===================== HES POSTING ==================== 
 
Concerning Michael L. Robison (6 Nov 1997 08:26:09 MST), is there a  
danger of missing the point? 
 
The principal victims of censorship are the public and the truth, not  
just the censored individual. Thus if a decision deprives the public of  
access to a view that it has the right to hear, then that is a violation  
of democracy; and if an insitution fails to consider theories that might  
be true, then that is a violation of science. 
 
Sure, it's impossible to make space for every school of thought in every  
appointment and every publication. But it is easy to correct the deficiency 
if it is understood that the primary duty is to the public: eg by  
scheduling special lectures, by arranging access to printed material, by  
sending students on external courses, including assessments on the omitted  
material, and so on; in journals by citing omitted authors, by considering  
all points of view in a discussion, renouncing ipse dixit arguments, by  
observing the right of reply, and so on. As far as I can see the excuse of  
insufficient resources is, nine times out of ten, just that: an excuse. 
 
Moreover if, by cumulative small decisions, a legitimate viewpoint is  
deprived of any space at all, then it certainly has been censored, no  
matter how justified is each individual act of neglect. 
 
This has undeniably happened, to take a more widespread example than  
Cantillon, with Marx, and with the growing body of authors who have refuted  
the almost universal charges of inconsistency levelled against him. This is  
by no means the only case - but it is the most glaring. 
 
I think the profession generally underestimates -  perhaps 'understates'  
would be more accurate if less charitable - its own complicity in its  
own political manipulation.  
 
Though complicity may not arise when a viewpoint is omitted from a journal  
or institution, it does certainly arise if no steps are taken to counter  
the effect of the omission. An English doggerel runs: 
 
"No-one can corrupt or twist,  
thank God, the British journalist. 
 
Given what the man will do  
unbribed, there is no reason to" 
 
Disturbing though it is that senior economists are shipped into positions  
of influence for political motives, isn't it a great deal more disturbing  
that this seems to be all that is needed to get their views accepted? 
 
Disturbing though it is that political steps are taken to silence 
unpalatable economic arguments, isn't it a great deal more disturbing 
that the practice succeeds?  
 
 
Alan Freeman 
============ FOOTER TO HES POSTING ============ 
For information, send the message "info HES" to [log in to unmask]