On November 2nd a group of around 70 Harvard University students walked out of Economics 10, an introductory economics course, and sent an open letter to Professor N. Gregory Mankiw, expressing “concern over the conservatively biased curriculum and Harvard’s graduates role in the current financial crisis”.
Here is the link to the letter – http://hpronline.org/harvard/an-open-letter-to-greg-mankiw/
and here is the link to professor Mankiw’s response – http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/04/business/know-what-youre-protesting-economic-view.html?_r=1
Personally, I couldn’t agree more with Cristopher Faille’s comment to the same letter:
” (…) Far more important, there IS of course a reason why Adam Smith’s work should be taken as more “fundamental or basic” than Keynes’. It is in point of historical fact more basic. Keynes, whether you agree with him or not, was building on a century and a half of prior work. Keynes and Smith are not competitors any more than Einstein and Newton are competitors. In each pairing, the work of the former would simply have been inconceivable without the prior contributions of the latter.
If you think you have mastered Newton, then you can go on to the study Einstein, and perhaps some day to have an intelligent opinion about Higgs’ boson. Otherwise, you’re likely to end up confusing a boson with a North American bison.”
Not to mention that, as far as I know, Mankiw is a new keynesian….
Finally, I think also that is very misleading to confuse (as some italian commentators do) an ideologically naive protest with an epistemologically and socially far-sighted position.