The Controversy over the Milton Friedman Institute--Posner

Milton Friedman was one of the twentieth century's most distinguished economists, and one of the century's three economists (the other two being John Maynard Keynes and Friedrich Hayek) who had the greatest political influence--and he was the only American in the group. Friedman spent most of his career at the University of Chicago, so it is natural that the University should name a major new component of the University, devoted to economic research, after him. The Institute is essentially a joint venture of the University's economics department, graduate school of business, and law school. The use of his name will help the University raise the funds required for the new Institute. The decision, announced five months ago, has generated controversy on the University campus, sharpened by the current economic crisis that is thought in some circles to have damaged Friedman's legacy (it has certainly damaged Alan Greenspan's legacy). Some 170 faculty members have signed a petition circulated by a Committee for Open Research on Economy and Society--which opposes the decision naming the new institute after Friedman--asking that a meeting of the University Senate (which consists of some University administrators and all faculty members who have been on the faculty for more than a year) be convened to discuss the decision. The stated ground of opposition is that naming the Institute after Friedman would constitute the University's endorsement of his political views and would bias the research conducted by the Institute in favor of the free-market ideology that Friedman promoted so strongly. But the opposition is also and probably primarily powered by distaste for Friedman's political and policy views and for his willingness to provide economic advice to the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. Friedman's association with policies that are either liberal or politically neutral, such as the volunteer army, the earned income tax credit (the negative income tax), the legalization of the laws against marijuana and other mind-altering drugs, and even affirmative action, is overlooked. I don't think anyone would quarrel with the idea of an institute devoted to the support of academic research on economic issues, even though many of the issues that economists examine have political implications. The name is the focus of the controversy. Friedman was an advocate of politically controversial policies with which a number of University faculty do not want the University to be associated. When buildings, classrooms, institutes, schools, etc. in universities are named after someone, it is usually a donor. Especially when an institute, which is likely to be a special-purpose organization, is named after a public figure, it is natural to associate the mission of the organization with the name of that figure: the Hoover Institution of Stanford University was named after Herbert Hoover and is indeed conservative, though it is noteworthy that the Institution's conservative reputation has not extended to Stanford University as a whole, and no more would one expect the University of Chicago to be branded as conservative merely because it contains an institute named after a conservative economist. The University of Chicago is not a conservative institution, though it is not as monolithically liberal as its peer institutions. The purpose of naming the new institute after Friedman was presumably to encourage fund-raising; one economics professor at the University has been quoted as saying that Friedman's name would "resonate with the donors." So a further worry is that most of the donors will be conservatives who support Friedman's political views (that is to say, his conservative political views, as many of his views were not conservative), and that the new Institute will perhaps unconsciously bias hiring and promotion in favor of economists who support those views. The Institute might (again, whether consciously or unconsciously), it is feared, conceive its mission as being to promote the ideas of the "Chicago School of Economics," of which Friedman was perhaps the leading (though not the founding), and certainly the most influential, member. But that is unlikely. Economics is a highly competitive academic field, and piety toward distinguished predecessors is not the path to academic success. It is odd that the opponents of the Friedman naming should think that economists, of all people, would subordinate career motives to loyalty to Friedman's memory or the "Chicago School" (especially young economists for whom Friedman is just a name). If the religion professor who is leading the movement against the naming is right that "Friedman's over"--that the current economic crisis has consigned Friedman, along with Greenspan, to the dustbin of economic history--he should have no fear that the new Institute will be biased in favor of Friedman's views. If a physics institute were named after Albert Einstein, would the institute's researchers reject quantum theory? It might seem that the controversy could be easily resolved by simply changing the name of the Institute. But that would be costly to the University in several respects. First, it would doubtless offend many donors, and probably leave the Institute in worse financial shape than had it not been named after Friedman in the first place. Second, it would weaken the University administration and encourage the encroachment by faculty on administration prerogatives. There is a whiff of the 1960s in the effort by faculty (joined by a number of students) to move the University of Chicago leftward. Even if the original naming of the Institute after Friedman was a mistake, there is now too much at stake for the University administration to back down.

Comments

[Jim]

Having worked at The U of C for 15 years, I know that "the university" will turn on anyone regardless of accomplishment or fame if his/her position or status is not aligned with the university's view of itself. Good luck Milton!

[RichK]

Judge Posner, count me as one of the potential donors that you predict would be offended by the university taking Friedman's name off the institute. Having faculty members like Friedman (and Becker and Posner) is what has induced me to contribute to the university for many years.

I thought the tiresome Pinochet business was dead and buried long ago, especially after Friedman explained it in great detail in Two Lucky People. How naive I am!

I remember how Friedman used to have an open question and answer session once a year or so when I was a student there in the early 70's, a very politically charged time. I remember one session in particular, when a group of SDS students turned up to shout him down. Are they now UC faculty members?

I hope the university shows the same respect for its public that Friedman showed that night - he ignored the name-calling and answered the serious objections to his views with logic and his usual good-natured enthusiasm. In this case, the logic is that the university is honoring a faculty member who arguably brought it more honor and presige throughout the world than any other in its history.

While I'm waltzing down memory lane, Mr. Becker, I'd like to add that Friedman was the best teacher I ever had too (I never had a course with you, though - my mistake!).

[RichK]

One additional thought that just occurred to me. I once heard Friedman say that universities sell two products, education and monuments, the latter being the professorships, buildings and schools named after contributors. I believe he would feel very honored that in this case the university is giving away a very big monument - if, that is, the administration has the guts to stand its ground.

[Jim]

One has to be wary of monuments and the power to erect them as Shelley wrote in his poem Ozymandias:

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: "Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert. Near them on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown
And wrinkled lip and sneer of cold command
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them and the heart that fed.
And on the pedestal these words appear:
`My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings:
Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!'
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare,
The lone and level sands stretch far away

[Rumple Stilskin]

Excellent point Jim! Also, institutions that survive long enough seem to eventually evolve into something diametrically opposed to their founders. Mainstream religions have certainly evolved with the times. I am sure that the catholic church, if it survives will eventually embrace atheism as the "true" message.

[St. Darwin Assisi's cat]

Jim, prey or pray tell pleeeeeese...what is the U of C view of itself? Thank you.

[Tim]

It's sad that every naming has to be so politically controversial or economically motivated. Also sad that so many people get upset over the name of the institute. If it was the Karl Marx institute than the outrage would be justified.

[Anonymous]

دردشة صوتية

____

دليل دردشات

[Anonymous]

شات صوتي
___

دليل مواقع الانترنت

[Anonymous]

العاب بنت ابوي
___

منتديات بنت

[Anonymous]

صور بنت

[Anonymous]

دردشة صوتية
شات صوتي

[record lust]

US-Bankensektor:
von Raivo Pommer-Eesti-raimo1@hot.ee

Die Finanzkrise treibt die einst weltgrößte Bank Citigroup in die Arme des Staates. Angesichts neuer überraschender Milliardenlöcher wird der taumelnde Finanzriese teilverstaatlicht. Die US-Regierung weitet ihren Anteil als künftig größter Aktionär auf bis zu 36 Prozent aus.

Die Märkte reagierten am Freitag auf den historischen Schritt in der US-Bankenbranche mit Entsetzen: Die Citi-Aktie stürzte fast ins Bodenlose und riss die Märkte weltweit mit. Der Eingriff des Staates heizte die Spekulationen weiter an, welches US-Institut als nächstes womöglich sogar komplett von der Regierung übernommen werden könnte.

Die Krise der Citigroup beschleunigte sich nochmals dramatisch: Für 2008 gab sie am Freitag überraschend neue Wertberichtigungen von 9,6 Milliarden Dollar (7,5 Mrd Euro) vor Steuern bekannt. Damit liegt der Rekordverlust für das vergangene Jahr mit nun 27,7 Milliarden Dollar noch einmal um knapp die Hälfte höher als kürzlich verkündet. Schon bisher zählte die Bank zu den weltweit größten Verlierern der Finanzkrise.

[Anonymous]

قطر كام
شات صوتي

[Edward G. Nilges, Hong Kong]

ABS: what's incoherent? Fairness and decency? Well, since you posted, I think we've (1) had an election for fairness and decency and (2) a stunning proof of what excessive narrowness, and coherence bought at the price of truth, can lead us in the credit crisis.

I think, ABS, that the liberal professors would not even propose a Milton Keynes institute. However, if they did so, it would be on the basis that Keynes, unlike the monetarist Friedman, has not been thoroughly discredited.

[Edward G. Nilges, Hong Kong]

The fact that the "dismal science" is not a science is proven by the fact that while you have a Max Planck Institute, and you could have an Al Einstein Institute, you could not have an Adam Smith Institute or a Karl Marx Institute without announcing committments to ideology outside of your discipline.

Therefore, economists would be well-advised not to wash this particular piece of very dirty laundry in public.

Einstein's results work outside of history no matter what. Friedman's don't, and what's more, he didn't claim they did; Friedman merely noticed that in 1981, screwing around with the money supply could produce a mini-depression and Whip Inflation Then. But now, doing so is pushing on a string.

Keynes failed to anticipate that redistribution would be gamed in a mixed capitalist/socialist economy so as to impoverish the socialist part, since in their role as capitalist actors, people would naturally exploit the socialism (working as well as collection welfare, for example).

Keynes failed to anticipate British "bloody-mindedness": the drive by union members to maximize their pay packets in a society in which the greengrocer and the landlord had to be paid, and in which National Health was being cut back.

Hayek foresaw this and announced as a General Law that planning an economy would never work, for two reasons: (1) the costs of coordination would overwhelm the planners in all cases and (2) coordination would be gamed, even in a pure socialist economy, in self-interest.

To my knowledge, Hayek, with an Austrian school excess respect for brute facts, was unable to prove (1) or (2). (1) may have been a result of the primitive state of office technology in his day and no "proof" of (2) exists: in fact, counterexamples exist, such as Lancashire weavers supporting the North in the American Civil War.

Whereas Marx made the claim that over history, productive forces would evolve, and may yet be right. He'd deserve a Karl Marx Institute were he so.

A Milton Friedman Skewl of Economix is ideological, as ideological as a Marx undt Engels Hochschule fur der Sozial-Forschung. Best to give economics institutes neutral names, or even cute names (Hello Kitty Institute) until you boys figure it all out.

[rapics]

i dont see why they should back down, they've done nothing wrong and a hell of a lot of history and tradition to stand by,although we all evolve and adapt there is the brand name to consider and i think it would be a loss to change this, when the arguments would disapear with time.

[injection molding]

Ancient China printing was invented hundreds years ago.

[rq]

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™
ÿ¥ÿßÿ™

[lo]

شات صوتي
دردشه صوتيه

[دردشة صوتيه , بنات كام , شات صوتي]

Bnat cam بنات كام شات صوتي دردشه صوتيه بنت كام شات دردشه

[hhh tht]

شات صوتي
دردشة صوتيه

[jy jy]

منتدى بنات كام
العاب بنات كام

[jydy jyf]

ÿ¥ÿßÿ™
شات كتابي

[Kuss]

Yes, this is a nice website, I like it very much
http://www.zuneconverter.net