Should You Have to Pay for Their Truth?

Neal McCluskeySuppose you have an open patch of ground in your yard and you think, “I’d like some flowers. But which ones?” Suddenly a landscaper arrives and says, “Flowers? I’m a landscaper, and the truth is you need weeds. ” An assistant then takes your wallet and gives the landscaper your money, telling you, “Be happy – you just got truth from an expert.”Would your reaction be, “He’s an expert so he can keep the money and I should be grateful ”? Or, “I didn’t ask for this, I still want flowers, and I am calling the police. ”Most people, I suspect, would go with the latter. Buta response to myrecent blog post looking at the Nikole Hannah ‐​Jones tenure dispute at the University of North Carolina, which highlights liberty and accountability problems when academic freedom is coupled with taxpayer funding of public universities, essentially says the right response is to let the landscaper keep your money, and be thankful for the en lightenment.Taxpayers should have to fund colleges, writes Matt Reed, because professors are truth seekers, and academics publishing truth is a “public good” from which we all benefit. It should also be up to professors to decide how the money is used, and to police themselves, because other people do not always accept the truth academics proclaim.“Academic freedom isn’t license to spout whatever you want,” he writes. “It’s a hunting license for truth. ”Let ’...
Source: Cato-at-liberty - Category: American Health Authors: Source Type: blogs