisions— especially when it pertains to a contribution from an individual embroiled in controversies such as Title IX complaints and allegations from former students of engaging them sexually early in their legal education.
Consequently, this brings to light concerns about the integrity of publications that continue to benefit from an association with such contentious figures while simultaneously obscuring it from the public domain.
For further reading about related issues: