[lbo-talk] Yale

[Jim Devine]

me:
> > I don't know if Yale has been consistent or not in being such a
> > bulwark, but one possible reason is that Harvard didn't have to prove
> > its establishmentarian credentials. It's like some or all of the
> > "second tier" economics programs, which push mathematics much harder
> > than MIT.

On 8/1/05, Wojtek Sokolowski <sokol at jhu.edu> wrote:
> That seems to assume that universities are completely unified and unanimous
> organizations, acting coherently to achieve a common goal.  This is hardly
> true of any organization, but especially true of universities, which can be
> better thought of as "garbage cans"  (in fact, university did serve as a
> model case for the "garbage can" model of organizational behavior).
> 
> Stated differently, it is a hodge-podge of various interest groups and
> agendas that form constantly changing organizational configurations.  So the
> issue is not whether a particular interest can be found there, but how
> salient it becomes at a particular time.  And that salience depends of a
> multitude of factors, ranging from positions occupied by its members within
> the university organization at a particular time, to outside influences
> (e.g. who brings more outside funding, who enjoys good graces of the powers
> that be, etc.), to general cultural/ideological fads, and to the cognitive
> frames of those who look (i.e. whether the observer is looking for evidence
> of "liberal" or "conservative" bias, or perhaps fishing for like-minded
> fellow travelers).
> 
> The bottom line is that, despite their own delusions of grandeur,
> universities are amorphous and largely inconsequential bodies whose main
> function is producing needed credentials for those in a position to pay for
> them.  If they have any political influence at all, it is when they are
> being used by the powers that be in a similar way a drunk is using street
> lights - for support rather than enlightenment.

I know that methodological individualism and the like are popular
these days, but one thing missed by that kind of analysis is that an
amorphous band of various interest groups and agendas (or an amalgam
of large numbers of competitive and status-conscious egotists) can
mostly unite around certain principles (the "Yale Image" or whatever).
Since this image can raise the status and even pay of many of the
participants, this kind of unity can persist. The Image can promote
morale and help solve internecine conflicts. It's sort of like a
"corporate rate culture, except that of course a "Yale Image" would
include the notion that "we're better than those nasty corporations --
that get their hands dirty -- and they need our higher standards."  
Of course, it doesn't always happen. One of the jobs of a University
President is to try to preserve (or create) unity.
-- 
Jim Devine
"Imagine believing in the control of inflation by curbing the money
supply! That is like deciding to stop your dog fouling the sidewalk by
plugging up its rear end. It is highly unlikely to succeed, but if it
does it kills the hound." -- Michael D. Stephens.