----------------- HES POSTING ----------------- 
It is of interest to note that when thick studies on the history of 
economics are done and come to the conclusion that there is a connection 
between economics/economists and maintaining the political-economic status 
quo such work is dismissed by most economists.  And when some young 
economist has the gumption to speak up and say, given the story told with 
all its evidence, that seems reasonable to me, many economists say "oh I do 
not know any economist who sold their intellectual soul to the status quo 
and of course I would not do anything like that."  But of course we know 
many economists (and academics in general) who have done this--read for 
example Ellen Schrecker, "No Ivory Tower:  McCarthyism and the 
Universities," David Montgomery et. al "The Cold War and the University," 
and Michael Bernstein, "A Perilous Progress:  Economists and Public Purpose 
in Twentieth Century America".   
 
But how about particular examples that are well-known with documentation:  
(1) much of the economics department at Berkeley bowing if not supporting 
the California oath of allegiance and did not back one of their own 
economists who being a good American (and also a social economists--read 
not sufficiently a mainstream economist) objected to such an oath, 
(2)Gardner Ackley and the University of Michigan economists "forcing" the 
likes of Klein and two graduate students Edward Shaffer and Myron E. Sharpe 
to leave because of past and/or current association/interest with/in the 
Communist Party and/or Marxism, and (3) the Economics Department at the 
University of Michigan putting pressure on Kenneth Boulding not to issue a 
statement opposing military conscription during the Korean War.   
 
Then there is the long run tendency by economists to restrict economics in 
the academy to a broadly single body of theory that generally supports 
capitalism.  By this I mean the efforts to exclude initially Marxian 
economic theory and later other forms of heterodoxy such as Post 
Keynesian-Institutional economic theory from being taught to students and 
being one part of "acceptable" economic discourse among economists because 
of their alternative and less panegyric view markets and capitalism.  This 
historical story is well-known and documented, but how about more recent 
examples--the Notre Dame story is a case at hand.   
 
But something else--how about the progressive exclusion of heterodox 
economics from economic departments in the UK?  There is much evidence 
showing that most if not all of the top ranked departments in the UK and 
their economists do not on principle teach alternative economic theories to 
their students, do not hire heterodox economists, and put pressure on their 
faculty/staff to publish near exclusively in Diamond List-type journals.  
Moreover, many of these departments have no or only a token heterodox 
economist on staff--such as the LSE, Warwick, Exeter, Leicester, 
Nottingham, Queen Mary, Southampton, York, Birmingham, Bristol, Durham, 
Kent, Newcastle, Royal Holloway, Sussex, Edinburgh, Glasgow, St. Andrews, 
Swansea, Keele, Reading, Hull, and Loughborough.   
 
But what does this have to do with the above story?  One possible reading 
of the Research Assessment Exercise is that it emerged from the 
Conservative government attempts in the early 1980s to have higher 
education serve their interests; and that the evolution of the RAE over the 
past 20 years has co-opted disciplines, departments, and academics (which 
implies many economists that we know) to do precisely that.  This story is 
still very incomplete but what if in 30 years a historian (after studying 
all the evidence, taken oral statements and generally produced a thick 
history) comes to the same conclusion?  Would economists on this listserve 
say that the historian has done a poor job?  Just because thick histories 
produce conclusions that many economists do not like does not mean they are 
wrong.  If the only possible outcome of explorations into the relationship 
of economists, economic theory and the status quo is one in which 
economists etc are not co-opted, then there is no need to do any of this 
work in the first place.  If historians of economics/economic thought 
cannot accept or at least reflect upon disquieting conclusions from good 
research without being defensive and/or dismissive then perhaps they should 
chose a different area for their research activity. 
 
Fred Lee 
 
 
------------ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ------------ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]