A legitimate academic study of economics must include a critical
discussion of both the benefits and flaws of different economic
simplifying models. As your class does not include primary sources and
rarely features articles from academic journals, we have very little
access to alternative approaches to economics. There is no justification
for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or
basic than, for example, Keynesian theory.
Care in presenting an unbiased perspective on economics is
particularly important for an introductory course of 700 students that
nominally provides a sound foundation for further study in economics.
Many Harvard students do not have the ability to opt out of Economics
10. This class is required for Economics and Environmental Science and
Public Policy concentrators, while Social Studies concentrators must
take an introductory economics course—and the only other eligible class,
Professor Steven Margolin’s class Critical Perspectives on Economics,
is only offered every other year (and not this year). Many other
students simply desire an analytic understanding of economics as part of
a quality liberal arts education. Furthermore, Economics 10 makes it
difficult for subsequent economics courses to teach effectively as it
offers only one heavily skewed perspective rather than a solid grounding
on which other courses can expand. Students should not be expected to
avoid this class—or the whole discipline of economics—as a method of
expressing discontent.
Harvard graduates play major roles in the financial institutions and
in shaping public policy around the world. If Harvard fails to equip its
students with a broad and critical understanding of economics, their
actions are likely to harm the global financial system. The last five
years of economic turmoil have been proof enough of this.
Now there have been times when I have take a different position with Mankiw, such as on Pigou and his opposition to a control of sugars. Economists who lack knowledge of the human body and medicine should frankly stay on the hog and corn cycle at best. But that not withstanding, Mankiw is a highly respected and generally quite thoughtful a thinker in the field.
He is often a voice of well founded reason and often with understatement as compared to some of the left wing ranters we all see. Thus it is almost absurd that this group should select him amongst all the players out there.
Why not pick on Romer, she was the one with the January 11, 2009 memo which predicted nothing that ever happened, or perhaps any one of the others of her ilk. But Mankiw, I think not.
But this does bring back the days of the 60s when students protested everything. I gave an Electronics Final in the Armory in June 1970, I got a bomb threat, and it was up to me to decide to stay or leave. I informed the students of the threat, told them that I and the exam would remain but that had the option of leaving and getting graded accordingly, and then I walked the floor for the next two hours. No bomb, and no one ever tried that again, at least on me. I would not do that In Iraq however.
But this rather ill focused Luther like letter, well it really misses the point. If you have other ideas, no one stops you from reading, and in turn talking. In addition I am certain that Harvard can be creative in its curriculum, Mankiw's "favorite book" sales will not suffer that much.
The problem here is that this protest lacks the elan of the 60s. The protesters look like schlubs, no style, and what they are protesting is so vague, not the War in Vietnam, and they seem to miss the target of the issue, unlike Johnson.
Yet I still remember Kent State. That was the first time I remember that US troops executed unarmed citizens. Hopefully never to be repeated.
Posts
