by Chris Wolf
George Reisman and Edith Packer are merely the latest victims of the bloody schism that has rent the Objectivist Movement for the last thirty years. It started with Nathaniel Branden, continued with David Kelley, and now has enveloped George and Edith. And these are just the particularly spectacular purges. There has been a host of lesser purges along the way.
I believe the source of this problem is the constant willingness of Objectivists to turn ordinary disputes into moral denunciations. If Edith Packer claims that Peter Schwartz has no business teaching psychology, why then, Edith Packer must be irrational, dishonest, and immoral, and we must have nothing to do with her (at least according to Schwartz).
When intelligent, strong-minded people band together to achieve a common goal, there are bound to be disagreements, disputes, and even hostility. But this does not mean that the source of such in-fighting is always immorality, dishonesty, or even irrationality. Honest people can have honest differences of opinion. You can disagree with someone, but still continue to respect him as a human being, and an ally.
Does this mean that you have to put up with an unpleasant person, no matter how disagreeable he is? No, of course not. But it does mean that there is no need to label someone as 'immoral,' just because they have criticized you. (For a more detailed analysis of this phenomenon of demonizing one's opponents, please see my FAQ: What's REALLY Wrong With Objectivism?)
I have never met George Reisman or Edith Packer. For all I know, they are unpleasant, abrasive, and difficult to work with. But I also know they are two very intelligent people who have contributed a tremendous amount to the application of Objectivist philosophy to the areas of Economics and Psychology.
From reading this collection of documents, it appears that George and Edith offered some criticisms of ARI's policies, and criticized the qualifications of some of ARI's Board members.
This is not a capital crime; nor should it be. Yet Schwartz and Binswanger appear to have treated it as such. If a majority of the Directors of the ARI feel that George and Edith are too disruptive to be part of ARI, and must be disconnected from ARI, that is their right and privilege. But what purpose is served by cutting all connections with The Jefferson School (TJS)? ARI refused to announce upcoming TJS conferences, refused to allow scholarships to TJS students, refused to allow TJS to use the ARI mailing list, intimidated speakers who were planning to speak at TJS conferences, and in general, did its best to destroy TJS.
Is this how ARI helps to spread Objectivism?
Obviously the people at ARI believe that Edith and George aren't just honestly mistaken, but are EVIL. Edith and George are immoral, irrational, and they shouldn't be treated as decent human beings. Just ask Peter Schwartz.
I can find no evidence in this collection of documents to suggest that Edith Packer, or George Reisman, is irrational or immoral. The suggestions and criticisms they offered seem reasonable. In my opinion, Peter Schwartz and Harry Binswanger are simply unable to take criticism, and decided to get rid of George and Edith by declaring them to be immoral. This sort of action should disqualify Binswanger and Schwartz from sitting on the Board of Directors of the Ayn Rand Institute.
Leonard Peikoff was obviously placed in a difficult position. He had to choose between two warring factions. In my opinion, he chose wrong, and justice was not done. Peikoff should have told Binswanger and Schwartz to grow up. Whatever the reason for Peikoff's final decision to abandon George and Edith, it will come back to haunt him. What Peikoff doesn't seem to realize, is that misfits like Schwartz and Binswanger will eventually drive all the good people out, and wreck the organization.
As a wise man once said, "If you want to understand, just follow the money." Let's do that.
According to George and Edith, Leonard Peikoff was to be paid $40,000 for lecturing at the TJS conference. How long was this conference scheduled to last? A week? I submit that $40,000 for one week's work is a pretty good rate of pay. That works out to a yearly equivalent of just over two million dollars!
Does this seem just a bit overpaid?
What's the yearly salary of a typical college professor? Fifty thousand dollars? That works out to about a thousand dollars per week. Peikoff was to get FORTY TIMES this much! Is he really worth that much?
Of course we must remember that TJS is a profit-making institution. If George and Edith were willing to pay Peikoff $40,000, it's because they were convinced that Peikoff's presence would ultimately put even more money in their pocket.
I have no objection to Peikoff making $40,000 for a week's work. The question I wish to raise, is, what are Peikoff's values in this case? Is he primarily interested in spreading Objectivism, or is he primarily interested in lining his pockets?
Somebody has to pay that $40,000 speaker's fee. Ultimately it will be paid by those attending the conference. If 150 people attend the conference, each of them will have to shell out an extra $250. Which means it will cost $400 to attend the conference, instead of $150. This means that many people who might otherwise be able to attend the conference, won't be able to afford it.
Is this how Objectivism gets spread? By holding expensive conferences that only the well-heeled can afford to attend? Just so Leonard Peikoff can get $40,000 for a week's work? It's not even the case that Peikoff needs this money to live. He already gets a fine income from the estate of Ayn Rand (and he drives a Lexus).
I'm not saying that Leonard has no right to ask for $40,000; I'm asking if he should be asking for $40,000. Such a speaker's fee makes it hard to believe that Leonard Peikoff is truly interested in spreading Objectivism. It looks more like he's trying to squeeze every last dollar out of the movement.
I have no objection to a man trying to make every possible dollar. If that's his top value; fine. But if that's the case, then he shouldn't be looked upon as someone who is working tirelessly to spread the philosophy. The Objectivist movement needs to be supported and nourished, not milked. Perhaps the movement should be looking for less-expensive speakers, who can generate 90% of the benefit, at one-tenth the cost.
Now let's take the case of Peter Schwartz and Harry Binswanger. They were scheduled to teach seven graduate students at the Objectivist Graduate Center. Harry was to teach for seven weeks, and Peter was to teach for five or six weeks. For this, the ARI was prepared to pay a total of $45,000. That works out to about $3800 per teacher, per week. That's a yearly equivalent income of almost $200,000! Of course it's only one-tenth of what Peikoff appears to command, but it's still about four times what a college professor makes.
Does this seem just a bit overpaid? George Reisman thought so, and he said so. He proposed hiring a much cheaper set of teachers. For this, he was tossed out.
It looks to me like Peikoff, Binswanger, and Schwartz have a very good thing going at the ARI, and aren't about to let anyone disrupt it. I have this mental image of all three men, sucking at the money teat of ARI, and enjoying every mouthful.
Harry Binswanger and Peter Schwartz are on the Board of Directors of the ARI. Leonard Peikoff is the Chairman Emeritus, and has absolute veto over the policies of ARI (or at least he did when George and Edith were kicked out). George Reisman and Edith Packer were on the Board of Advisors. Apparently Harry and Peter didn't like the advice they got from George and Edith, regarding the money Harry and Peter were to be paid by ARI.
The next time you receive a letter from ARI, asking for money to help advance the spread of Objectivism, you might think about where that money is going, and into whose pocket, and at what rate.
If you want to help advance the spread of Objectivism, consider giving your money to David Kelley's The Objectivist Center (TOC). The TOC publishes a detailed account of its income and spending; you can see where every dollar goes. To the best of my knowledge, the ARI has never done this. All I have ever seen is a claim from the ARI that their annual expenditures now exceed one million dollars.
I wonder how much of that money ends up in the pockets of Schwartz, Binswanger, and Peikoff?
Just food for thought.
Chris Wolf
cwolf41@comcast.net