As one of the graduate students
signing the letter disavowing the
views of Roman Senkiw, I would
like to question Alan Bromberg's
statements about the Department
of Economics and particularly
about Professor Martin's letter.
I objected to Senkiw's letter
because I felt his views could be
used by others to discredit the
Economics Department. Although I
have encountered a wide variety of
opinions among the faculty and
graduate students in the Economics
Department in three years, Senkiw's
seem to me to be virtually the
only opinions that could even
remotely be described as "racist."
Yet Bromberg used our letter as a
pretext for furthering the misconception
that the Department of
Economics is "racist" and "reactionary."
Senkiw argued that the distribution
of income reflected a statistical
"truth" and should not be altered.
Professor Martin suggested that
transfers of "money, goods or
training" were superior to the
minimum wage as a means of
redistribution. But Bromberg fails
to see that these are different
points of view.
Senkiw emphasized the importance
of genes as the determinant of
ability, ability as determining individual
position in society. As races
are to him nothing more than "gene
pools," their relative position reflects
only heredity and not environment.
Certainly Professors Breit,
Moore and Culbertson's arguments
against any form of racial discrimination
represents the complete
opposite of this position.
Bromberg's caricature of the
Economics Department as "anti-dillevian"
or "pre-Keynesian" reveals
only the depth of his own
ignorance and prejudice. John Maynard
Keynes opposed the minimum
wage because it would create
unnecessary unemployment. Did
that make him "pre-Keynesian"?
