Even though I'm not on here right now, I wanted to tell a brief, old story about editorial idiocy on racial issues in economics and why it is a failure of understanding with scientific implications (in addition to generating other serious problems).

Years ago, Dick Startz and I submitted a paper on persistence in racial inequality to @QJEHarvard and received a single referee report that is still the most positive I have ever received. The referee said the paper was "important" and should certainly be published.

This was accompanied by a letter from the editor that basically said, "I don't care--I hate this paper". The editor scolded us for our "overheated rhetoric". This was puzzling, as the paper was mostly equations.

We eventually figured out that the editor was referring to our use of the term "oppression" to refer to the racial regime in the US in the post-Reconstruction period. If I had known of the term "triggered" in those days, I would certainly have applied it to this strange reaction.

Now one rejection isn't important (I've experienced many of them), but it is reasonable for us to expect editors to have a reasonable understanding of the society being analyzed and the ability to judge research dispassionately.

We rely on our colleagues who choose individuals for powerful editorial decisions to ensure that they do so, understanding that views about race are relevant far beyond the confines of labor economics. I hope that the JPE Advisory Board took this responsibility seriously.