To the editors:
I was startled by the rhetoric employed by Epps, Jehn and McCarthy in their Op-Ed piece. What started as a principled attack on Hoxby’s resignation turned into ad hominem invective and a meandering rant against conservatives and living wage opponents. The writers passionately defend the PSLM sit-in as “in line with the rich and long tradition of principled, non-violent protest,” despite the fact that Hoxby never publicly said or implied anything to the contrary. They theorize that Hoxby’s resignation was merely a strategem against the living wage, but the only evidence they can furnish is that Hoxby “does not otherwise hide her criticism of unions in her scholarship.”
Perhaps the authors might actually read one of Hoxby’s papers and learn something about the use of logic, in lieu of emotion, in presenting arguments.
Sahir S. Islam ’02
Oct. 25, 2001
Read more in Opinion
The Death of Debauchery
