About
Articles
Monographs
Working Papers
Reviews
Archive
Contact
 
 

Chicago School Unwelcome at Chicago

University of Chicago academics oppose naming a new research centre after Milton Friedman:

In a letter to U. of C. President Robert Zimmer, 101 professors—about 8 percent of the university’s full-time faculty—said they feared that having a center named after the conservative, free-market economist could “reinforce among the public a perception that the university’s faculty lacks intellectual and ideological diversity.”

“It is a right-wing think tank being put in place,” said Bruce Lincoln, a professor of the history of religions and one of the faculty members who met with the administration Tuesday. “The long-term consequences will be very severe. This will be a flagship entity and it will attract a lot of money and a lot of attention, and I think work at the university and the university’s reputation will take a serious rightward turn to the detriment of all.”

...faculty critics are concerned that it will be one-sided, attracting scholars and donors who share a point of view.

The opposition probably tells us more about the lack of diversity and the ideological biases at the rest of the university than at the new research centre.

posted on 19 June 2008 by skirchner in Economics

(2) Comments | Permalink | Main

| More

Comments

While not related to the above - would be keen to hear your thoughts on AussieMac..

The GSEs hardly seem like good models for us to follow ...


—Q

Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)  on  06/19  at  06:19 AM


Not a fan of the AussieMac proposal.  I don’t think it will go anywhere.  Note that the Future Fund iss already implicated in funding bank’s loan books:

http://www.institutional-economics.com/index.php/section/the_future_fund_as_lender_of_last_resort_your_taxes_at_work/

Posted by skirchner  on  06/19  at  07:41 AM



Post a Comment

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Follow insteconomics on Twitter