Leiter Reports: A Philosophy Blog

News and views about philosophy, the academic profession, academic freedom, intellectual culture, and other topics. The world’s most popular philosophy blog, since 2003.

  1. Fool's avatar
  2. Santa Monica's avatar
  3. Charles Bakker's avatar
  4. Matty Silverstein's avatar
  5. Jason's avatar
  6. Nathan Meyvis's avatar
  7. Stefan Sciaraffa's avatar

    The McMaster Department of Philosophy has now put together the following notice commemorating Barry: Barry Allen: A Philosophical Life Barry…

Institute for Humane Studies–Pertinent Experiences?

Brian Leiter

A philosophy graduate student writes:

I'm writing to ask for your opinion on the Institute for Humane Studies (IHS), and if you see fit, to suggest that you solicit opinions from readers of Leiter Reports.

The IHS offers generous funding to grad students and others who are "pursuing liberty-advancing careers."  I've been receiving solicitations like the one below for years now, and I've never responded.  To be blunt, they appear to be a bunch of libertarian wingnuts, and I've been writing them off as such. 

Am I being unfair?  Are they only interested in funding research that vindicates the overwhelming normative weight of "economic freedom," or might they be interested in other sorts of "liberty"?  Have they ever funded anything that questions or criticizes the Smith-Hayek-Posner-Rand line of wealth-celebration, or are they, you know, partisan hacks? 

I ask because my research concerns liberty, and although I'm not an all-around wealth-celebrator, I could use some cash like any other grad student.  So what do you think?  Would ideally informed, caring friends permit their academic friends to apply for and/or accept IHS funding? 

I'd be grateful for any feedback from you, e.g., "Yes, they are crackpots," or "No, ever heard of the principle of charity?  Ad hominem much?"  But I think it might also be a useful topic for comments on Leiter Reports, as I'm sure many other grad students receive similar messages from the IHS and wonder whether or not they'd be tainted by Rand cooties if they had anything to do with them. 

Signed comments preferred, but all comments MUST include a valid e-mail address (which will not appear).

Leave a Reply to P. Stovall Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

22 responses to “Institute for Humane Studies–Pertinent Experiences?”

  1. Andrew

    Here's an anecdatum. IHS supported my undergraduate education in the form of a ("Humane Studies") fellowship. My research at the time concerned civil liberties for non-citizens and the metaphysics of human rights (not exactly Tea Party propaganda).

    Since then, I've attended a few IHS events and have there encountered proponents of just about every view in political philosophy. It's clear that the IHS has an agenda; but the variety of folks who attend their seminars and receive support from IHS are, in my experience, wider than one might have thought. My advice? Apply for funding. Go to their seminars. Who knows, you might just get an extra semester of support and meet some interesting folks.

    Reply
  2. Grad Student

    I have not applied for any IHS scholarships, but I went to a conference hosted by IHS and it was an excellent experience. I am not a libertarian, and I found the atmosphere congenial and welcoming of diverse viewpoints. Certainly most people there were libertarian-leaning, but beyond that the group was less homogenous than most groups of philosophers I've been around — a variety of moral and political attitudes, religious viewpoints, nationalities, and academic areas were represented. In fact, to be frank, I felt much more comfortable expressing my anti-libertarian views in that setting than I would expressing my anti-left-liberal views in most philosophy circles. I don't know if this was a function of the people there (people who are used to holding the minority view in their departments back home) or something about the libertarian mindset, but I found it quite refreshing.

    As for the E-mailer's question about kinds of freedom in particular, the IHS definitely supports and funds research in areas besides "economic" freedom. Many affiliated with the institute are trying to bridge the divide between Rawslian left-liberalism and libertarianism in their work — see, e.g., John Tomasi's recent "Free Market Fairness" or the website http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/. (My references to these sources, of course, should not be taken as an endorsement of the viewpoints expressed therein.)

    Reply
  3. Rob Gressis

    In my experience, while a significant majority of faculty at IHS events are libertarians or classical liberals, not all of them are. In addition, a less significant majority of the students are classical liberal/libertarian. Moreover, there are some really fine thinkers who lead seminars (e.g., David Schmidtz, John Tomasi, Loren Lomasky). Finally, with regard to grants, it has not been my experience that only those projects that argue for economic liberty are promoted.

    Reply
  4. Massimo Pigliucci

    It's a good outlet. They do not (yet) offer accreditation, but they are working on it. As it is, it's nice for people who are interested to learn about humanist philosophy for their own enjoyment. The courses are actually well structured, with rotating mentors, a pretty heavy (if not always up to date) reading list, and in-person weekends alternating between New York and DC.

    Reply
  5. Chris Surprenant

    I'll add further confirmation to the positions expressed above. I've been associated with IHS for the last few years and they've helped fund my research, departmental lecture series, and many of my students. I've also attended a number of their events. All of my experiences have been very positive. As best as I can tell, they're simply interested in promoting interesting discourse and I've been glad to be a part of that.

    I assume that the student is interested in philosophy. If so, he should contact Bill Glod (bglod[at]ihs[dot]gmu[dot]edu) directly if he has any questions or concerns. Bill is IHS's program officer in philosophy. He did his graduate work at Tulane and is an excellent resource.

    Reply
  6. Colin Heydt

    Like others here, I had positive experiences with IHS. I probably attended 4 or 5 seminars and found all of them invigorating. I'm not a libertarian, but it was enjoyable to argue with the occasional person who thought we should have a free market in currency or get rid of zoning laws (a small minority of attendees, I should emphasize). The conferences were interdisciplinary and it was useful to meet grad students working in economics, political science, religion, etc.

    In addition, I did my dissertation on Mill's theories of character and aesthetic education and received some nominal (though welcome) fellowship support from IHS–even though my topic had nothing to do with libertarianism. They support libertarian politics more directly than other organizations (e.g. Liberty Fund). But everyone I ever interacted with at IHS (including the current president and many of the faculty who work their events) liked defending their views and enjoyed a lively exchange of ideas. I wish there were more of that ethos in academia at large.

    As an aside, Smith is hardly a 'celebrator of wealth' (nor, though I say this with less confidence, is Hayek or Posner–to group any of the three with Rand seems unfair).

    Reply
  7. Another Grad Student

    I am not a libertarian (and I've never read Rand). I went to one IHS event (a professionalization seminar) on their dime and found it helpful and stimulating. They are surely liberty-oriented (though not just concerned with economic liberties as the email to Prof. Leiter might suggest), but I found the cohort to be an open-minded, sincere and thoughtful bunch. If you are looking for the taint of "Randian cooties," I'd probably look elsewhere.

    Reply
  8. Anonymous Grad Student

    I have no direct experience with the IHS, and I've no doubt that the largely positive experiences above are the norm.

    I do want to point out, however, that a significant portion of the IHS's funding comes from liberatarian billionaire Charles Koch, the various Scaife family foundations, and the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, to name a few. While the Koch brother's support for right-wing causes is well-known, the Scaife and Bradley families have also supported–to the tune of millions of dollars–various elements of American conservatism, including right to work legislation, voter ID laws, school voucher programs, anti-collective bargaining legislation, and, the case of the Bradleys, Islamophobic rhetoric masquerading as security policy (the so-called "Center for Security Policy" which opposed the 'ground zero Mosque' and the 'David Horowitz Freedom Center', which, amongst other things, maintains a list of 'radical' academics.) A cursory Google search can reveal more of the background here. The amounts involved are staggering.

    I am not claiming that one ought refuse the money, or indeed making any kind of principled argument one way or the other. Rather that this information may be salient to many of us who have been deliberating whether or not to associate ourselves with organizations like the IHS. Perhaps taking the money prevents it from being given to 'Bell Curve' author Charles Murray, or racist apologist Dinesh D'Souza, both recipients of the same Bradley/Koch largesse that funds the IHS. Perhaps, as the saying goes, l'argent n'a pas d'odeur. (But given how any intellectual mediocrity can be made rich by faithful and clever repetition of the proper talking points, I would be worried about indulging such gateway drugs.)

    Reply
  9. Katy Abramson

    I don't know about the IHS.
    But Chris Suprenant above– a small note. You wrote, "I assume that the student is interested in philosophy. If so, he should contact Bill Glod (bglod[at]ihs[dot]gmu[dot]edu) directly if he has any questions or concerns."
    The student was anonymous. The anonymous student may be a woman.

    Reply
  10. Some guy

    The IHS is cosmopolitan. They have nothing to do with Islamophobia or any other form of racism or xenophobia. One of their funders has also funded some ugly stuff. I guess each of us can judge for herself how much that taints IHS, but they are actively pointing in a very different direction. For them it's all peace, freedom, and free trade, which is hardly what "conservative" means in the US today.

    Reply
  11. Eric Schliesser

    Adam Smith on Wealth: The Theory of Moral Sentiments, 1.3.3, is titled, "Of the corruption of our moral sentiments, which is occasioned by this disposition to admire the rich and the great, and to despise or neglect persons of poor and mean condition." That sums up his attitude toward celebrating wealth very nicely.
    I received a modest, but very welcome IHS fellowship in my final year during my PhD in 2001. I also attended a workshop that David Schmidtz directed in which I was almost certainly the most market-skeptical person in the room. It was a terrific learning experience. I have not received (nor applied) funding from them again, but have recommended a few others over the years, and would do so in the future.

    Reply
  12. A.S.

    I have nothing but positive things to say about IHS, and I agree with the weight of commentary about it. As an alum of multiple IHS events, I can tell you I've found people of all stripes at their seminars. To be sure, their professors are classically liberal, and IHS does not hide its political disposition. But it is by no means a propaganda outlet. It's simply an academic institution where classical liberal ideas receive prominent treatment in discussions of political philosophy, law, economics, sociology, and other cognate disciplines. The IHS professors are reputable. And the students run the gamut, from ideological undergrads to heterodox grad students. IHS also makes a concerted effort to bring in individuals of different persuasions, as long as they have a good faith interest in classical liberal ideas. The innuendo in comment 8 about Charles Koch is off base; IHS is, culturally, an academic institution, and it's run by academics, not Koch stooges. And far from the irresponsible suggestion of racism, IHS' outlook is cosmopolitan. As a minority, I've never felt anything less than welcome there.

    In short, IHS tries to bring classical liberal ideas into the mainstream academic conversation. If you're a humanities student who wants to explore these ideas, IHS is a good place to start. But if you have no interest in classical liberalism, or you've written it off as a crackpot ideology, then IHS is probably not the best fit.

    Reply
  13. Brian Leiter

    I think it is worth noting that "classical liberal" is a term of art in libertarian circles for views that were not held by any classic liberals.

    Reply
  14. Anon Grad Student

    Thanks very much for all your feedback. I'm the original anon grad student who asked Brian to solicit opinions.

    Posts 1 through 7 made me think I'd been too quick to judge IHS based on my own ideological prejudices. Then I read Post 8, and I thought I could have done more research on my own using the Google machine. I chastised myself appropriately and moved on.

    Google does, in fact, provide quite a bit of support for the "innuendo in comment 8," namely, that Koch reportedly intends to use the IHS to effect ideological change in academia and society:

    http://crookedtimber.org/2012/05/30/not-so-new-applications-in-the-quantitative-analysis-of-textual-information/

    Moreover, despite protestations to the contrary, the IHS folk unabashedly endorse the work of Ayn Rand. They're also very fond of Friedman, Hayek, Baldy Harper, and Adam Smith, as evidenced by the "sponsor levels" at their 50th Anniversary Dinner ($2,500 to be an "Ayn Rand Sponsor," but only $1,000 to be an "Adam Smith Sponsor"):

    http://www.supportihs.org/50thDinner

    The IHS offers free copies of Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" to those who apply for summer seminars by March 2013:

    http://www.theihs.org/summer-seminars/free-book-offer

    And their popular summer seminar "Morality, Capitalism & Freedom" focuses on "[r]eading and discussing ideas from Robert Nozick, Adam Smith, Ayn Rand, and F.A. Hayek":

    http://www.theihs.org/summer-seminars/morality-capitalism-freedom

    Plus Greenpeace and Mother Jones say the IHS harbors climate change deniers and is a "Koch Industries Climate Denial Front Group":

    http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/koch-industries/institute-for-humane-studies/

    So you can tell me they're nice people and I'll believe you — so are the guys at the bar at my dad's golf course — but I won't feel bad for continuing to think they're creepy (and possibly getting creepier).

    Now I simply need to decide whether or not to hold my nose and apply for the Koch money in order to pursue the interdisciplinary research and discussion the IHS reportedly — and I have no reason to doubt the reports — facilitates.

    Re Adam Smith and Robert Nozick, I agree that they are top-notch philosophers — and that Smith, in particular, was no proponent of greed or selfishness, no matter what his writings have inspired — who should not be lumped in with the likes of Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman. So I will be much more careful not to do that in future, but it looks like the IHS heartily approves of lumping them together and will continue to do so.

    Reply
  15. B.

    I wouldn't accept any money from the IHS, or otherwise affiliate myself with them, but I have friends who have done these things (some are sympathetic to libertarianism; others aren't), and their experiences were also largely positive.

    However, because so many people have been saying nice things about the IHS in this thread, I want to echo commenter #8's reference to the principled considerations against affiliating oneself with it. The IHS's more-or-less explicit aim is to raise the profile of market-friendly ideologies through the strategic allocation of funding, workshops, and other professional resources. Obviously, this aim is compatible with–and plausibly facilitated by–having seminars with nice, intellectually diverse, and smart people, and by reaching out to some philosophers who are (at least initially) skeptical of (some) market-friendly ideologies (but who may become less skeptical after prolonged exposure). But also obviously, even though lots of people affiliated with the IHS aren't libertarian wingnuts, this doesn't mean it's basic aim isn't objectionable enough to rule out objecting money from them. If I took money from them, I'd feel like I was free-riding, basically.

    Reply
  16. Anon

    I attended an IHS seminar while in grad school 6 or 7 years ago. The experience was really enjoyable, with a lot of engaging speakers as well as participants from a number of disciplinary perspectives. The IHS covered all room and board, and all the attendees had to pay for was travel. In addition to compelling speakers during the day, there was free booze and more discussion every night, and it seemed to me as a kind of grad student's paradise.

    Since then, however, I have become quite skeptical, due mainly to things I've received via the IHS mailing list. The first thing that raised an eyebrow was a letter I received shortly after the economic crisis and Obama's election, which went on and on about the "new threats to economic liberty" which were emerging, and how they appreciated my continuing support. A couple years after that I received an email with a video in the same vein which was funded by something called "The Charles Koch Institute." And just a few months ago I received a collection of essays edited by someone from a right-wing think tank, which argued that government lending to the poor led our country's financial collapse.

    Others may disagree, but these affiliated mailings appear to me to be blatant propaganda, and I can't help now but look back at my IHS seminar as a kind of softer variety of the same. You may experience the IHS as a chance to engage in
    independent and engaging inquiry, but it is hard to ignore that they are part of a large and well-funded effort to promote a certain ideology.

    Reply
  17. KW

    It is not, in general, hypocritical to benefit from a policy that you are simultaneously fighting against. For example, I don't think it was hypocritical of Ayn Rand to take medicare at the end of her life (especially since she was forced to pay into it).

    Similarly, I don't think it is hypocritical to benefit from a person or organization that you do not fully agree with or somehow fight against.

    So long as you're honest in your application, let them decide if they want to give you support or not…

    As far as reputation goes: There is no requirement to put everything that you've done on your resume.

    BL COMMENT: I believe one does have an obligation to put anything professionally relevant on a CV, including participation in a scholarly event hosted by IHS.

    Reply
  18. Dale Miller

    I first became involved with IHS as an undergraduate, when I was a young Robert Nozick clone (albeit without the hair), attending a week-long Liberty and Society seminar. In grad. school I attended a couple of career-development seminars and won some fellowships, including a couple of larger ones. Even when I was at my most libertarian, I was impressed by the fact that there seemed to be a fair amount of intellectual diversity at IHS events (and that this was welcomed), which wasn't necessarily the case at events I attended that were sponsored by other groups. In grad school I started drifting away from libertarianism, but IHS still continued to be generous with their support. I didn't have much contact with them after I finished, however, and so I don't have a good read on what they're like today. The Koch connection makes me less than anxious to try to reforge ties. I do continue to notify students with libertarian leanings about them, though.

    Reply
  19. Roger Koppl

    Brian Leiter:

    I don't understand. "Classical liberalism" usually means something more or less along the lines Wikipedia gives: "Classical liberalism is a political ideology, a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with limited government under the rule of law and generally promotes a laissez-faire economic policy." Do libertarians give it some other meaning?

    BL COMMENT: Wikipedia, which often leans to the right I've noticed, has simply adopted the standard libertarian definition. If John Stuart Mill and Adam Smith are classic liberals, then it's not the case that this describes their views, is it?

    Reply
  20. Roger Koppl

    Brian: I used Wikipedia to show that the meaning given is not idiosyncratic or something, but common. Wikipedia may have a right-wing bias, though this is first I've heard of it. However that may be, I think the quoted bit is about right. Classical liberalism is the tradition of Hume, Smith, and the Mills, a tradition claimed (rightly I think) by F. A. Hayek. (He had issues with Stuart Mill, but that would seem to be something of a detail in this conversation.) Adam Smith was certainly an advocate of civil liberties, including the abolition of slavery. He favored the rule of law and generally promoted a laissez-faire economic policy. Thus, he would seem to fit the Wikipedia definition perfectly. Mill is more a more nuanced case, I suppose, but I think the description fits him nicely too.

    Maybe you don't buy the idea that modern American-style libertarianism is really a form of liberalism in any tradition containing both Smith and Mill? If that's your issue, I might agree. But I don't really see where there is any bias in Wikipedia definition. What am I missing?

    BL COMMENT: Neither Smith nor Mill would have endorsed the laissez-faire policies associated (with one reading) of Hayek. (I do think Hayek is the source for the myth about what "classical liberalism" is, but that's another issue.) If any Mill or Smith scholars care to comment, with signed comments, that's fine, but otherwise let us return this thread to its main topic! Thanks.

    Reply
  21. P. Stovall

    I attended an IHS summer conference in 2008. It spanned a weekend, and the Institute paid for lodging, food, and drinks both nights.
    Approximately two hundred people, upper level undergrads and graduate students from across a variety of disciplines, attended. A dozen professors and libertarian think-tankers gave talks and facilitated discussion on everything from the history of English mercantilism to the way authority broke down in New Orleans after Katrina. The discussions were stimulating, and the social events a blast. A year later I participated in a seminar on FA Hayek; this time there were about 20 of us, all grad students, and most were political theorists and economics students. I was one of only two philosophy students, as I recall, though the facilitator was the philosopher Jerry Gaus (Arizona). I later applied for and did not receive a Fellowship to help with my dissertation, but I did attend a meeting in which funded philosophy students discussed their work. All of these experiences were intellectually stimulating, and I found the other participants to be intelligent, nondogmatic, and willing to share their views and have them criticized.

    It is true that the IHS is looking to foster relationships with academics of a particular ideological bent. That was the theme of an opening talk given by Marty Zupan, president of IHS, at one event. She was clear that the IHS is interested in supporting academics who share their views. The farther along one goes, then, the more likely you'll be excluded if your views differ from theirs.

    But I never once felt constrained by that aim, or had the sense that our discussions had to meet certain expectations. Indeed, everyone I met–from fellow participants to Institute employees to the professors facilitating discussion–came across as a person of nondogmatic conviction (Nigel Ashford, a senior employee at IHS, explicitly encouraged the seminar on Hayek to be critical of Hayek's views). While I no longer attend IHS events, I'm still occasionally invited to meetings, particularly when they occur here in town. It is true that if one wants to proceed to receive more *financial* support from the IHS, one will probably have to share (in some sense) the right convictions. But I certainly wouldn't let that shy you away from, e.g., attending some of their conferences or seminars (the seminar, as I recall, not only paid for
    food and lodging, but offered a stipend of a couple hundred dollars).

    On that note, I want to push back against the contention that the IHS is a hotseat of Randian theory. At least in 2008-9, there wasn't much discussion of Rand at all. In the three events I attended, I could count on both hands the number of times I heard Rand discussed, and with a couple notable exceptions it was always rather critical. And I wouldn't infer much from the fact that the IHS is giving out copies of Rand's books. Everytime I went to an IHS event we were given a range of books in the 'classically liberal' tradition from which to choose–you won't leave
    with a Rand book in your hands unless that's something you want (and for whatever it's worth, Professor Leiter is about the last person I'd go to for an understanding of how those who frequent 'libertarian circles' understand the classically liberal tradition).

    The influence of the Koch brothers is another issue, though. I recall having known that they were involved in the IHS sometime after my first conference, but at the time I wasn't aware of the brothers' willingness to use financial influence to purchase political power. Truly, I think this is something anyone who attends an IHS event needs to consider thoughtfully. But I suspect that those who do will find that the staff and other participants will provide an open forum for whatever sort of intelligent discussion of that influence one might like to raise.

    Reply
  22. R E Shah

    In response to the original anon grad student.

    I have attended (I think) 3 IHS summer seminars and one of their weekend discussion groups (organised with the liberty fund). It was always great fun.

    On the 50th Anniversary dinner. I would not read too much into the naming of the sponsors. It is just marketing. For better or for worse a significant proportion of the donors rather like Ayn Rand (apparently more so than Adam Smith, something I find most unfortunate), calling them an Ayn Rand sponsor might incite them to give more.

    As for Morality, Capitalism and Freedom (bear in mind this is one of their introductory seminars). I have attended that seminar. There was only one lecture on Ayn Rand. The speaker gave what seemed to me (I have not read Ayn Rand) to be a fair but critical exposition of Ayn Rand's views on capitalism. Judging from the Q&A and discussions with other students I think most of the students thought Ayn Rand's views were problematic. Of course there was one or two guys (guys not girls) defending Ayn Rand but they were a significant minority and most other people found them irritating. During the social time the speaker told me he did not think much of Ayn Rand.

    At IHS's most advanced seminar someone asked a question along the lines of "Why haven't you mentioned Ayn Rand's defence of capitalism?" I cannot remember the speaker's answer but my interpretation of it was that it was a polite way of saying "Ayn Rand's crap". I also believe that the attitude of most of the other students in the room was "not another Randroid".

    As for the books. IHS gives many free books (seminar attendees get I think 4 free books). Atlas Shrugged (a work of fiction) is one of them. If you don't want to take it you don't have to (I don't take it). They also give books by Orwell and other non libertarians.

    I think IHS's attitude towards Ayn Rand is similar to Milton Friedman's (Friedman when asked what he thought of Rand replied "well, she brings people into the movement"). They do not "unabashedly endorse the work of Ayn Rand".

    On climate change. Yes, IHS does have people who do not believe in AGW as guest lecturers. A few points on that. Firstly, it is not necessarily the case that they will lecture of climate change. Secondly, in none of the seminars I have attended has there been a talk on climate change (nor do I recall seeing one advertised on their website). Thirdly, they also have Ronald Bailey as guest lecturer. You probably do not know about him but he is the science editor of Reason magazine (a libertarian monthly), he believes AGW is happening, has said so publicly in Reason magazine http://reason.com/archives/2005/08/11/were-all-global-warmers-now and he still works at Reason magazine (nor has he been ostracised from the libertarian movement).

    At seminars I have attended I have expressed the view that AGW was happening. Quite a few people agreed with me. I also said libertarians should stop trying to argue about the facts (unless they were actually qualified to do so), accept (if only for the sake of arguments) that AGW is happening and discuss the moral and policy implications of that. Again many people agreed.

    I would encourage you to apply.

    Reply

Designed with WordPress