I still have my copy of the poster circulated at the University of
Chicago that said "Drive Friedman off Campus through Protest and
Exposure." It is one of those great examples of Sparticist socialist
realism that almost redeems that most sectarian of the sectarian
groupuscles. Beside the wonderful call to action the poster included a
picture of jack-booted Chilean soldiers burning books in downtown Santiago
and a photo of poor Chileans gleaning food from a garbage dump.
If I remember correctly, the Sparts argued that they were not
denying Friedman his right to free speech because they wanted to drive him
off campus through exposure of his deeds in Chile. It worked for me.
Dan Hammond has it almost exactly wrong. At the University of
Chicago Friedman was never censored. I don't beleve he was prevented from
speaking, but I may be wrong. I entered the college in fall 1974 and no
one stopped him from speaking that school year. If anything, Milton
Friedman's influence with naive undergraduates and cashmere sweatered
Chilean graduate students was immense. Chicago has had for many years a
core curriculum for its undergraduates. Several of the year-long social
science courses required that students read "Capitalism and Freedom." It
was virtually impossible to avoid Little Milton's paeans to the virtues of
untrammelled markets.
When the revelations that he and Arnold Harberger had participated
in post-coup planning for the Junta came to light, the Left on campus
responded. The Sparts formed a united front of the marginal and
tirelessly leafletted and hectored everyone else on the Left. Several
demonstrations were organized. At one a message from Studs Terkel was
read where he stated he would flush his diploma down the toilet except
that he never picked it up in the first place. Folks from URPE organized
an educational campaign that made it impossible to not have an opinion on
what had happened in Chile. Editorials, front page articles, and letters
to the editor appeared for months in the college newspaper. A teach-in
was organized where Maurice Zeitlin told us that the lesson to be learned
from the aborted revolution was that leftists ought to infiltrate the
police.
Friedman did appear at a public venue on campus in a debate about
tax policy or something of the sort. He was one of four speakers, another
was, I believe, Robert Eisner, and perhaps an economist from the UAW. A
good sized picket was outside of Mandel Hall spiritedly chanting
"Friedman, Harberger, Pinochet, the Working Class will not Forget." A
couple of dozen protesters were inside the hall, and Friedman was met by
some heckling. Friedman delivered his talk, one or two of the other
speakers chastized his hypocritical commitment to freedom, and a fist
fight almost broke out between a protester and one of los Chicago Boys.
(BTW, you could always identify the Chilean graduate students because they
dressed like they had just come back from a Saturday afternoon at the
country club.)
Friedman smugly answered his critics (you really wanted to shoot
the bastard) that he hadn't lost any sleep, and, as far as I can tell, he
was never censored. He wasn't driven off campus, but I think he was
exposed. Whenever I hear Milton Friedman's name I think of jack-booted
soldiers burning books, slum dwellers eating garbage, and Victor Jara
singing songs of freedom as his torturers pushed on with their ugly work.
The Dan Hammonds of the world will always try to rewrite history.
It is up to us not to forget.
Robert Saute
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Fri, 7 Nov 1997, michael perelman wrote:
> Should we rise to defend the innocence of poor Milton Friedman who has
> suffered so much at the hands of the left for his ceaseless defense of
> freedom?
> ----------
> > From: Dan Hammond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Subject: Re: HES: QUERY -- Censorship of economic writers
> > Date: Friday, November 07, 1997 7:45 AM
> >
> > ======================== HES POSTING ==================
> >
> > Jim Craven's baseless and vulgar charge against Milton Friedman brings to
> > mind that Friedman's advocacy of freedom, noninflationary monetary
> policy,
> > and limited government has indeed been associated with efforts to censor.
> > But Friedman was never the censor; he was the one censored.
> >
> > Before Chile, in 1974, members of the Students for a Democratic Society
> > tried to shout Friedman down as he gave a talk at the Oriental Institute
> in
> > Chicago. After Anthony Lewis's _New York Times_ article (October 2, 1975)
> > accusing him of contributing to repression of Chile's poor, a "Committee
> > Against Friedman/Harberger Collaboration With the Chilean Junta" was
> formed
> > at Chicago. The group's posters on the University of Chicago campus
> called
> > for members of the community to "drive Friedman off campus through
> protest
> > and exposure."
> >
> > After the announcement of Friedman's Nobel Prize there were protests, and
> > the Friedmans were given special protection during their stay in
> Stockholm
> > for the ceremonies. Other efforts by demonstrators to silence him
> followed
> > after the Friedmans returned to the U.S.
> >
> > If censorship is measured by the effort made to silence a person, which
> > economists have been subject to more censorship than Milton Friedman?
> >
> > Dan Hammond
> > Department of Economics
> > Wake Forest University
> >
> > ============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============
> > For information, send the message "info HES" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> ------
> Michael Perelman
> Economics Department
> California State University
> Chico, CA 95929
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 916-898-5321
> 916-898-5901 fax
>
>
