Andrew's message is a useful reminder that
especially in economics there has been pretty
vigorous ideological enforcement most of the time
in the past, with perhaps the 1930s and 1960s being
rare windows of opportunity for more radical
professors to get into established US academia.
Not only did we have the McCarthyite purge of the
late 1940s and 1950s, but such restrictions hit earlier.
The AAUP and the institution of tenure arose largely
out of fights over the firing of radical economists in the
early 20th century. And, the University of Wisconsin
tried to fire the founder of the now thoroughly orthodox
American Economics Association, Richard Ely, for his
"socialist" views (support of workmens' comp, etc.), an
effort triggered by complaints from state legislators. He
did actually publish a book in 1894 entitled _Socialism
and Social Reform_. In that case the Board of Regents
eventually supported him and in its decision came up with
the phrase now much quoted there about how the search
for truth involves "sifting and winnowing."
I understand, however, that there is some kind of
different atmosphere on campus. Some of it is just a more
blatant careerism, although that has always been there.
Some of it is a more blatant kowtowing to external business
donors, exemplified by the new trend to naming buildings
after them (when was the last time you saw an academic
building named after a great thinker or historical figure?).
Some of it reflects the ongoing expansion of mindless
administrative bureaucracies.
Maybe this is one of those dialectical moments, where
a series of quantitative changes have led to a qualitative change.
Barkley Rosser
(still) Professor of Economics
James Madison University
Harrisonburg, VA 22807 USA
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://cob.jmu.edu/rosserjb
-----Original Message-----
From: Andrew Hagen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Monday, March 05, 2001 9:57 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:8653] Re: farewell to academe
>Best of luck to Michael Yates on his new life. The American academy may
>have grown unpleasant, but we should remember that it has nearly always
>been that way. The chief difference between 19th Century American
>university culture and today's is the different thinking styles, not
>the conclusions. Maybe we should see the crude but growing conservatism
>amongst professional intellectuals, the never ending surge of
>Republican journalism, and the emerging ethos of spite and cynicism as
>Derrida might: attempts at exorcising Marx's ghost. Or, maybe not. In
>any case, here's a good Gramsci quotation.
>
>"When one does not have the initiative in the struggle and the struggle
>itself is ultimately identified with a series of defeats, mechanical
>determinism becomes a formidable power of moral resistance, of cohesion
>and of patient and obstinate perseverance. "I am defeated for the
>moment but the nature of things is on my side in the long run," etc.
>Real will is disguised as an act of faith, a sure rationality of
>history, a primitive and empirical form of impassioned finalism which
>appear as a substitute for the predestination, providence etc., of the
>confessional religions. We must insist on the fact that even in such
>cases there exists in reality a strong active will . . . . We must
>stress the fact that fatalism has only been a cover by the weak for an
>active and real will. This is why it is always necessary to show the
>futility of mechanical determinism, which explicable as a na¡ve
>philosophy of the masses, becomes a cause of passivity, of imbecile
>self-sufficiency, when it is made into a reflective and coherent
>philosophy on the part of the intellectuals."
>
>Andrew Hagen
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
