To see what is wrong with this statement, change it only slightly – “many colleagues are distressed by the notoriety of the Chicago School of Anthropology, especially throughout most of the business community, where they have often to defend the University's reputation in the face of its negative image”.
Great universities such as the University of Chicago should neither adopt nor discard ideas to appease particular constituencies. Universities pursue ideas because they are interesting and important, not because of their ideological origin or policy consequences. That is what distinguishes universities from religious institutions and political parties.
Friedman's supporters have rushed to his defence, and to claim – with justice – that his work enhanced the university's reputation. Still, I shall not be making a contribution to the Friedman Institute. Friedman's simplifications and exaggerations, while provocative and stimulating in the hands of a man of his intelligence and originality, become tedious when pursued by less talented acolytes. But the relevant issue is not whether Friedman was right or wrong. It is whether Friedman was a sufficiently distinguished figure and his thinking sufficiently weighty to be commemorated in the manner proposed. On that there is no doubt.
