Search News


Browse Archives

News

Hoover in the Heartland

September 20, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Is it an "academy" or a "fund"? The name of the new Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund could be read either way. And the way people at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign are reading the name has something to do with how they view it.

Supporters describe it as a fund created by alumni to support interests they have at the university, in this case the study of Western civilization and free market economics.

But many professors see it as much more -- as a move by conservative alumni with influential national support to bypass normal faculty governance, create new courses and impose ideological tests on who gets certain pots of money. The alumni who have given the money for the effort, currently housed at the university's foundation, are explicit that they want a formal role in who gets money from the fund, the views those people should have, and the eventual goal of creating a new version of the Hoover Institution at a top public university, with the ambition of inspiring others to follow their model.

As a result of those statements and other concerns, professors at the university are debating whether the new academy is appropriate for the university. Some like the program, others think it could work with certain oversight provisions, and others find the entire idea questionable. With the program about to kick off formal activities and the Senate at the university preparing to vote on oversight proposals for the academy, the debate is heating up. And the debate comes at a time that critics of academe are increasingly embracing a model of creating free-standing centers to sponsor fellowships, courses, lectures and other activities around such themes as American history, Western civilization, and free markets.

Princeton University's James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions has in many ways been the model for such efforts up until now, and it has been praised (by people with a range of political views) for the intellectual rigor of its programs.

But governance of some of these programs has been controversial. The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Study of Western Civilization was recently created as an institution independent of any college, after plans to have the institute as part of Hamilton College collapsed, with the founders of the institute blaming the controversy on politics and many faculty members at the college saying that the founders didn't want their program to have standard oversight that other programs receive.

Anne Neal, president of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, who is on the advisory board for the new Illinois center and who has championed some of the other programs, called these efforts "oases of excellence" in higher education. But where Neal sees an oasis, others see a swamp. "This has been an end run around faculty governance," said Cary Nelson, an English professor at Illinois who is president of the American Association of University Professors. He said that the funds had been accepted by the university without appropriate review and said that he feared that committees now being created to oversee the program were not real governance but would just amount to people with the power to "whisper in the chancellor's ear."

What is the program being created that incites such feelings?

James E. Vermette, one of the founders and board members, makes clear that the program has "big plans and big dreams," and he said that the programs at Princeton and elsewhere don't have enough of an impact because they are at private institutions. He would like to see something on the scale of the Hoover Institution, which is on the campus of Stanford University, eventually copied by other universities. Supporters have already provided $2 million for the effort and there are plans to raise $10 million within 3 years and $100 million within 10 years -- ambitious goals, but targets that those familiar with the backers of the program say are probably achievable.

Vermette, a businessman and investor who is a former president of the university's alumni association, said that the program came out of the conviction that key ideas are lost on too many students, and that money coming into higher education doesn't change that. "I just have been concerned that the young people in particular are not being exposed to the value of free market capitalism and also limited government at our great universities," he said. "There is almost a disdain for the free market."

"I have known many donors through the years -- all capitalists -- all wonderful, generous people, who enriched our campuses throughout the country, and the ones who have benefited from their wonderful generosity seem to give dishonor to how they made their money," he said.

The new program will sponsor educational programs (the development of new courses or new curriculum for courses), lectures, conferences, research and more. The programs will all be based on "free market capitalism," Vermette said, citing the ideas of Milton Friedman, Ayn Rand and the Austrian economics school of such libertarian thinkers at Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich Hayek. Vermette said that the founders of the center "very much want to work with faculty" at Illinois to support these programs. "We'll work within the system," he said.

Vermette stressed that the founders weren't trying to exclude professors, but he also said that the donors anticipated having a real role in determining who gets support through the fund. Faculty members, he said, "will help us decide what programs are acceptable." If professors at the university don't want to get involved, he said, "we'll bring in adjunct faculty when we need to," he added.

Another goal for the program is to develop video games for children -- but not standard games. "We're going to try to develop game technology to teach Western civilization and teach free market capitalism, and especially financial literacy and entrepreneurial capitalism," he said. "There is potential to develop all kinds of games that would have a profound influence on everyone who plays them. They could change young kids," Vermette said.

The academy's official debut is later this month, with scheduled appearances from Joseph White, president of the University of Illinois System; Richard Herman, chancellor of the Urbana-Champaign campus; and Robert Novak, the conservative columnist and an alumnus; plus some university professors, Neal of the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, and Stephen Balch, a board member of the academy and president of the National Association of Scholars.

Nicholas C. Burbules, chair of the Senate at Illinois and professor of educational policy studies, said that professors have a range of views about the new program. "Some faculty want to just give the money back and say this has too many strings attached to it, that it is too narrowly and rigidly prejudging not only the broad scope of research but the particular conclusions that the research should be reaching," he said.

Senate leaders have been working, however, to develop appropriate governance measures that might make the program acceptable to more professors, Burbules said. At a meeting October 1, the Senate will hear proposals to create an ad hoc committee to work on the program now, with the idea that a permanent committee be created later. The principles for either committee, he said, would be to assure that any program had quality, preserved academic freedom, and respected "multiple points of view." He said that "we want to give faculty an appropriate voice" in the project.

Currently, the program is set up so the chancellor would approve all funds distributed for courses or other programs and "everyone [on the faculty] agrees that is not sufficient" to protect the values of the university, Burbules said. (The chancellor's press officials did not respond to inquiries about his views on the project.)

The Senate wants to be clear that its concerns are not about the ideology espoused by organizers of the capitalism academy, but about process and oversight, Burbules said. "This is about very broad principles of academic freedom, accountability and openness, which we'd apply to any other academic entity."

Still, the program envisioned by its funders is "unprecedented," he said. Generally at Illinois (and in higher education), donors play more of a role in setting up a broad subject area for support than in selecting recipients. In terms of statements that Vermette and other founders of the academy have made, Burbules said he disagreed with the idea that they could hire adjuncts for their programs. And of the idea of the center creating video games to encourage children to be more capitalist, Burbules said: "I can't imagine any faculty member or department taking money for that purpose."

He also questioned the idea that the campus was somehow against free markets. Urbana-Champaign has "one of the biggest and most influential business schools in the country," Burbules said, as well as a "very strong" and very market-oriented economics department. A wide range of political views are present on the campus. "I really don't think Illinois is a particularly good example of a campus with a left wing bias," he said.

Nelson, of the AAUP, said that the idea that the new program might hire adjuncts to teach courses was a perfect symbol of the flaws of the effort. "The want to emulate all the worst elements of capitalism in higher education," he said. "They want to promote the capitalist exploitation of workers in higher education. They may want to fund additional wars in the Middle East, too."

There is nothing wrong, Nelson said, with professors with common intellectual interests banding together to build centers or programs, or building programs with a particular philosophy. He said his questions were about the idea that the center was being created outside of normal procedures for new academic programs.

Nelson said it was "good that the Senate was trying to lasso this enterprise," but he questioned why the discussions about oversight were happening "after the fact," when funds have been accepted and opening ceremonies planned with senior university leaders. He also said he was disturbed by Neal's involvement. "I am ashamed to see Anne Neal's name associated with the university," he said. "I am concerned that her presence on the roster means this academy will try to engage in unscrupulous ad hominem attacks."

Of Nelson's remarks, Neal said that academe "should be about ideas, not about demonizing people who are on advisory boards." While the advisory board has only just been created, she said she would push for all programs to be open to people from a range of perspectives. There is no reason for faculty to be fearful of such efforts, Neal said.

Professors should be pleased that "there are alumni who want to provide resources for students to have more choices and more ideas," she said.

Jeffrey Brown, a professor of finance at Illinois, is another member of the advisory board. He said that he's not shocked by the opposition -- "there are some people here who think profit is a dirty word" -- but that he views the new program as a good thing.

Brown said he was "not an expert on university rules," so he didn't know the specifics of how funds would be given out to support projects. But he said that since this was a "donor-initiated fund" and that the goal was to involve professors from a range of disciplines, it made sense to house it in the university's foundation. The programs the new academy will support all make sense to him. "The types of things they are talking about doing -- research and seminars and speakers -- these things are the lifeblood of any academic institution," he said. Brown added that he "could not imagine" the academy dictating who would be hired for professorships or anything that would intrude on faculty roles.

When he was approached about the idea, he said, "what I saw were a fairly motivated, dedicated group of loyal University of Illinois alumni who had a vision and were willing to dedicate some resources to what I saw as a good educational program."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Hoover in the Heartland

  • Oversight
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on September 20, 2007 at 7:35am EDT
  • What are the ideologues afraid of that they don't want oversight? For all their talk of the marketplace of ideas, they know they can't compete except when, well, freed from competition. This is not an institute that's being proposed, but a greenhouse.

  • The G Word
  • Posted by Publius on September 20, 2007 at 7:45am EDT
  • So much for intellectual diversity and academic freedom. "Governance" and "process" are the last refuge of an academic left fearful of a real competition of ideas.

  • Posted by hb on September 20, 2007 at 8:05am EDT
  • These centers of excellence are wonderful experiments that arise as a consequence of the limitations & failures of the governance & pedagogic models of the academy today...an example of organizational failure & evolution motivated by a sclerotic hegemony.

    Consider Hamilton's experience with then Alexander Hamilton Center (now Alexander Hamilton Center for the Study of Western Civilization Inc):

    it negotiated, accepted, and agreed to the Charter and a $3.6mm donation to fund it; publicized it with 2 national press releases; attempted to ex post facto renegotiate the terms; then killed it altogether; published what many consider a disingenuous explanation of the process; and then after killing the Center tried to trademark the specific name, using language lifted directly from the Charter they just killed. The trademark application has subsequently been withdrawn.

    The AHI is not affiliated with Hamilton College. The scholarly product will be offered freely to students and teachers across the country. Ultimately, this independence will provide AHI with a greater opportunity, a bigger sandbox in which to succeed or fail.

    It seems the AHI, and others like it, is a next generation, leading edge innovative experiment.

  • Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha....Oh, Stop It!
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on September 20, 2007 at 8:45am EDT
  • You know those TV blooper shows that inevitably include the newsreader who can't stop laughing long enough to get through the next item? That's me, right now. My omelet's getting cold, the milk's going sour, and the dog is looking at me like he's afraid he's going to catch it next.

    But I'm still laughing, thanks to this story.

    Having proven they'll do anything for money, the Chancellor and President of the University of Illinois must now attend a public dedication ceremony surrounded by the likes of Anne Neal, some guy who's the head of the National Association of [Right Wing] Scholars, and Bob Novak. At least Senator Vitter had the sense to do it all behind closed doors so he could deny a few of the charges against him. Other than having David Horowitz parachute in as a surprise guest, the only thing that could improve this public shaming would be for the University to call Chief Illiniwek out of retirement so he could add a little racial insensitivity to an already risable program.

    So let me get this straight: this guy Vermette wants to create an academy of pure indoctrination in which students will learn to worship the holy trinity of Friedman, von Mises, and Hayek, as well as that heroine of stunted intellects everywhere, Ayn Rand. He wants faculty involvement, or so he says, but is willing to hire adjuncts to pour the Kool-Aid if not enough tenure track professors are willing to test the value of their immortal soul on the open market.

    To this blatant attempt to politicize a state university, ACTA's Neal naturally responds with a hearty,"Yessiree!" Give Ms. Neal credit: unlike most people caught in the crosshairs of an internal contradiction, she takes her hypocrisy straight up with a twist of lemon. Besides, she says she's going to push for all perspectives to be included.

    So, Anne, I have an idea. There's this guy out in Colorado looking for a job right now. Name of Churchill. I don't know his address, but I suspect you know where to find him. After all, a circus can never have too many clowns.

    Meanwhile, I'm signing off to make another omelet. If this one goes cold, I'm suing somebody.

  • The Academy of Capitalist Indoctrination
  • Posted by Grover Furr on September 20, 2007 at 8:50am EDT
  • Indoctrination, not education, is the stated goal of the "Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government".

    How about a critical examination of "the value of free market capitalism and limited government"? Exposure to alternative paradigms and viewpoints? Nothing is said about that here!

    If students are not free to critically examine and reject these ideas, then what's going on is indoctrination -- even as the "conservatives" themselves define the term.

    Mr Vermette wants to teach "Western civilization" too. Marxism, socialism, and communism are as much a part of Western civilization as is capitalism.

    And what happened to Truth? "Conservatives" like to promote Allan Bloom, who preached Plato and Socrates. They were reactionaries, even in their own time -- but they did believe in discovering, and teaching the truth.

    Science is a big part of "Western civilzation". It is focused on discovering and teaching the truth objectively, even and especially when it goes against the interests of powerful elites.

    But there's nothing about the search for the truth in the description of this new "Academy."

    The parallel with the Hoover Institution is an apt one. Hoover is ideology, period, and the truth be damned.

    This project is as dishonest as can be imagined.

  • What's wrong with peace, love & diversity?
  • Posted by L.L. on September 20, 2007 at 8:55am EDT
  • "What are the ideologues afraid of that they don’t want oversight?"

    Oh .. when the politics of many faculties are so skewed to one major political party, it makes the KKK seem diverse --

    http://www.boston.com/news/education/higher/articles/2007/08/23/academia_has_08_cash_clout/

    BTW: Stanford and Hamilton are private institutions. UIUC is public. For some, the latter and its peers are a lost cause for thought-diversity; they should just declare "intellectual bankruptcy" and start over.

  • Projection, Fantasy & Parasitism
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on September 20, 2007 at 8:55am EDT
  • Publius is projecting the fears & insecurities of the ideological right onto higher education. Not so much a straw man argument as a boogie man argument.

    If hb's fantasy is correct, what's the problem? Let the right-wing institutes produce their paeans to the free market on their own dime. No reason why institutions devoted to critical examination of ideas should sponsor outfits whose funders insist on writing the curriculum. Universities have (rightly) gotten criticism for letting, say, pharmaceutical companies pre-load the results of studies and trials -- why should economists get a bye?

    This is just another in a long list of examples of the American right wanting to have it both ways. They want the prestige of Hamilton or U of IL, or or SMU, but they don't want the responsibility to play fair that the prestige is founded on. It's the same strategy the religious right uses: they want the cultural power of science to underwrite creationism even though they can't produce any actual science.

    When the attempted parasitism fails, one hears howls of pained outrage as powerful right-wing interests lay claim to the status of oppressed victims. Kind of funny, really.

  • Shocked, just shocked
  • Posted by Buzz on September 20, 2007 at 9:15am EDT
  • " .. Hoover is ideology, period, and the truth be damned .."

    Oh, my. How could that be?

    Why, that would be like a tax-supported English professor, assuming poly-sci expertise, claiming ol' "Uncle Joe" Stalin wasn't such a bad dude after all. Or something weird like that.

  • Argument by Name Calling
  • Posted by JimInNashville on September 20, 2007 at 10:10am EDT
  • The vast majority of the arguments against a mild experiment in intellectual diversity seem to be based on anger, disdain, and name-calling, the primary armament of the intellectual Left for the last generation. The abject fear of true intellectual diversity is palpable. Yes, by all means, let us circle our wagons. I'm laughing even harder than Unapologetically Tenured, but for an entirely different reason.

  • a course on mid-century political theory?
  • Posted by George Gollin , Professor of Physics at University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign on September 20, 2007 at 10:10am EDT
  • Perhaps, in order to provide broad exposure to its students, the Academy on Capitalism and Limited Government Fund would look favorably on a proposal for a course on the writings of Antonio Gramsci, and the manifestations in post-World War II America of the phenomena he discussed. I will be interested to see how it goes if one of my colleagues in Political Science actually tries something like this.

  • With enemies like this, who needs friends?
  • Posted by Publius on September 20, 2007 at 10:35am EDT
  • Nothing makes a better case for independent beacons of traditional scholarship than the hysteria of JD, UT, and GF.

  • Oops
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tenured on September 20, 2007 at 10:35am EDT
  • "I’m laughing even harder than Unapologetically Tenured, but for an entirely different reason."

    Presumably, Jim in Nashville is laughing because I don't know how to spell "risible". Oh well, back to circling the wagons against this "mild experiment in intellectual diversity".

    Dammit, now there you go getting me laughing again.

  • Alumni Accountability
  • Posted by Joseph C on September 20, 2007 at 10:45am EDT
  • Much talk and smoke has issued forth concerning the issue of the accountability of universities to such and such parties. My question is: How does one insure that the alumni are accountable? Who are the alumni accountable to? What if the the actions of alumni actively harm the university? With education funds being deliberately cut left and right the power of elite alumni to control the university purse strings grows year after year, and it should go without saying that such power needs to be monitored and checked.

  • Yeah, Right
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer on September 20, 2007 at 10:50am EDT
  • "...anger, disdain, and name-calling, the primary armament of the intellectual Left for the last generation."

    You mean like those well-known leftists Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh, Jim? I actually advance some arguments and analogies in my comment above, but you failed to address them. You're suffering from an acute case of projection. (That's a pathology in which the sufferer projects onto others what he most fears in himself.)

  • on ungrateful students
  • Posted by Diana Relke , Professor at U of Saskatchewan on September 20, 2007 at 12:45pm EDT
  • '“I just have been concerned that the young people in particular are not being exposed to the value of free market capitalism ..."'

    Vermette must be talking about those students who somehow get away with not having to pay tuition fees.

    '“There is almost a disdain for the free market.”'

    Gee, I can't imagine why.

  • God forbid...
  • Posted by Steven Horwitz , Dana Professor of Economics at St. Lawrence University on September 20, 2007 at 2:20pm EDT
  • ...our students get exposed to ideas that enable them to think critically about what they are learning in other courses.

    I will reserve judgment on whether or not this organization violated proper governance, but the over-the-top paranoia about students being taught the ideas of Friedman, Hayek, and Mises (let's leave Rand to the side for the moment), all of whom were major 20th century thinkers who wrote real books and journal articles, is just too much to take.

    Are faculty so insecure about their own ideas that the notion that some students might want to study competing ideas is now seen as a threat to academic freedom?

    If teaching those folks, and that they might have been right, is somehow indoctrination, then y'all better come up to my school and run me out of town on a rail. You better call my publishers too.

    I'll be worried about "balance" in the courses and seminars of this organization and others like it the moment I start seeing Hayek, and not just critiques of him, on reading lists in courses in political science, philosophy, etc. and being studied in faculty seminars by left-leaning academic centers on campuses nationwide.

  • Posted by CB on September 20, 2007 at 2:20pm EDT
  • Does anyone oppose teaching Marx? No, yet his theories produced the most tried and failed examples of murderous tyranny of the 20th century.

    So, why do so many tenured professors object to teaching capitalism? A little introspection may be in order. And perhaps some of that male enhancement juice too.

  • cat fight
  • Posted by Anthony K (UIC) , Prof at UIC on September 20, 2007 at 2:30pm EDT
  • This is great sport.

    So in one corner we have Joe White, former business school dean and professional fundraiser, driving tenured professors nuts with this push toward free market economics and his relentless search for alternative funding sources. In the other corner we have tenured professors, mostly liberal by nature (sorry, except Jeff), who do not like being told what to do.

    Different worlds collide. What a great story line.

    I just love hearing tenured professors squeal. Sounds just like my teenagers. One - give me money. Two - don’t tell me what to do.

    Give ‘em heck, Joe!

    Love the battle cry, “If professors at the university don’t want to get involved… we’ll bring in adjunct faculty when we need to.” This alumnus says WAY TO GO and LONG OVERDUE. I’ve had it with lazy tenured professors who retreat to the shelter of their intellectual curiosities and irrelevant academic journals.

    Jeff Brown got it right: “there are some people here who think profit is a dirty word.” Hilarious understatement. Jeff Brown is a minority at the College of Business.

    Gosh, the research and teaching of “free market capitalism” could drive University of Illinois into the same academic irrelevance and shoddy academic standards as the University of Chicago. What a shame that would be.

  • Marketplace of ideas: no new vendors need apply
  • Posted by Glenn Bogart on September 20, 2007 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Why am I not surprised to find that liberal professors and the ACLU have "issues" with the founding of a new Academy which would concentrate on libertarian economics? Could there be some fear that the concept of freedom might actually be attractive to poor, impressionable students, should they be unfortunate enough to be exposed to it? Nah, surely that's not it. Surely it is merely a legitimate concern over governance.

    I would think that economics professors would have enough knowledge of von Mises and Hayek to teach courses about their views, even if they don't subscribe to them. They do that with Marx, don't they? Oops. I forgot. They do subscribe to Marx. I guess that's the difference.

  • Wars in the Middle East!
  • Posted by TA on September 20, 2007 at 3:45pm EDT
  • Nelson, of the AAUP, said that the idea that the new program might hire adjuncts to teach courses was a perfect symbol of the flaws of the effort. “The want to emulate all the worst elements of capitalism in higher education,” he said. “They want to promote the capitalist exploitation of workers in higher education. They may want to fund additional wars in the Middle East, too.”

    I'm confused! What do wars in the Middle East have to do with this debate? It seems Nelson just threw that in there to fire up his liberal collegues a bit.

  • Posted by Joseph Duemer on September 20, 2007 at 5:45pm EDT
  • Who is "objecting to teaching capitalism?" In this thread or in universities around the country? What some of us are objecting to is the creation of an unaccountable & independent entity within the university, deriving the benefits of being associated with the university without any of the responsibilities. Oh, and the fact that, as usual, the right wants to do exactly what it is always accusing liberals of doing: indoctrinating students with carefully selected ideas rather that engaging in inquiry & debate.

  • Posted by Michael on September 20, 2007 at 5:50pm EDT
  • How interesting that Cary Nelson's biggest fear is that Ann Neal would result in "unscrupulous ad hominem attacks". Of course, comparing adjunct professors to combatants in the War on Terror in Iraq probably was not unscrupulous or ad hominem either. Thank goodness the AAUP is out there to protect the integrity of the academy. I shudder to think what our endeavor might devolve to if Professor Nelson and his union thug wannabes were not on the job to protect us all.

  • Think Dialectically
  • Posted by Darla Lambert on September 20, 2007 at 5:50pm EDT
  • Marx's "theories produced some of the most tired and failed examples of murderous tyranny of the 20th c."

    What produced Marxism and Marxists? (Remember Marx is supposed to have said that HE was not a Marxist.) Well, capitalism (among other things) produced Marxism and movements and tyrannies in Marx's name. There must have been something pretty awful about capitalism to produce such a tragic response. Wasn't it Jameson who said, We must strive to hold in our minds two contradictory notions: "Capitalism is at one and the same time the best thing ever to happen to the human race, and the worst"?

    I have no problem with a school that teaches libertarian capitalism. I'm a libertarian-feminist-socialist myself. Libertarian-capitalist thought is full of insights, even if I can't adopt all its conclusions (or celebrate the tired, murderous tyrannies that have existed under some capitalist regimes.) Marxist dialectic, also, is good at generating insights into the workings of history, even if I can't bring myself to adopt all its conclusions. For one thing, Marxism just has too much in common with capitalism. Both the "free market" and the "planned economy" are distressingly patriarchal, deeply infected by unaware racism, and operate through "coordinators," that is, professional managerial classes that workers detest. Each set of elites, and sub-elites, running each system think THEIR system promotes freedom. But only for the elites, the winners, of each system, right?

    There may be all kinds of exciting, alternative political-economic systems we haven't thought up yet. Universities should be researching these rather than engaging in circular, polarized debate.

    Look into the work of economists who have proposed, say, Participatory Economics. It's about worker self-management (without coordinators!) among a number of other ideas that can also be regarded as conducing toward greater freedom for all, not just an upper half of the society.

  • Amusing
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer on September 20, 2007 at 7:15pm EDT
  • "I shudder to think what our endeavor might devolve to if Professor Nelson and his union thug wannabes were not on the job to protect us all."

    Glance through this discussion thread -- heck, glance through any discussion thread on this site -- & take note of which side of the political spectrum advances arguments & which side argues by insult & smear. Conservatives: it's what they do. (Not to mention arguing by cliche, but that's a subject for another day . . .)

  • Even More Amusing
  • Posted by Joseph Duemer on September 20, 2007 at 9:20pm EDT
  • "I will reserve judgment on whether or not this organization violated proper governance, but the over-the-top paranoia about students being taught the ideas of Friedman, Hayek, and Mises (let’s leave Rand to the side for the moment), all of whom were major 20th century thinkers who wrote real books and journal articles, is just too much to take."

    So writes Prof. Horwitz above. Interestingly, he never finds a "moment" to return to Ayn Rand. And why that might be? Could Prof. Horwitz be trying to fly under the radar here? After all, he is a frequent contributor to the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. [Google "Steven Horowitz Rand."]Perhaps the Dana Professor of Economics is embarrassed by this sketchy association with a discredited cult figure. No that couldn't be the case. Just another conservative ideologue engaging in an act of intellectual dishonesty. Why am I not surprised?

  • Posted by hb on September 20, 2007 at 10:25pm EDT
  • “If hb’s fantasy is correct, what’s the problem?...” We don’t have a problem. We have created a wonderful opportunity for students across the country from the effort & initiative of interested and active alumni.
    “Let the right-wing institutes produce their paeans to the free market on their own dime…” The Alexander Hamilton Institute for the Center of Western Civilization is independently funded: it is our own dime. Take a look at the initiatives as described on www.theahi.org . They are scholarly, not political, and they will be conducted in the highest standards of traditional Western scholarship. Perhaps that is the problem.

    “No reason why institutions devoted to critical examination of ideas should sponsor outfits whose funders insist on writing the curriculum….” You are incorrect in respect of the AHI. The AHI was always intended to be programmatic and not curricular. That said, you make no mention of the epidemic problem of subordinating scholarship to political diatribe within the curriculum of many schools, nor do you mention of the void of intellectual diversity so amply on display here.

    “This is just another in a long list of examples of the American right wanting to have it both ways. They want the prestige of Hamilton or U of IL, or SMU, but they don’t want the responsibility to play fair that the prestige is founded on….” Actually, we tried to give it to the college. They ultimately didn’t want it. The president and the dean of faculty negotiated the terms of the Charter, agreed to it, announced the financial gift to fund it, then tried to ex post facto renegotiate the terms of the Charter, and then declined it. As to the notion of parasitic prestige, well, you might want to reconsider after you’ve taken a look at the academic advisors to the AHI.

    The AHI is clearly better off with a mission defined by the Charter, the freedom to execute it, the oversight of a competent board loyal to its charter, and the necessary protections from activist ‘scholars’ who would seek to alter the mission from the study of markets, democracy, and freedom within the nexus of Alexander Hamilton’s life to gender & diversity studies.

    Query: to get academic freedom, does one has to leave the academy?

  • nice
  • Posted by Steven Horwitz on September 20, 2007 at 10:30pm EDT
  • Just another conservative ideologue engaging in an act of intellectual dishonesty.

    Hard to believe that's the same person who said this:

    Glance through this discussion thread — heck, glance through any discussion thread on this site — & take note of which side of the political spectrum advances arguments & which side argues by insult & smear. Conservatives: it’s what they do.

    Thank you for the insult and smear. Evidently, it's what you do.

    First of all, if you could read carefully you would see that I'm a libertarian not a conservative. Here too, no time to deal with substance I guess. Smear away.

    The reality is that I simply forgot to return to Rand. If you look at the context, I put her aside because she was not an academic and did not write for the professional journals. And she does not deserve to be treated with the same respect at the others I mentioned. That doesn't mean her work is worthless. If I really was "dishonest" or "embarrassed", why would I have links to my two (is that "frequent"?) articles in JARS? Hard to say I'm trying to hide something when you found it so easily with Google.

    And instead of name-calling and smearing, deal with the substance of the arguments. You've smeared her and me and not dealt at all with what I've had to say, or say in my contributions in that journal. If you'd actually read it, you would have also seen it was a critique of Rand. But that would mean dealing in substance.

    Glad to see you live up to your own principles. We can now see who really does engage in name calling and smears and who deals in substance. We can also see that some left wing faculty are not just afraid of different ideas, but actually proud of their ignorance of them.

  • Posted by Thane Doss on September 21, 2007 at 6:40am EDT
  • Whatever happened to the idea of an endowed chair? If they want to be sure that only the right people, with the right ideas, get their money, why not endow a chair--or a few--with the condition that they get to choose the recipients? Particularly at a time when teachers in higher ed with real assurances of continued employment (FTTT professors) are nearly a disappearing breed outside of departmental administration, this would be the perfect way to assure that free market capitalism is advantaged over all other modes of thought, as the funders pretty frankly admit they desire. Is the whole problem just that they'd have to pay full-time salaries and risk someone having a mid-life conversion if they were to go about it by endowing chairs?

  • Posted by Joseph Duemer on September 21, 2007 at 9:40am EDT
  • Prof. Horwitz:

    "Hysterical" "KKK," "[supporter of] Stalin," "union thug wannabes," "insecure" -- all phrases referring to liberal academics in the thread above. When you add to that the noise machine of the anti-intellectual media, some of us feel the need to respond.

    I haven't read your work on Rand, though I have read her feverish, adolescent novels, which has been enough to make me avoid her overtly philosophical writing. You imply above that you wrote a "critique" of Rand for the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. What about the other essays you published in that venue? All critiques? The point is, you left out a a detail that would have given readers of this thread some insight into your perspective. Perhaps it was unintentional.

    Let me say it again: I'm not "afraid" of teaching any economist, writer or philosopher, as you and others allege above. What I object to is the attempt to hijack the university, one of the few remaining institutions in American society still at least vaguely committed to democratic values.

    And an empirical question: Many in the thread above have assumed that "capitalism" never gets taught in American universities, that Hayek never appears on economics syllabi, that liberals are indoctrinating students to a particular point of view. But is Hayak really so ignored? It would be interesting to look at the syllabi from a hundred US econ departments.

    You tell me that I should address your arguments, but you ignore the central point of all my posts in this thread, which is that the proposed institute at U of IL would be independent of faculty governance. What would your reaction be if -- oh, let's pick a liberal bogeyman -- George Soros offered to fund an institute of progressive economics at SLU, with the proviso that he would determine the curriculum & hire the faculty? Would you have a problem with that?

    Finally, you say that you are a libertarian not a conservative. Sorry to have used the wrong brand, but it's very confusing, you know, since American libertarians as a group have sold out to the imperial, militarist fantasies of the hard right. So your insistence on the term "libertarian" reminds me a bit of the piano player in the whorehouse who claims he has no idea what's going on upstairs. Perhaps you are the exception that tests the rule.

  • Well-said
  • Posted by Buzz on September 21, 2007 at 9:45am EDT
  • " .. We can also see that some left wing faculty are not just afraid of different ideas, but actually proud of their ignorance of them."

    Hear, hear.

    And hearing is NOT what the Ward You-Know-Who Brigade wants -- to hear "different voices."

    They are the never-satisfied critics of a "hateful America" that they -- and only they -- perceive. But, of course, they refuse to be criticized themselves.

    I pity their students and the students' parents. What a sham!

  • Rand's cult?
  • Posted by Unapologetically Tedious , Math teacher on September 21, 2007 at 2:40pm EDT
  • "Perhaps the Dana Professor of Economics is embarrassed by this sketchy association with a discredited cult figure (Ayn Rand)."

    Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, is one of invidualism. Each person is a means to their own ends and individual rights are only limited when they conflict with another's. This is the antithesis of a cult (group) think.

  • Facts is hard
  • Posted by Buzz on September 21, 2007 at 11:55pm EDT
  • First, let's be pleasant --

    " .. Ayn Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism, is one of invidualism .."

    Excellent, UT! You've done better than Ward "What's-His-Name." (How quickly we forget ..)

    And for the small college types belittling Rand, consider this --

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/15/business/15atlas.html?ref=opinion

    Those darn lib-burr-al media types ..

    Now --

    " .. I’m not “afraid” of teaching any economist, writer or philosopher .."

    Shouldn't teaching economics be done by PhDs in economics? And philosophy by PhDs in philosophy? They're having a hard time, I hear.

    " .. is Hayak really so ignored? It would be interesting to look at the syllabi from a hundred US econ departments .."

    A "brute-force" analysis by Google --

    http://www.google.com/search?num=100&hl=en&safe=off&q=%22Friedrich+Hayek%22+syllabus+economics+site%3A.edu&btnG=Search

    Only 77 hits. Prof. Horwitz appears to have a point. Facts is hard, ain't they?

    However, Hayek is ascending --

    http://www.boston.com/news/globe/ideas/articles/2004/01/11/friedrich_the_great/

    Again -- those pesky lib-burr-al media types. Darn them and their tricky ways.

    " .. What would your reaction be if .. George Soros offered to fund an institute on progressive economics .."

    Mr. Soros, who made his Wall Street fortune by speculating on the British pound, doesn't have to. For instance, he instinctively knows that Berkeley's economics faculty has only one non-Democrat out of 12 (Daniel Klein, Santa Clara University). Progressive money-speculators have those instincts, it is rumored.

    Billionaire Soros is not going to spend a dime if he doesn't have to. And he's not with faculties -- he's behind MoveOn. org.

    Facts is hard. Hypotheticals ain't, in every case.

  • Posted by Joseph Duemer , Professor at Clarkson University on September 22, 2007 at 10:40am EDT
  • Professor Horwitz wrote: "I’ll be worried about “balance” in the courses and seminars of this organization and others like it the moment I start seeing Hayek, and not just critiques of him, on reading lists in courses in political science, philosophy, etc. and being studied in faculty seminars by left-leaning academic centers on campuses nationwide."

    This would suggest that Hayek is not being taught, but the brute force analysis provided by Buzz would indicate that this is not the case. of course, more analysis would be needed, which was why I asked my question in the first place. Thanks to Buzz we now have a bit of empirical data. Horwitz original assertion was just that -- an assertion, not necessarily a description of the truth & something that a reader need not take on faith.

    Oh, and, Buzz? The fact that your fantasy of George Soros makes you believe he would not fund an institute of the kind I hypothesized is not germane. Arguing with hypotheticals is perfectly legitimate & of course, I was simply trying to get professor Horwitz to understand the point I had been making all along about my reasons for objecting to the proposed institute.

    "Facts is hard." So is reading, apparently.

  • Hoover not yada, yada, yada
  • Posted by L.L. on September 22, 2007 at 2:10pm EDT
  • " .. The fact that your fantasy of George Soros makes you believe he would not fund an institute of the kind I hypothesized is not germane .."

    Well, if it isn't germane -- why are we wasting our time, yapping about it? Just to blah, blah, blah?

    Places like Hoover at Stanford frighten tenured and unionized academics because at Hoover, the faculty and staff's output is carefully reviewed for overall impact.

    Were such reviews done on the tenured and unionized faculty, the outcome would be highly negative for the tenured and unions.

    No wonder currency-speculator Soros doesn't spend his hard-earned billions -- from speculating on the people's currency and affecting their interest rates -- on tenured and unionized faculty. He expects results in this century.

  • Cool Hand Luke: A Failure To Communicate
  • Posted by Dave , Professor at University of Illinois Champaign-Urbana on September 22, 2007 at 9:20pm EDT
  • What we've got here is failure to communicate. Wiser words were never said in Champaign. A clash of cultures....

    Out of all the news from U of I the past year, a political flap between administrators, alumni and tenured faculty certainly beats recent scandals of drunken athletes, underage drinking and investigations by Illinois Inspector General over discrimination against veterans at the Business School.

    What about getting back to basic academic values like excellence in research, teaching and student success?

    I don’t think these people like each other very much. Perhaps the real issue here is a leadership vacuum, culture clash and a “failure to communicate.”

  • Posted by a fan's notes on September 26, 2007 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Consider the investment aphorism...

    "Today the only people who don't think markets work are the North Koreans, the Cubans, and the stock pickers.” - Rex Sinquefield

    in the context of academic markets & organizational structures. Think about organizational limits, quality standards & failures of stewardship.