Frederic Lee’s laudable attempt to expand heterodox economists’ academic rights is vitiated by his narrow conception of pluralism as tolerance. The author proposes an alternative view of academic pluralism that is more consistent with the epistemological assumptions and ethical requirements of academic freedom, and more conducive to the flourishing of heterodox economics—and economics at large—as a scholarly community.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 1915. General declaration of principles. New York: Columbia University.
2.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 1940. Statement of principles on academic freedom and tenure. Washington, DC.
3.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 1967. Joint statement on rights and freedoms of students. Washington, DC.
4.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 1987. Statement of professional ethics. Washington, DC.
5.
American Association of University Professors (AAUP). 2007. Freedom in the classroom. Academe93 (5): 54-61.
6.
Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U). 2006. Academic freedom and educational responsibility. Washington, DC.
7.
BackhouseR. E.1994. Pluralism and the economic journal. History of Economics Ideas2 (3): 109-17.
8.
BackhouseR. E.2001. On the credentials of methodological pluralism. In Economics broadly considered: Essays in honor of Warren J. Samuels, ed. BiddleJ. E.DavisJ. B.MedemaS. G., 161-81. London: Routledge.
9.
BoettkeP. J.2004. Obituary: Don Lavoie (1950-2001). Journal of Economic Methodology11 (3): 377-79.
Cambridge 27. 2003. Opening up economics. In The crisis in economics. The post-autistic economics movement: The first 600 days, ed. FullbrookE., 36-8. London: Routledge.
12.
CoatsA. W.1998. Economists, the economics profession, and academic freedom in the United States. In Academic freedom on trial, ed. HansenW. L., 124-54. Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
13.
ColanderD.1989. The invisible hand of truth. In The spread of economic ideas, ed. ColanderD.CoatsA. W., 31-6. New York: Cambridge University Press.
14.
ColanderD.2009. Moving beyond the rhetoric of pluralism: Suggestions for an ‘inside-the-mainstream’ heterodoxy. In Economic pluralism, ed. GarnettR.OlsenE. K.StarrM., 36-47. London: Routledge.
15.
ColanderD.HoltR. P. F.RosserJ. B.Jr.2004. The changing face of mainstream economics. Review of Political Economy16 (October): 485-99.
16.
DavidsonP.2004. A response to King’s arguments for pluralism. Post-Autistic Economics Review24: article 1.
17.
DavisJ. B.2006. The turn in economics: Neoclassical dominance to mainstream pluralism?Journal of Institutional Economics2 (1): 1-20.
18.
DavisJ. B.2008. Heterodox economics, the fragmentation of the mainstream, and embedded individual analysis. In Future directions for heterodox economics, ed. HarveyJ. T.GarnettR. F., 53-72. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
19.
De LangheR.2009. Why should I adopt pluralism? In Economic pluralism, ed. GarnettR.OlsenE. K.StarrM., 87-98. London: Routledge.
20.
DeweyJ.1976. John Dewey: The middle works, 1899-1924. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
21.
DonovanG.2004. Economics split divides Notre Dame. National Catholic Reporter, April9.
22.
DowS. C.2001. The relevance of controversies for practice as well as teaching. Post-Autistic Economics Review6: article 1.
23.
FellmanD.2003. Academic freedom. In Dictionary of the history of ideas, Volume1, 9-17. Charlottesville, VA: Gale Group.
24.
FleischackerS. F.1999. A third concept of liberty. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
FosterJ. F.1981. Freedom and license in higher education. Journal of Economic Issues15 (4): 969-73.
26.
FreemanA.KlimanA.2006. Beyond talking the talk: Toward a critical pluralist stance. Post-Autistic Economics Review40: article 4.
27.
FullbrookE.2001. Real science is pluralist. Post-Autistic Economics Review5: article 1.
28.
GarnettR. F.Jr.2006. Paradigms and pluralism in heterodox economics. Review of Political Economy18 (Fall): 521-46.
29.
GarnettR. F.Jr.2009. Liberal learning as freedom: A capabilities approach to undergraduate education. Studies in Philosophy and Education28 (5): 437-47.
30.
GarnettR. F.ButlerM. R.2009. Should economics educators care about students’ academic freedom?International Journal of Pluralism and Economics Education1 (1 and 2): 148-60.
31.
HarphamE. J.2000. The problem of liberty in the thought of Adam Smith. Journal of the History of Economic Thought22 (2): 217-37.
32.
HaskellT. L.1996. Justifying the rights of academic freedom in the era of ‘power/knowledge.’ In The future of academic freedom, ed. MenandL., 43-92. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
33.
HausmanD. M.McPhersonM. S.1988. Standards. Economics and Philosophy4 (1): 1-7.
34.
HodgsonG. M.MäkiU.McCloskeyD. N.1992. Plea for a pluralistic and rigorous economics. American Economic Review82 (May): xxv.
35.
HolcombeR. G.2008. Pluralism versus heterodoxy in economics and the social sciences. Journal of Philosophical Economics1 (2): 51-72.
36.
HolmesS.SunsteinC. R.1999. The cost of rights: Why liberty depends on taxes. New York: W. W. Norton.
37.
KellertS. H.2006. Disciplinary pluralism for science studies. In Scientific pluralism, ed. KellertS.LonginoH.WatersK., 215-230. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
38.
KellertS. H.LonginoH. E.WatersC. K., eds. 2006. Scientific pluralism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
39.
KruegerA. O.. 1991. Report of the Commission on Graduate Education in Economics. Journal of Economic Literature29 (3): 1035-53.
40.
LavoieD.1995. The ‘objectivity’ of scholarship and the ideal of the university. Advances in Austrian Economics part2: 371-403.
41.
LeeF. S.2009. Pluralism in heterodox economics. In Economic pluralism, ed. GarnettR.OlsenE. K.StarrM., 19-35. London: Routledge.
42.
LeeF. S.2011. The pluralism debate in heterodox economics. Review of Radical Political Economics43 (4): 540-51.
43.
LovejoyA.1937. Academic freedom. In Encyclopedia of the social sciences, vol. I, ed. SeligmanE. R. A., 384-87. New York: MacMillan.
44.
MarquésG.WeismanD.2009. Is Kuhnian incommensurability a good basis for pluralism in economics? In Economic pluralism, ed. GarnettR.OlsenE. K.StarrM., 74-86. London: Routledge.
45.
McCloskeyD. N.1994. Knowledge and persuasion in economics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
46.
McCloskeyD. N.1998. The rhetoric of economics, 2nd ed.Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
47.
MirowskiP.1997. The attribution of quantitative error and the erasure of plural interpretations in various sciences. In Pluralism in economics, ed. SalantiA.ScrepantiE., 260-77. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.
48.
NelsonC. E.1989. Skewered on the unicorn’s horn: The illusion of a tragic tradeoff between content and critical thinking in the teaching of science. In Enhancing critical thinking in the sciences, ed. CrowL. W., 17-27. Washington, DC: Society of College Science Teachers.
49.
NussbaumM.1997. Cultivating humanity: A classical defense of reform in liberal education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
50.
PaulR.1999. Critical thinking, moral integrity, and citizenship: Teaching for the intellectual virtues. In The social worlds of higher education, ed. PescosolidoA.AminzadeR., 128-36. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.
51.
PerryW. G.Jr.. 1970. Forms of intellectual and ethical development in the college years: A scheme. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
52.
ScottJ.1996. Academic freedom as an ethical practice. In The future of academic freedom, ed. MenandL., 163-86. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
53.
SenA. K.1997. Human rights and Asian values. Sixteenth Morgenthau Memorial Lecture on Ethics and Foreign Policy, Carnegie Council on Ethics and International Affairs, New York.
54.
SenA. K.1999. Development as freedom. New York: Anchor Books.
55.
SentE.-M.2003. Pleas for pluralism. Post-Autistic Economics Review18: article 1.
56.
SimonettiR.2007. The Impact of the economics benchmarking statement on pluralism in economics teaching in the UK. In Teaching pluralism in economics, ed. GroenewegenJ., 104-22. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
57.
SmithA.1976 [1776]. An inquiry into the nature and causes of the wealth of nations, ed. CampbellR. H.SkinnerA. S.Oxford: Oxford University Press.
58.
StockW. A.HansenW. L.2004. Ph.D. program learning and job demands: How close is the match?American Economic Review94 (2): 266-71.
59.
StrassmannD. L.1993. Not a free market: The rhetoric of disciplinary authority in economics. In Beyond economic man, ed. FerberM.NelsonJ., 54-68. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
60.
ToolM. R.1989. An institutionalist legacy. Journal of Economic Issues23 (2): 327-36.
61.
U.S. Supreme Court. 1967. Keyishian v. Board of Regents of New York, 385 U.S.589, 603.
62.
Van BouwelJ.2004. Explanatory pluralism in economics: Against the mainstream?Philosophical Explorations7 (3): 299-315.
