About the 'unhappy' marriage between heterodoxy and HET which has finally 
come to the surface for a discussion:
If mainstream scholars from elite schools have a disdain for alternative
perspectives, it is based on more than just a dislike of its critics. Others 
have written about when the slow demise of HET started. TPM cafe ran an a 
blog on an article from the Nation magazine on "Hip Heterodoxy" not long ago 
and the picture that emerged was one of a science that is rigid and unforgiving.
Here is a an excerpt:

Chris Hayes wrote: "I spent a weekend at the annual American Economics 
Association conference, and hours with nearly two dozen heterodox economists 
(as well as several mainstream economists) talking to them about their views 
of their discipline. By and large they made two main points. First, the 
sociology of the economics profession, the networks of graduate students, 
the politics, outlook and worldview of those attracted to pursuing PhD's in 
econ and the perception that economists have of their role in the pubic debate 
(as defenders of markets in the face of their enemies and skeptics) tended to 
mark off certain areas of inquiry and enforce certain boundaries about what 
ideas warranted inquiry and what ideas were or were not on their face 
interesting. This sense of taboo operates in different ways, but it's most 
striking in the David Card interview which I quote in the article, in which 
he essentially admits to dropping his study of the minimum wage because his 
colleagues thought he was being a traitor to the profession. In response to 
the article, other economists, the esteemed Dani Rodrik
<http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2007/05/is_neoclassical.html>  and George Borjas
<http://borjas.typepad.com/the_borjas_blog/2007/05/herd_mentality_.html>  
have reported experiencing very similar experiences. I'm curious to see if 
other economists in the discussion can relate."

Now I know there are far too many members of this list who hate the idea of 
minimum wage, but I hope their dispassionate selves will not shun legitimate
research if it leads to different conclusions. The designation of HET as 
heterodoxy is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. And we know that is 
an all-powerful priesthood. So instead of shunning heterodoxy, why not find 
common cause with those passionate about both their particular field and HET? 
I am with Evelyn Forget and all others who want to form alliances where they 
can. Anyway, now I am emboldened to send to the list my letter in support of 
our Aussie colleagues. I will do so separately, lest the length of this message 
becomes unbearable.

Cheers,

Sumitra Shah