Last Wednesday, at 12:15, as Gregory Mankiw lectured on income inequality in the United States, approximately 40 people walked out of Economics 10. Six people walked in, followed by two stragglers. Yet despite the disparity of numbers, the walk-in got a large round of applause and calls of “we love Gregory Mankiw.” Although the natural tendencies of Harvard students – young, worried about unemployment, and as a whole liberal – should tend towards supporting Occupy, those not participating seemed to have little sympathy.
It was exactly what I had worried would happen, and why the walk-out was ill-advised. It presents the Occupy movement, and its members, as more intolerant and fringe than they are. Those who walked out indicated that they were unwilling to even listen to what those defending the status quo have to say. The nature of the lecture further compounds this image – that Occupy is so certain of its views that it is unwilling to listen to the facts.
It alienated people who, after the lecture, may have actually agreed that there is a problem with inequality in the United States. Many of the students in the room were unaware that the walkout was occurring, or what it was about. Many, perhaps, had not considered income inequality as a significant issue. An attempt to increase awareness should attempt to increase sympathy as well – antipathic awareness does little good. Yet this is exactly what occurred.
Although it is arguable that Ec 10 is biased, the argument for bias for conservative positions might be made when an early lecture approvingly quotes Gordon Gekko in the movie Wall Street saying that “greed is good” and the minimum wage is regularly excoriated. Even the terminology “dead weight loss” attributed to all government interventions insidiously make a normative implication in what should be descriptive quantitative analyses. But the protest itself did nothing to create awareness of this overwhelmingly conservative teaching style and composition of the Economics department. Instead it merely re-entrenched the department’s position as a beleaguered minority which cannot be removed for fear of leaving Harvard entirely in the grasp of liberal wackjobs. As one of those very liberals, I’m frustrated when symbolic gestures have counterproductive practical effects.
At the end of the day, the goal of a movement can never be awareness alone. Occupy Wall Street has started a discussion – and eventually it needs to start shifting towards action. Rather than seeking to broaden the umbrella of Occupy to include protests against textbook prices and lousy professors, Occupy should be narrowing towards legislative, social, or other forms of action that will start to impact income inequality. If they prefer not to, and that is entirely their prerogative, then at least protests should avoid having the exact opposite effect desired.