Via Volokh comes news of the controversial firing by Penn State Altoona of Professor Nona Gerard. Penn State aren’t talking about it. Erin O’Connor gives the Prof’s side of the story. Gerard was dismissed, it seems, for making what in diplomatic circles would be called a full and frank assessment of her colleagues. The details of what she said do not appear to be public. Given the lack of information I make no judgment either way, though on its face firing tenured Professors because they are opinionated jerks seems to set a dangerous precedent. Eric Rasmusen, whom you may remember is everyone’s favorite homophobic economist, is on Gerard’s side. He comments:
We see also that her criticism was indeed stinging. Her mere words were so effective that they led one person to retire and another to resign. To me, that implies that her criticisms must have had merit— otherwise, why react so strongly?
Revealed preferences strike again! It must be true, otherwise why are you reacting like that? QED! My students sometimes try a variant of this idea, viz, “You’re only giving me an F because You Can’t Handle The Truth, man.” It’s a useful rule to live by, especially late at night, in bars, when talk turns to the personal qualities of people’s mothers.
Would you mind to unpack this just a bit for me, Kieran? What you’ve written is certainly clever, but I’m not sure where it leads, either about Rasmusen’s argument or Gerard’s dismissal.
I read this as another mockery of the sillyness of the revealed preferences method. Sounds to me like Gerard probably shouldn’t have been fired, so Rasmussen is on the right side. But he still can’t reason his way out of a paper bag.
Ralph, I just thought that gauging the value of criticism by the severity of the reaction it provokes isn’t a terribly reliable guide to how an argument is going.
Well, yes. Nonetheless, to focus on Rasmusen’s known prejudices and weak reasoning and to follow that with Henry’s attack on Erin O’Connor’s poor literary judgment seems to me to deflect attention from a real undermining of tenure in the Penn State system. I haven’t the faintest idea what Professor Gerard’s politics are, but on the net her clearest support seems to be coming from the right. That strikes me as unfortunate.
I made my views about the case clear in the first half of the post and linked to the summaries by O’Connor and Rasmusen. What’s not to like?
I like. I like. Except that the second half of your post, followed by Henry’s, focus the issue away from the substance of the matter. It’s rather like saying “I know these people are correct about the matter, but there are all these things about them that give me pause.” I can assure you that, had we done that sort of calculus when I was active in the civil rights movement, we’d have had a much more difficult time keeping the picket lines up every night. I walked them with people I’d perhaps not want to be seen with otherwise. There’s a sort of cause-destructing purism on the left which sunders it repeatedly and particularly so when it ought to be striking alliances with folk on the right who happen to be correct about a particular issue.
Perhaps I completely misunderstand revealed preference, but I don’t see how it applies to this case at all. I at least understand how it could be used in the Australian case below, and understand your criticism of its use in that case. But how does it apply here? Isn’t revealed preference all about preference? Isn’t it about the idea that many people answer claim a preference which matches an interviewers expectations, or the image the people want to project, but their actions reveal their true preference?
Maybe I am looking at the wrong person. I was thinking you were talking about the administration. Are you saying that the person who resigned and the one who retired have something to do with revealed preference? What were they claiming? What do their actions reveal to the contrary? I just don’t get it.
Hey SH -
Of course this post is not really a serious comment on revealed preferences. (This has been happening to me a lot, lately.) RP is the idea that whatever it is people are observed doing must reflect their preferences, because otherwise (given that people are rational utility maximizers) they wouldn’t be doing it. The danger is that you assume what you need to prove — ie, that people are rational utility maximizers — or otherwise infer panglossian conclusions. At worst, you tread a tedious little circle whereby your assumptions are validated by the data in virtue of futher use of these assumptions to interpret the data.
In this case, a bit of evidence (about people’s reactions) was used to validate the initial assumption — that the accused’s criticisms of her colleagues were justified1 — on the basis that the assumption had to be true. A similar circle, that’s all.
1 NB a different question from whether it was right to fire her.
Kieran, Your point about revealed preferences underscores what makes me uncomfortable with your post. When Rasmusen comes to the defense of a left lesbian, shouldn’t one be cheering him on rather than nitpicking his rationale? Somehow it seems like a sort of small-minded triumphalism.
OK, I see how the circular logic is similar. Sorry for the confusion.
Isn’t revealed preference just the economic version of “actions speak louder than words”.
They say that actions speak louder than words, but words do more than they say.
Revealed preferences are much more interesting than stated preferences in economics, because economists are usually interested in how people actualy act, not in how they’d like to act or how they think they’d act. They’re not normally in the business of trying to proved that people are rational utility maximisers.
The idea that people are rational utility maximisers only really runs into problems when the technical sense of “preference” - how someone would actually act - is confused with the day-to-day usage, in whichs its quite normal to say “I’d prefer not to be doing this”. I suspect economists do get this mixed up occasionally, but there doesn’t seem to be any real problem with the idea of revealed preferences.
I note that Brian Leiter, who is certainly of the left, has condemned Gerard’s firing in no uncertain terms. I believe that this takes care of the liberal community’s obligations in regard to this manner under section 7 paragraph 4 of the blogging bylaws, thus making it OK for Kieran to condemn the firing quickly and then make his joke.
Matt, I’m glad to see the left finally clocking in in defense of a tenured left lesbian professor. I also appreciate the fact that the right on the academic net beat it to the punch.
Indeed, I was over at Academic Left Net HQ when the orders came down. “The right is beating us to the punch on the Nona Gerard story! Quick, who can we deploy to preserve our credibility? I hear Leiter’s available….” But the Right on the Academic Net certainly outplayed us there. I understand that Crooked Timber has been rebuked by ALNHQ for what Pogo’s cowbirds would call “arrant frivolism,” taking away from our mission to enforce ideological uniformity and eventually overthrow Western Civilization, I think it is.
IOW: Who freaking cares? Are you trying to say that the left doesn’t really care about academic freedom, because two right-leaning professors posted on one case before one left-leaning professor did? It seems that the liberal Pittsburgh Post-Gazette and alternative Pulp were on this first, if we’re handing out cookies.
[Disclosure: Gerard has directed plays for Unseam’d Shakespeare in Pittsburgh, on whose board my mom served.]
Just an observation, Matt.
Well, OK. My last post was a bit overheated, and I guess readers can judge for themselves whether this means anything.
I can provide some Personal Evidence as to factors that affect who blogs on what—I’m thinking of posting on this, because I’ve seen plays this woman directed, but I have four or five other things to post on and am just going to knock off instead.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review