Cliopatria is a multi-author history blog tilted to the center-right. Yesterday, in response to the latest complaint by Robert KC Johnson, a Brooklyn College professor who posts frequently about the lack of rightwing representation in the academy, I posted a link to the Columbia Spectator article about the neoclassical bias in the comments section under Johnson's post. That prompted a rightwinger to state that there is an underrepresentation of Marxists in the economics departments because it is a discredited dogma.
Now, obviously this is bullshit but I wonder when neoclassicism became so entrenched. Was this the way that economics was taught in the 1930s and 40s? Were Marxists fired in the 1950s. Also, is it a function of the administration dictating a curriculum that is neoclassical in nature? I had a leftist economics professor at Bard in 1961, although it was not obvious by any stretch of the imagination, but he had to teach intro to economics using the Samuelson book. How can you really present a critique of Adam Smith et al when the textbook enshrines that approach? Do pen-l'ers ever teach classes with an openly Marxist or radical approach? -- www.marxmail.org
