Yale probably would not have objected to any ultra-left social writings or even poor scholarship in the form of critical studies but when he began to attack the interests of the wealthy and powerful, that's when they dumped him, I'll bet. After all, that's where Yale gets its money.
The instructor should have stayed quiet until he got tenure, though that would be difficult for an activist. BTW, my favorite quote about tenure is:
State schools here in New Mexico are trying to do away with tenure by using long term teaching contracts. Our Court system is unsure how to deal with this; does a public employee have the right to bargain away his otherwise statutory expectation of continued employment? Yale, of course, is private and can do what it likes, I guess.
An ararchist is not, necessarily, a "lefty," per se. Or, if anarchism can be so neatly placed on the left/right political spectrum, it's so far from what would normally be thought of as a "lefty" that it's technically wrong to think of them as having very much to do with one another. Anarchists, if you think about it, are more like Libertarians on steroids; and Libertarians most definitely aren't lefties. He has gotten tons of support from the Left, however... which may be where the confusion comes from. But that's not really the main thing I wanted to say. The main thing I wanted to say is that I think Graeber's dismissal is sad and tragic. But, of course, that's just my lefty opinion.
Most are socialist. Probably due to that fastasy of the withering away of the state. I agree. It's beyond me how anyone can believe that a state of anarchy will result in anything socialist, capitalist or anything in particular. Anarchocapitalism is often thought to be the ultimate libertarianism. There are some kinda lefty libertarians. David Brin is considered so. And there is the libertarianism that insists upon being more foolish than any.
houses, plagues upon both I regard Mr Graeber's views as the worst thrasymachean insanity and immorality. I think Yale was dead wrong to fire him unless he was penalising students for disagreement with his views or failing to do his work. After all, I can think of one Yale grad who refuses to defend our borders and subordinates the national good to his own pride (Santa Anna would smile at this) and another who thinks Jesus will come back and blow everybody up, so a minor league anarchist would seem to be quite in the Yale spirit. I bet wanting to unionise the wage slaves (graduate teaching assistants) was what did it in reality.
Socialists and anarchists are, IMHO, polar opposites. One is in favor of big government distributing wealth, while the other is in favor of small--or no--government. Anarchists are more like conservatives, except that anarchists require change to achieve their goals, and conservatives resist change by nature. But being anti-conservative doesn't make one liberal, or left. Speaking as a progressive with libertarian leanings, I see anarchy as a far, far distant concept.
Re: Left Libertarians.... I don't consider anyone on that page to be libertarian. Not in that American usage, that is. In Europe, the label of libertarian is usually applied to a brand of socialist. A too confused term, IMO. I would scrap it for...something.
One of my brilliant (ignored) recommendations to fellow libertarians has been to drop the term. Not just for the confusion but because it's flippin' dorky. I also dislike 'capitalism' because that term has been so used, abused and debauched as to have no firm meaning. And, of course, Liberals are anything but liberal.
Re: houses, plagues upon both After watching the great US unionisation debate from a distance of over 3,000 miles for several years now, I have to insert a plaintive question. What is SO WRONG about allowing postgrads who teach to join (or form) a union? Over here, if you're an MSc or PhD stude who's teaching classes, you're automatically allowed to join the same union as the faculty members. Whether you'd want to join the Association of University Teachers is another matter, of course. Angela
Angela, I am under the impression that the unionization of graduate assistants began about twenty years ago when it became embarrasingly clear that we were making far more Ph.D.s than there were positions in academia to absorb them but that academia was unwilling to restrict recruitment because grad students are cheap, skilled labor. Unionization threatened to upset that particular applecart. It tended to significantly reduce the indentured servitude conditions by requiring labor to be paid for its services in CASH instead of by means of a vague promise of future employability. I could easily have the story wrong in details but I am fairly sure of the general outline.
No... No, they're student's, but wait they teach a lot of classes while the prof's visit conference's in exotic locales. But wait they are only students. It is all so confusing to a closed academic mind.....
