Call for respectful economics debate
David Ruccio
associate economics professor
It is always unfortunate when insult and invective replace mutual respect and rational dialogue. This is all the more true in a university setting, where diverse views are meant to coexist and interact.
Professor Thomas Gresik concludes his remarks in yesterday's Viewpoint on the proposal to split the existing economics department and to create a new department exclusively devoted to mainstream economics with "... the Department of Economics is an embarrassment..."
Along the way, he accuses my colleagues and me of treating mainstream economists in an "openly hostile" manner, of not "supporting and objectively presenting diverse points of view," of engaging in an "unproductive and nasty politicization of the department" and much else, which crosses the line of simple disagreement and becomes a form of slander.
Gresik is, of course, entitled to defend mainstream economics, to endorse the proposal to disrupt and dismantle the department of economics and to make his views known via The Observer. (Let it be noted, though, that no member of the department has sought to involve the students in this imbroglio or, until now, written directly to The Observer about this matter. The fact that the administration has not solicited the views of students is another matter.) What is unacceptable, however, is to launch personal attacks and to impugn the integrity of colleagues elsewhere in the University.
Unacceptable but, in all honesty, we'll survive. As I'm sure Gresik will agree, a war of words sometimes gets heated, and you can't survive in this academic business without developing a bit of a thick skin (especially, as many will have noted, in and around the discipline of economics).
Actually, what is even more distressing is Gresik's version of history and recent events. Let me provide, in the interests of brevity, just two examples.
First, my colleagues and I stand accused of failing to provide "an accurate and honest presentation of the strengths and weaknesses" of diverse approaches and schools of thought. That is precisely what we do, each of us individually and as a department. The distinctiveness of the existing department is precisely (in contrast to many economics departments in other universities) the idea that alternative views are presented and discussed, carefully and in a balanced manner, with the aim of providing students a sophisticated understanding of a range of perspectives on important economic issues.
Indeed, the department is proud to have some of the best teachers in the College of Arts and Letters. What makes us good teachers is precisely the fact that we provide our students with a solid foundation in the discipline of economics, including mainstream theory and methods, which would not be possible if we spent our time "vilifying" economic orthodoxy.
Second, Gresik recommends the proposal to split the department as a thing of "beauty" because it "allows both groups of economists to credibly co-exist." Besides the fact that we consider ourselves to be members of a single department, with a single goal (of conducting high-quality research, teaching and service), and not two different groups, Gresik fails to mention salient features of the proposal currently being discussed.
Additionally, it seeks to create a new department of economics that excludes what have always been important aspects of economics: thought and policy. Also, the two departments would not be allowed to "credibly co-exist": one (the new department) would have a graduate program and a series of new hires, while the other (the renamed department) would have no graduate program and no projected new hires. Separate and unequal is a poor way to develop economic knowledge.
In the end, what is important is not just that one member of the faculty might treat his colleagues in another department with contempt. It is that all of us, especially the students, are and should be interested in something more than rankings. Learning about and exploring diverse points of view those that are comfortably mainstream as well as more heterodox contributions are what make a truly great university.
David Ruccio
associate economics professor
Feb. 11
All Viewpoint Stories for Wednesday, February 12, 2003
