The existence of institutions which make knowledge property and a source of private gain, then, are contrary to the concept and ethos of knowledge and demonstrate the social irrationality of those institutions. Take the grading mechanism in many universities, for example. It is a common practice for professors in North America to grade according to a normal statistical curve--- so, many As, Bs, Cs. etc to Fsregardless of over-all student performance. What kind of behaviour does this make rational for those who function within such a structure? Clearly, it is to keep knowledge to themselves (or to a small subset of friends). The more other students know, the lower are ones own chances for a good grade. (In fact, it makes rational giving other students false information.) The structure in this case puts students in competition--- a situation that Robert Wyatt, the British singer, once sang about with the line, How can I rise, if you dont fall? This artificially created structure produces a zero-sum game in the case of knowledge which, by its very nature, is not zero-sum. Thus, whereas ideally a university might be viewed as an environment dedicated to the fullest possible development and dissemination of knowledge--- something which a collective learning process would encourage, we can see that the creation of an environment which rewards private ownership of knowledge is contrary to the idealised concept of the university.
Michael A. Lebowitz
Professor Emeritus
Economics Department
Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Currently based in Venezuela. Can be reached at
Residencias Anauco Suites
Departamento 601
Parque Central, Zona Postal 1010, Oficina 1
Caracas, Venezuela
(58-212) 573-4111
fax: (58-212) 573-7724