Milton Friedman Institute, Censorship, University of Chicago: A Rant
Aff:
"Following Friedman’s lead, the design and evaluation of economic policy requires analyses that respect the incentives of individuals and the essential role of markets in allocating goods and services. As Friedman and others continually demonstrated, design of public policy without regard to market alternatives has adverse social consequences."
-Proposal to establish the Milton Friedman Institute with private funds at a private university in a free country, The University of Chicago, 2008
Neg:
Consider, for instance, the following passage in the Proposal to Establish the Milton Friedman Institute, which construes a certain orthodoxy as the starting point for any discussion:
"Following Friedman’s lead, the design and evaluation of economic policy requires analyses that respect the incentives of individuals and the essential role of markets in allocating goods and services. As Friedman and others continually demonstrated, design of public policy without regard to market alternatives has adverse social consequences."
- 102 would-be censors in a petition to limit free scholarship in the name of equity and balance, The University of Chicago, 2008
For the full text of their letter see Naomi Klein's Blog:
https://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/faculty-letter-mfi
I am left to assume that the favored starting point for discussion is the alternative, which would either NOT "respect the incentives of individuals and the essential role of markets in allocating goods and services" or perhaps that which would encourage us to "design public policy without regard to market alternatives." It's not that I don't see where they are coming from, I do. But I think this certain orthodoxy is tollerant. This certain orthodoxy merely asks us to "respect the incentives of individuals and the role of market" rather than ignore them. It says incentives and markets matter. And, in fact, I think everyone who signed this letter agrees with that. I think this is not their objection. It is rather a facade to demonize the most important social scientist of the century.
But, as Milton Friedman would argue, you must assume your oppenent is making his argument with only the best intentions. Anything else is pointless. So I'll take them at their word: they disagree with this "certain orthodoxy." And I will give them that it is an orthodoxy, and this insitute will strictly study policy scholarship that considers markets and incentives in its approach.
An orthodoxy that asks us to considers a couple of forces is a weak fucking orthodoxy: the only alternative to considering is ignoring. The only plausable alternative the undersigned might advocate--to ignore markets and incentives--is insane! It would even be insane not to take a side on the issue. It is insnae in the very dangerous way that it is insane not to believe in human nature. As the orthodox neo-conservative Amartya Sen put it "saying you don't believe in markets is, in fact, an insane statment. It's rather like saying you don't believe in conversation between people."
So to be clear, the question is: we can create an institution that, they agree (indeed fear) will attract tens of million of private dollars to fund scholarship of the "orthodoxy" that refuses to exclude markets and institutions from consideration.
They mean to deamonize it becuase this is, apparently, presumptuous and offensive, particularly in the global south. I imagine when they say (in their letter) that they "are forced to defend the university's reputation" that this is happening at high society cocktail parties in communist nations. I ask them only to imagine what those cocktail parties are like for those of us who affiliate with the University of Chicago and indeed approve of Milton Friedman's brand of scholarship. The girls don't always like it. But if someone refuses to take seriously your scholarship because of the University's affiliation with a great economist, I hardly believe it is your university that has the problem.But they go so far as to beg the university not to accept millions of dollars to fund world-class scholarship so that they can be spared the humilation of admitting that they teach at the University of Chicago!
Let us be clear, this is censorship and it is being taken seriously by the likes of 100 faculty members at one of the greatest universities in the world.
The undersigned include over 100 staff or faculty members from all departments, and include professors I rather respect, most notably Professor Emeilo Kouri, who I respect as a historian and social scientist and who disappoints me by joining a movement to improve the world by censoring scholarship.
The list predictably also includes Susan Gzesh, who professionally relies on her faculty seat at a first-rate institution to distinguish herself as a critic of that institution. In her spare time she dabbles in the analytically hollow creed of Human Rights, which, as an academic "discipline" provides an uninsightful description of the present without getting bogged down in the details of moral, legal, or rights theory. Her website suggests she is also interested in economic developmet, which makes more alarming her cry to censor economic research on public policy. She awaits an appointment in a democratic administration that finds itself short on hacks with a prowess for primitive criticism without regard to alternative constructions of the world. Unfortunately for Professor Gzesh, Professor Obama has won the nomination.
"Following Friedman’s lead, the design and evaluation of economic policy requires analyses that respect the incentives of individuals and the essential role of markets in allocating goods and services. As Friedman and others continually demonstrated, design of public policy without regard to market alternatives has adverse social consequences."
-Proposal to establish the Milton Friedman Institute with private funds at a private university in a free country, The University of Chicago, 2008
Neg:
Consider, for instance, the following passage in the Proposal to Establish the Milton Friedman Institute, which construes a certain orthodoxy as the starting point for any discussion:
"Following Friedman’s lead, the design and evaluation of economic policy requires analyses that respect the incentives of individuals and the essential role of markets in allocating goods and services. As Friedman and others continually demonstrated, design of public policy without regard to market alternatives has adverse social consequences."
- 102 would-be censors in a petition to limit free scholarship in the name of equity and balance, The University of Chicago, 2008
For the full text of their letter see Naomi Klein's Blog:
https://www.naomiklein.org/shock-doctrine/resources/faculty-letter-mfi
I am left to assume that the favored starting point for discussion is the alternative, which would either NOT "respect the incentives of individuals and the essential role of markets in allocating goods and services" or perhaps that which would encourage us to "design public policy without regard to market alternatives." It's not that I don't see where they are coming from, I do. But I think this certain orthodoxy is tollerant. This certain orthodoxy merely asks us to "respect the incentives of individuals and the role of market" rather than ignore them. It says incentives and markets matter. And, in fact, I think everyone who signed this letter agrees with that. I think this is not their objection. It is rather a facade to demonize the most important social scientist of the century.
But, as Milton Friedman would argue, you must assume your oppenent is making his argument with only the best intentions. Anything else is pointless. So I'll take them at their word: they disagree with this "certain orthodoxy." And I will give them that it is an orthodoxy, and this insitute will strictly study policy scholarship that considers markets and incentives in its approach.
An orthodoxy that asks us to considers a couple of forces is a weak fucking orthodoxy: the only alternative to considering is ignoring. The only plausable alternative the undersigned might advocate--to ignore markets and incentives--is insane! It would even be insane not to take a side on the issue. It is insnae in the very dangerous way that it is insane not to believe in human nature. As the orthodox neo-conservative Amartya Sen put it "saying you don't believe in markets is, in fact, an insane statment. It's rather like saying you don't believe in conversation between people."
So to be clear, the question is: we can create an institution that, they agree (indeed fear) will attract tens of million of private dollars to fund scholarship of the "orthodoxy" that refuses to exclude markets and institutions from consideration.
They mean to deamonize it becuase this is, apparently, presumptuous and offensive, particularly in the global south. I imagine when they say (in their letter) that they "are forced to defend the university's reputation" that this is happening at high society cocktail parties in communist nations. I ask them only to imagine what those cocktail parties are like for those of us who affiliate with the University of Chicago and indeed approve of Milton Friedman's brand of scholarship. The girls don't always like it. But if someone refuses to take seriously your scholarship because of the University's affiliation with a great economist, I hardly believe it is your university that has the problem.But they go so far as to beg the university not to accept millions of dollars to fund world-class scholarship so that they can be spared the humilation of admitting that they teach at the University of Chicago!
Let us be clear, this is censorship and it is being taken seriously by the likes of 100 faculty members at one of the greatest universities in the world.
The undersigned include over 100 staff or faculty members from all departments, and include professors I rather respect, most notably Professor Emeilo Kouri, who I respect as a historian and social scientist and who disappoints me by joining a movement to improve the world by censoring scholarship.
The list predictably also includes Susan Gzesh, who professionally relies on her faculty seat at a first-rate institution to distinguish herself as a critic of that institution. In her spare time she dabbles in the analytically hollow creed of Human Rights, which, as an academic "discipline" provides an uninsightful description of the present without getting bogged down in the details of moral, legal, or rights theory. Her website suggests she is also interested in economic developmet, which makes more alarming her cry to censor economic research on public policy. She awaits an appointment in a democratic administration that finds itself short on hacks with a prowess for primitive criticism without regard to alternative constructions of the world. Unfortunately for Professor Gzesh, Professor Obama has won the nomination.
posted by Walter at
2:16 PM
|
1 comments
