Bratty, Anti-Intellectual Harvard Students (But I Repeat Myself)

I can't think of a dumber statement than this:

"There is no justification for presenting Adam Smith’s economic theories as more fundamental or basic than, for example, Keynesian theory."

Not just on the face of it - Smith is every bit as important as Keynes, perhaps more so - but, in the context especially. Aren't these students there to learn? Isn't this an introductory course? What rational basis do introductory students have to dictate course material to an experienced, tenured professor? Furthermore, how is it that introductory students are sufficiently knowledgeable to make conclusions and judgements as to the relative merits of two key figures in economics? Finally, who cares if there is bias in the course? (although based on this defense it appears, in fact, to be scrupulously fair and neutral.) Isn't the point of a liberal (18th century definition) education to learn as much as possible from all perspectives? Can students presume to call themselves educated by taking only courses that hew to one ideological perspective? If they hate taking economics from a Bush appointee, go take one from an Obama appointee or a Clinton appointee, there are several at Harvard. Or supplement your reading on your own and challenge Mankiw in class with what you've learned.

Walking out is about the most childish and anti-educational choice these young people could make. Woody Allen said 90% of life is showing up. Indeed it is. Let these bratty dopes walk out and live their 10% lives.

Or they could take this advice from Thomas Sowell: "Learn all you can before you reach conclusions. There are plenty of people out there who have pre-packaged conclusions for you to reach. You need to build up a level of knowledge and experience so that you are no longer putty in the hands of somebody else who has his own agenda." (at the 45:25 mark here if you are interested)