Two nights ago, at dinner with a friend, I mentioned my belief that Universities (by which I mean the liberal arts, not hard sciences) make people dumber. She was a bit surprised (reasonably so) and asked me why. My answer is that some ideas are too stupid to believe unless you've been thoroughly softened up -- and schools of liberal arts act a bit like a cult in this manner.

(Actually, that would make a really interesting thesis.)

For example: In the "real world" people believe that your sex (male/female) is determined by your DNA. But in academia, people believe gender is "socially constructed" -- i.e. the are more men in jail for violent crimes not because testosterone increases aggression, but only because "society" told men they needed to behave like this. Outside schools of liberal arts, people think the test of any theory is how well it matches experimental results. But inside the liberal arts, propositions are evaluated more for their impact on disadvantaged persons or society -- as the Sokal hoax so beautifully exposed. At any given University, there are still professors who think Marxism works. Outside, people familliar with Marx (and those who aren't suffer no ill effect, I suspect) think of his theories as abject failures. Etc.

Now I didn't really want to write all that, above, but I felt such an assertion so contrary to conventional wisdom deserved at least a bit of explanation. No: my real whipping horse and today's Exhibit A is this document (a paper on policy towards the mentally ill, cited by one of my readers), which passes, apparently, as a serious research paper -- yet is clearly nothing of the sort.

First, ignoring any assertions of fact, look at the tone: It reads as a academically-worded political screed, full of tacit assumptions and partisan-baiting keywords: "liberal" and "conservative" views, "reactionary changes", "corporate agendas" and "the Right." Now this is all well and fine for a blog (like this one, or DailyKos), a book on conspiracy theories, or an editorial page -- but it's hardly the sign of detached academic analysis.

Another warning sign is the authors' determination to build what I call an "inner narrative". The paper spends much of its space, and most of its passion, exposing the motivations the authors imagined into their subjects (often wandering off into utterly unrelated areas) -- rather than dispassionately recounting unarguable historical fact:

Faced with increasing competition from overseas, American business found it necessary to alter the social contract... The shifts in such policies were not the result of overt attempts at change, but rather part of an overall effort to realign the political economy to be more profitable for business... Still, the administration did not, and perhaps could not, act in isolation and without public support... reformers needed to build coalitions... In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state... Among the policies in need of reform to suit the corporate agenda were those that affected the mentally ill.

In short, Reagan put the homeless on the street because his greedy supporters wanted to make more money -- and businesses somehow profited (or Reagan and his supporters surely they would!) from more people wandering around downtown areas, talking loudly to themselves!

(Again, might I remind you, this passes as an allegedly a serious Sociology paper.)

Next, obvious tone problems aside, many of its assertions of fact are simply wrong.

For example, the authors assert that under Reagan, "the average income for the average American dropped" -- except it didn't -- see this historical chart -- during the 1980s, average hourly inflation-adjusted earnings hold relatively steady, and don't dip until the 1990s under President Clinton.

Another crucial assertion: "In order to reduce corporate taxes, it was necessary to reduce the size of the welfare state..." This statement both of motivation and fact is crucial to the authors' thesis, and yet it is entirely wrong on both counts.

Reagan believed, as many do today, in something called the Laffer Curve, whereby a cut in taxes would actually increase government taxable receipts by stimulating economic growth. (This had actually happened during JFK's administration, so such a belief appeared to have some precedent.)

And we don't have to guess about Reagan's beliefs here (as the authors do): he mentioned it over and over in speeches. In fact, it was called "Voodoo economics" at the time, because it was contrary to the media's economic thinking. But he was right: the Reagan tax cuts actually increased government income from taxes:

Inflation-adjusted revenue growth dramatically improved. Over the four years prior to 1983, federal income tax revenue declined at an average rate of 2.8 percent per year, and total government income tax revenue declined at an annual rate of 2.6 percent. Between 1983 and 1986, federal income tax revenue increased by 2.7 percent annually, and total government income tax revenue increased by 3.5 percent annually. [1]

[D]uring the 1980s... Inflation-adjusted tax revenue increased by 28 percent... [2]

Second, the authors apparently aren't even aware that government spending is deficit spending. They believed Reagan had to "pay for" this (nonexistent) reduction in tax income by slashing spending. But the truth is that spending, even social spending rose under Reagan. (Note that the figures given are endpoints, and there may have been some limited or short-terms reductions between them -- I haven't had time to dig into that yet.)

These are crucial assertion for the authors -- and thus crucial failures -- because the authors' entire explanation for the imagined reduction in social spending is to screw workers and render them helpless in the face of their more powerful employers:

The new emphasis was on "supply side" economics, which essentially "blamed the nation's ills on 'big government' and called for lower taxes, reduced federal spending (military exempted), fewer government regulations, and more private sector initiatives"... Thus, to effect a change in the political economy, Reagan was able to win major concessions regarding social policy that continue today. By taking away the safety net, the working class was effectively neutralized: workers no longer had the freedom to strike against their employers or depend upon the social welfare system as a means of living until finding employment.

But, whether intentional or not, these statements are simply lies. The truth is that Reagan vastly extended unemployment benefits [3] (giving the unemployed an entire year of support! [4]), and unemployment rates fell under Reagan -- making it easier for unhappy workers to leave a bad employer for another one. And welfare was not seriously curtailed until the Clinton-era reforms of the late 1990s.

I could go on, but you get the point: you can almost select things at random from this paper, look them up, and discover the authors are simply dead wrong. (In fact, that's pretty much what I've done here.)

So consider the reaction of the poor sociology student -- or just some liberal reader on the Internet. They read all of this stuff, see the footnotes (which makes them believe this is well-researched), and think: "Wow, Gosh, that Reagan guy was really bad," and imbible all of the above falsehoods about why he lowered taxes, and what effects followed, and how this problem was formed.

Sadly, The DaVinci Code also boasted many reference and source materials -- all pulled from the same echo chamber. Those many references didn't make it a serious, factual work either.

The last, and most serious problem I'll highlight is what the paper fails to tell its readers.

To start with the small stuff, it fails to mention that all of Reagan's actions were taken in conjuction (and thus by agreement) with a Democratic Congress. Congress thus entirely disappears from this paper's the legislative process during the 1980s -- apparently the President could pass bills unilaterially during that era.

Here's what I remember, as recounted by a less tendentious source:

Inflation-adjusted federal spending increased by 36 percent. These budgets resulted from deals in which the Democratic Congresses agreed to pass tax relief and increase defense spending and President Reagan agreed to sign into law new domestic social spending. [5]

Concerning it's alleged topic of inquiry, mentally ill homeless persons, though the paper focuses on Reagan, it hints obliquely about "liberal reforms" which it admits, just once, in passing, included "the deinstitutionalization of the mentally ill". Whereas we see Reagan in the spotlight, and exensive references to all his allies (and their alleged ill motivations!), we learn here only that "During the early 1960s a series of initiatives designed to reform the mental health system were passed" -- "were passed", in the passive voice, by, and that the urging of apparently unknown persons, for reasons equally unknown.

Now consider, dear reader, what an oddity this is: This paper, which purports to be about policies concerning the mentally ill homeless, delved with great vigor into areas completely outside it's scope of expertise such as supply-side economics, the WWII economy, air traffic controller strikes, the economies of Japan and Europe, and international trade!

Then, upon arriving at the very meat of the matter: Whose policies have put the homeless on the street? it quickly ushers us past what we might think would be a rather crucial juncture, like a cop ushering people past an accident: Move along folks! Nothing to see here! Move along!

So what's the whole story?

I'm leaving that for part 2! Have a great day!