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