>I mentioned the NY Times feature on class to one of the older anarchists
>here in Kansas City and he started going off about how "we disproved that
>class mobility stuff back in the 1960s." He expressed dismay that more
>work by radicals in the academy were being ignored in favor of discredited
>social science.
>
>Chuck0
>___
I didn't read that article too carefully, but what i skimmed sounds like it came out of CPR's LIS studies. hardly a hotbed of radicals, believe me. staid policy wonks. The economics department pumps out a lot of rational choicers/neo-classicals (I used to have to debate one every semester on inequality and publich schooling! Great guy, he just couldn't understand what our criticisms were all about. "*everything* can be measured, a price tag put on it, he'd say. It might be hard to do, but it can be done! What are you guys complaining about now?" )
Anyway, Smeeding went to Wisconsin-Madison in the early 70s, but he's hardly a radical in the sense you mean. Burkhauser? I didn't know him very well, but he didn't impress me as a radical. The one lone Marxist in that economics department seemed really marginalized and disgusted with everything. Though he did have a cool schtick about the "dog bone economy" that used to get him really animated when he talked about it, sharing a teaching idea that worked well for him.
That said, I don't know how Michael Perelman would label him. Max thinks the think tank is heterodox. But I don't really think that kind of heterodoxy is what you mean by radical. *shrug* Not sure.
kelley