At this point, I'd like to think that teaching Marxism in an economics course is the academic equivalent of teaching Biblical literalist creationism in a biology class. But nutball academics don't agree, of course:

Siddique plans on filing a complaint with the USG regarding an introductory economics course, because it ignores "Marxist economic viewpoints, privileging capitalist ones exclusively."

Just a little blowback from the recent efforts to get a little balance into the college classrooms.

At this point, I'd like to think that teaching Marxism in an economics course is the academic equivalent of teaching Biblical literalist creationism in a biology class.

Almost exactly like -- Marxism believes that the economy is too complex to have been created by emergent behavior, so it requires an "intelligent designer" to run it.

I don't quite get it. So, Siddique would have happy if there were no Marxist teaching on economics, if the bill hadn't been passed?

But because the bill has been passed, now he's going to sue to get Marxism taught?

Either the Marxist stuff deserved to be taught to begin with and Princeton was remiss in not teaching it, or it didn't deserve to be taught, in which case Siddique is simply being a pest.

Other than being the single greatest failure in human history, Marxism isn't so bad.

Other than being the single greatest failure in human history, Marxism isn't so bad.

Communism...?

"New Coke"...?

Okay, I think I'll agree with Mike. But only by a hair.

New Coke didn't kill 100 million of it's customers.

Communism makes 'Jurrasic Park' look like Space Mountain.

>>"New Coke didn't kill 100 million of it's customers."

Well, according to some moonbats if you mix it with aspartame it causes cancer.

I'm not so sure, Rand, at least not to the more general point of teaching some Marx in economics.

Marxism is a terrible (to the tune of 100 million people) way of structuring an economy, but Marx is a useful and interesting criticism of capitalism. And, like Rutherford's model of the atom, or phlogiston chemistry, modern economists should be conversant with the history of how certain things have been modeled.

Somehow, I suspect that the quoted moonbat didn't want Marx taught as you describe...

To really find out what professors think about Marxist Philosophies, ask them if their last raise was sufficient. Ask them how much the janitorial staff makes at U of ?, ask them if they think their secretaries / assistants should make as much money per year as they do.

I have tried this and I was shocked to learn that most of these knotheads see themselves as ABOVE the commoners!! They do not see themselves as equals in the world!! Most consider themselves under paid for their task of dragging the commoners up a notch.

The word, fellow howlers, is hypocrite.

They want what most elitists want, their cake and eat it too. Especially, like all elitists, if someone else will carry the burden of growing the wheat, grinding it, baking and decorating the cake, and then delivering it to the Faculty Club.

It is pronounced hip o crit!!

"To really find out what professors think about Marxist Philosophies, ask them if their last raise was sufficient. Ask them how much the janitorial staff makes at U of ?, ask them if they think their secretaries / assistants should make as much money per year as they do.

I have tried this and I was shocked to learn that most of these knotheads see themselves as ABOVE the commoners!!"

wait so, the majority of university professors in america arent actually communists? shocking.

No they are not. The majority favor some flavor of socialism. Except when it comes to their compensation, then their belief in that system wavers.

ujedujik:

The question isn't whether the majority of professors are Marxists. The question is whether any of the professors who profess a belief in equality, living wages, etc,. actually practice what they preach.

How much does No am Chom sky make?

Has Peter Singer tried to pull the plug on his dear old mum, in order to give money to the poor?

How many Yale professors have refused to cross the janitors' picket lines, or even given up some of their salaries to get those service people a living wage?

How many profs who rant about the decline in American union membership allow, never mind encourage, their research assistants to unionize?

the question my comment was in reference to was whether the professors think every employee should be paid the same wage. i doubt most do, and you can advocate a living wage without advocating strict equality. your last two questions are legitimate, i really wouldnt know the answers. however, i dont think the professors really have too much power over most forms of american "socialism" that people here i assume disagree with (welfare, public education, whatever), so the point is kind of moot.

ujedujik:

Either you're being disingenuous, or you need to brush up on your Marxism. Not even Marx argued that everyone should be paid the same. It was Marx, was it not, who formulated the phrase "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need"?

So, the fact that a professor does not argue that everyone should be paid the SAME does not mean that they are not Communist/Marxist.

Similarly, you're changing the terms of the discussion (and not very subtly, I might add), when you turn around and claim that professors have no control over welfare, public education and the like. What professors absolutely have input, influence, and even control over is how the university deals with its lower level employees, and especially how THEY deal with graduate students.

If professors chose to recognize research/teaching assistant unions (e.g., only hiring those who were in the union, or demanding the university recognize said unions), are you really going to argue that the universities would somehow be able to ignore them? Are you really suggesting that somehow professors are so above the fray (and out of touch with reality) that they have no impact even on the institution that markets their products?

That's quite a world-view you've got there. The professoriat---utterly powerless and uninfluential.

so, the majority of university professors in america arent actually communists?

That's an odd conclusion to draw. Most self-proclaimed communists in this world have, or have had, exactly the same attitudes as described by Steve.

lurking, this is a kind of stupid argument, but ill quickly respond. in case you missed it the comment i was responding to was "ask them if they think their secretaries / assistants should make as much money per year as they do.

I have tried this and I was shocked to learn that most of these knotheads see themselves as ABOVE the commoners!! They do not see themselves as equals in the world!!"

how is that disingenuous? i didnt frame it. and on your second point, you're just being argumentative. i already said that maybe those questions are legitimate, though i obviously dont care about it nearly as much as you, i dont see how its illegitimate to point out that they dont have control over the forms of american socialism most conservatives most vocally oppose (and by the way--i realize this part is mostly off topic, do you consider socialized medicine to be more socialist than socialized education? it strikes me that public education has more relevant implications.)

Speaking of stupid arguments.

uje, you somehow presume that a failure to advocate equal pay for secretaries and professors as therefore 'proving' that professors aren't Communists.

My point was that, even if professors do not argue for equal pay between janitors/admin staff and professors does not mean that these people are not Communists.

More to the point, you're deliberately blurring the major point, which is that Marxist professors (and non-Marxist ones, for that matter) do not live by the code that they espouse. This was Steve's point (notice his FIRST question), and is something you've assiduously avoided as you focus on the more hyperbolic third question.

Or are you suggesting that profs actually advocate, as Steve questions, better pay for the janitorial staff (beginning with knowing how much they're paid)?

i havent avoided it, ive already said (twice even) that is a legitimate question, i just dont get nearly as upset over it as you all do. really, its gotta be pathological, you're just looking for reasons to be argumentative (of course just the fact that im responding must say something about me). take a step back from aggressive ideology once in a while, you'll feel better (even if you dont necessarily feel "victorious"--you'll feel better cause you'll realize the victory didnt matter). sorry to be condescending, but goddamn.

take a step back from aggressive ideology once in a while, you'll feel better (even if you dont necessarily feel "victorious"--you'll feel better cause you'll realize the victory didnt matter). sorry to be condescending, but goddamn.

Good advice, ujedujik, you should take it.