Press Release: 12 December, 2008.
Keywords: Political Economy & History;
The dispute between Brian Easton in regard to the 2006 publication of Roderick Deane: His Life and Times written by Michael and Judith Bassett and published by Penguin Books has been resolved to Dr Easton’s satisfaction.
He objected to the two things written about him in the book.
‘… Brian Easton, David Sheppard, Mervyn Pope and Suzanne Snively wrote to [David] Lange [in July 1984] blaming Deane for the foreign exchange crisis and suggesting he be sacked.’ (Page 115)
Dr Easton is adamant that he did not write nor sign any such letter. Challenged, the Bassetts have been unable to provide physical evidence of any such letter; that is now acknowledged. Easton adds that he has also looked for evidence that there may have been a letter signed by others but has been unable to find any. He says that while David Sheppard and Mervyn Pope are dead, as best search as has been possible found no evidence of any such a letter. Suzanne Snively is equally emphatic that she did not write nor sign any such letter. When asked about it before he died, David Lange forcefully rejected the notion that there was any such letter.
‘… Brian Easton of the Institute of Economic Research had identified Deane as a proponent of deregulation and a threat to the old style economic orthodoxy.’ [In about September 1984,] (Page 122)
Again the Bassetts were unable to provide any evidence for the statement, and Dr Easton has no evidence or recollection of his having done so at this time.
Dr Easton says that if true, both statements would reflect on his judgement and competence, especially as at the time he was the Director of the NZ Institute of Economic Research and Dr Deane was on the Board of Trustees of the Institute. That the claims remain of contemporary relevance over two decades after the alleged events is indicated by two reviewers of the book explicitly mentioning the letter, associating Easton with it.
While many might think such gross inaccuracies were defamatory since they might mislead readers about Dr Easton’s character and performance, Easton has pursued these egregious errors as a scholarly matter. He is therefore satisfied by the publisher’s apology, by their sending a letter of correction to all research libraries which hold the book, and by their writing a letter of correction to those publications with reviews of the book which repeated the inaccuracies. (They also paid Dr Easton’s legal expenses.)
Dr Easton’s satisfaction with the settlement is, however, subject to the disappointment that it has taken so long to settle. ‘In my view, a mark of scholarship is that when one makes mistakes one corrects them promptly.’