Open Letter from Harvard Econ 10 Students

The following letter was sent to Greg Mankiw by the organizers of today’s Economics 10 walkout.

Wednesday November 2, 2011

Dear Professor Mankiw—

Today, we are walking out of your class, Economics 10, in order to express our discontent with the bias inherent in this introductory economics course. We are deeply concerned about the way that this bias affects students, the University, and our greater society.

As Harvard undergraduates, we enrolled in Economics 10 hoping to gain a broad and introductory foundation of economic theory that would assist us in our various intellectual pursuits and diverse disciplines, which range from Economics, to Government, to Environmental Sciences and Public Policy, and beyond. Instead, we found a course that espouses a specific—and limited—view of economics that we believe perpetuates problematic and inefficient systems of economic inequality in our society today.

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.

We are walking out today to join a Boston-wide march protesting the corporatization of higher education as part of the global Occupy movement. Since the biased nature of Economics 10 contributes to and symbolizes the increasing economic inequality in America, we are walking out of your class today both to protest your inadequate discussion of basic economic theory and to lend our support to a movement that is changing American discourse on economic injustice. Professor Mankiw, we ask that you take our concerns and our walk-out seriously.

Sincerely,

Concerned students of Economics 10

Sources:

Thanks to William Black's Blog for the lead on this.

Once Upon a Time

"The outlook is for the end of the decline in business during the early part of the 1931, and steady... revival for the remainder of the year."

-- The Harvard Economic Society's Weekly Letter,
November, 15, 1930

Note: In 1931, the economic squeeze of the depression forced the Harvard Economic Society to suspend publication of the Weekly Letter.

Source: "The working person's history of the great depression," Show me the Money, Issue 10, Autumn 2001.

Open Letter to DCCC

Historically my family has leaned toward the Democratic Party. However, as the various branches of government have been captured by corporate power, we feel that no party represents our views.

Pundits are saying the Democratic Party is too liberal and needs to steer toward "the center." This conflicts with surveys of public opinion, which, for example, have shown strong support for a single-payer health care system and a majority in favor a public option. The "center" has been pulled far to the right by the Reagan revolution and re-enforced by a corporate media with financial interests in a center skewed to the right.

The Democratic Party has become a prisoner of this corrupted system. So, we the people are asking ourselves, "Why perpetuate this system by supporting a party that has been captured by corporate interests? Why support a party apparently too weak to take principled stands? Would it not be better in the long run to let the corrupt system crash of its own weight and then re-build on a fresh foundation?"

Unless you can convince me, and many like me, that the Democratic Party is willing, and able, to take principled stands, then many of us will stay home for the mid-term elections. Many will do so in disgust. Others will take their chances with deeper change that comes from letting Sarah Palin and the Tea Party take control with the inevitable crash alluded to above.

Allowing such a collapse would entail many sacrifices, much like a war; however, this wouldn't be a war for corporate and establishment interests. The sacrifice would be to rid us of the undemocratic corporate powers and their corrupting influences.

The Democratic Party needs to find its bedrock principles, voice them and hold to them. Is the Party for the people or for the corporations? Unfortunately, evidence strongly suggests that it cannot be for both.

Establishment Position on Health Care

Obama took the establishment "middle of the road" position on health care reform, and look where it got him? He is capitulating on a public option. My message to President Obama:

By taking the middle of the road on health care, your "compromise" position is falling far short of meaningful reform. I'm urging my representatives to say "no" to any legislation that does not have a strong public option.

I am tired of the establishment controlling everything from the media, to the financial system, to the health care system, to our system of government. So, the message is, "fight for a public option or start over." The next time, take the far left position of which you're being accused, then compromise in the middle. This is negotiation 101.