No, I understand now. My guess is that the online paper was self-published, but I think it must have gotten through peer review at the Law and Econ journal if they were intending to publish it.

If I understand correctly, this is the journal that is not publishing the article this month, not the online one that published it last year.

According to their author instructions, they do: https://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/525007?generatepdf=true. It’s not a high impact journal, but it’s also not a vanity outlet.

This is also not his field, but his rationalization of what these women were forced to do is right in line with slavery apologists saying that Blacks had a better life here in the cotton fields than they had while in Africa and therefore should be thankful for the plantation owners’ generosity.

People generally misunderstand what “tenure” means. What it really means (legally) is they cannot fire you without cause. However, you certainly can and many teachers have been fired for sufficient cause.

Yeah but does tenure protect them if they’re flat out wrong? As in they published research that claims 3+6= 753,861,890,315.

Yup, this is a disturbingly common view among Japanese nationalists/conservatives. They’re working really, really hard to bury/minimize/reframe all atrocities committed by Japan during WW2.

I know that wasn’t your point; just adding that, surprise surprise, this appears not just to be sloppy scholarship or a rush to publish, but a hack job by somebody aligned with right-wing Japanese denialism.

Why do we still have Jackson in the $20?

I honestly don’t see how Harvard can keep its academic reputation if they tenure garbage people like this. Not only are his views horrendous, they are demonstrably false in every single way. People are paying a king’s ransom to have their kid learn straight up lies--the internet can do that for free.

What is with horrible people doubling down on horrible? Not only that, but shooting themselves in both feet professionally making such grotesque and easily disproved assertions? 

At first I thought he published in one of those “we’ll release anything for the right price” journals, but nope.

I was originally going to ask what Ramseyer’s motivation was, seeing as he (theoretically) should have no stake in upholding the Japanese side of the story. Then I looked up his bio (https://hls.harvard.edu/faculty/directory/10697/Ramseyer):

It’s kind of ridiculous that the paper made it through peer review, if there’s really no evidence at all for its key assertions.

It’s because she’s officially our head of state. The Prime Minister is head of government, which is not the same thing. We absolutely could ditch her, but it would require amending our constitution and coming up with either a new system of government or a new method of choosing our head of state.

Or they’re decent people who want the public to know what really happened while trying to protect people they care about. 

I think it's reasonable that she'd run it through as there would be obvious consequences if it got out. If she was really trying to behave as they wanted her to, it's also reasonable that in a fragile state she'd feel frozen when they told her no. I don't think Diana got much help either when she was obviously…

And the fact that neither of them named the names behind some of the more horrible accounts—such as Archie’s skin color concern—means they’re either REALLY forgiving and classier than the Palace when it comes to spilling the tea, or they’re still terrified of the potential repercussions.

The stuff about Archie was awful, but I got a visceral shiver when she said her passport, dl licence, credit cards, and keys were taken away from her when she married. That's Saudi level. Why?