The discussion continues. First I wrote a guest opinion in the Weekly‘s print edition about University of Arizona’s Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, aka the Freedom Center, creating a high school course being taught in Tucson Unified and other local school districts. The next week, Michael McKenna, director of the Freedom Center, responded with a guest opinion of his own. I followed with a post about one small part of what McKenna’s wrote, promising I would write more in the future.
In place of my post, here is a letter submitted to the Weekly by David N. Gibbs, Professor of History at the UA, which wasn’t included in this week’s print edition. It covers the main points I was planning to make and takes it a few steps further by linking the Center to state politics.
To the editor:
David Safier’s recent article brought to light disturbing connections between the Center for the Philosophy of Freedom, associated with the UA Philosophy Department, and a series of far right funders, including Charles Koch. Safier noted that the Freedom Center has produced a high school curriculum that contains a strong flavor of political indoctrination.
In a Guest Opinion, Freedom Center director Michael McKenna defends his program, but if read carefully, McKenna confirms much of Safier’s original article. Thus McKenna bristles at the notion that the Koch family has influenced the center – but he concedes that they provided $1.8 million in funding, a sizable sum for an academic unit, and have played a major role in funding the Philosophy Department’s graduate program. McKenna adds that the center has received funds from approximately twenty-four other sources, including such conservative stalwarts as the Kendrick family and the Templeton Foundation. Clearly, the Freedom Center has not been hurting for funds. McKenna bristles at the accusation that the Freedom Center’s high school textbook is tendentiously slanted in favor of the libertarian economics favored by their funders; but McKenna concedes that the text “is perhaps intellectually biased.” And yes, the textbook does “favor somewhat libertarian or more generally right-leaning views.” This is hardly a model of balance.
One might add that Republican legislators have provided additional funds for the Freedom Center, and also its counterpart in Tempe. According to the Arizona Republic (4/27/16), the two freedom centers have become “academic allies” for Governor Doug Ducey and his friends. Legislators of both parties acknowledge that the two freedom centers serve ideological purposes – or to quote Republican legislator Jay Lawrence, the state funding for the centers constitutes “’a wonderful opportunity’ to fund conservative viewpoints.” And in the view of Democrat Eric Meyer, the centers constitute a “think tank that spews out propaganda.”
What is this ideological Freedom Center doing at a state university? Why is the UA administration allowing this to happen?
David N. Gibbs
Professor of History
University of Arizona
This article appears in Nov 9-15, 2017.
I fail to see why some intellectual diversity in University social science departments can possibly be a bad thing, no matter where the funding come from. AEI asserts that 18% of social science professors are self-identified Marxists, nation wide. See https://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7678. Surely there’s room for some milquetoast libertarians to balance things out.
But that is not what you do when you hate your country’s economic organization and your goal is to overthrow it with socialism, because you believe you can make life fair for the less committed under achievers.
Let’s review again. How did the Koch brothers become involved in public policy? In the 1930’s their father went to Russia to help them build refineries with the very latest technology and efficiency. As he worked there he formed friendships with many communists and then three events happened – first he observed the 80% collapse of economic production under communism and its horrific impact on ordinary families, then he observed the purges, first his friends being expelled from the communist party and their loss of jobs and then their murders.
Then, he was assigned a “handler” who laid out in detail their plans to do the same thing in the United States. They had to murder millions to gain acceptance of their hateful system in Russia and they were planning to do the same thing in the United States all the way until Reagan’s economic results and star wars program convinced them that communism was irretrievably inferior to capitalism and they gave up.
The ultimate irony is that Koch industries is set up under a communistic system, a healthy positive one, not the hateful thing that Marx designed. In Koch industries, supervisors and managers are regarded as servants and evaluated by their subordinates. They also view their companies as servants to their customers measuring customer satisfaction with every single service and product.
Their intellectual approach works, over 100,000 people have chosen to work for them, one of the 50 largest empires in the United States.
By comparison, our university system is a totally corrupt arteriosclerotic pile of dung and the University of Arizona represents the worst of it. They can’t even comprehend that their students are their customers- they totally reject measuring the percentage of students rating their education excellent, a number less than 25%, the typical university student shows no cognitive gains after two years of college and there is no evidence that the UofA is any better.
The idea that professors would evaluate Deans would never be considered. The idea that the presidents would be rewarded for the percentage of students rating their education incredibly great would be regarded as completely culturally bizarre.
No wonder that they panic at the idea that this little breath of fresh air and innovations, Koch centers would enter their intellectually corrupt and sclerotic establishment.
Time for another enlightenment.
Intellectual diversity is a good thing. UA’s Economics dept includes liberals, conservatives,and libertarians. Let’s have that dept rather than the Philosophy dept teach high school economics. The Phil 101 course is problematic because it lacks intellectual diversity. And for many students it will be their only exposure to economics. Don’t they deserve to hear the range of viewpoints in contemporary economics? Instead students are being given only the Koch view.
If pushed to the limit, libertarianism is autocracy. The Koch’s philosophy of greed is convincing Americans to dispense with a government that promotes the general welfare of its people and replace it with one that re-establishes feudalism. Their self-indulgent excuses for greed are taking over educational institutions across the country, from Arizona to FSU to GMU and many points in between. I’m sorry but not surprised to learn that they have infected UA like they have my own UVA.
Yeah that general welfare thinggee is working out just fine isn’t it?
Eisenhower became President of Columbia after using his diplomatic skills to chart victory in Europe. He had a vision of facilitating intellectual and research pursuits. He came out saying all a college President did was grub for money fulltime. Now most universities do the same thing, who#es for money. Football games are 4 hours long at midnight grubbing for TV money. Even coal waste pile money is acceptable in the pursuit of libertarian, corporate dictatorships. Of course objective research on societal effects of Ayn Randism is impossible in the Freedom Academy.
Do really want to be a state where high school students have a constitutional right to “raza studies”, but Friedman and Hayek incite a book burning panic? Trust me, if you’re a baja AZ progressive, libertarianism should be the least of your worries. Wait till the kids start passing around Evola, Spengler and (UA alum) Yockey under the bleachers after class.
Introducing high school students to the field of economics using a fringe slice of economic ideas as the correct perspective on complex issues is not education, it is indoctrination, plain and simple. Balance does not arise from indoctrination. Why not a survey course grounded in economic pluralism–the full spectrum of economic thought? One of the key threats to our democracy is the unprecedented concentration of wealth and income. Libertarians have nothing useful to offer this challenge but a narrow ideological justification to continue fueling the fire, funded and delivered by those whose narrow self-interest is served.
Dianne, can I assume that you’re also opposed to MAS because it lacks intellectual diversity?
” Libertarians have nothing useful to offer this challenge but a narrow ideological justification to continue fueling the fire, funded and delivered by those whose narrow self-interest is served.”
Excuse me but that sounds a lot like indoctrination and discrimination of thought.