ROFL

Nice one. Tickled me silly!

Tsinghua University in Beijing has recently employed all professors from the closed Harvard Business School.

No need.
“The school will be renamed the Harvard University School of Integrity”
Professors will be quite well off, teaching integrity.

this is not what I expected to find.

hahahaha, silly libtards

that Dr. Z add is priceless

Congratulation on the awesome work done on the whole website and journal. You did a fantastic job!

hilarious. good job!

While I agree with many of the progressive sentiments expressed here, it’s time for our discourse to become more nuanced. If you think that businesses and businesspeople are problematic in themselves, you have bought into the sort of shallow extremist thinking that you are ostensibly accusing conservatives of. Businesses are in fact neutral forces, and can do great things and can do awful things. A lot of it depends on what the public as a whole expects of them, and allows them to do. So say what you will about business, but also understand that every person who ever buys from any business is also playing a part in affecting social problems and influencing what happens in the business world. To blame all these social problems on businesses and corporate greed addresses only half of the problem. Frankly, consumers as a whole have not lived up to their end of the bargain in being more aware of how their own consumption habits enable or disable businesses to behave the way they do. And to dismiss business as a whole as being inherently evil precludes the idea that business can– and most likely will– be the strongest engine of change in this world one way or another. But ultimately, the choice is really up to the people to choose what direction our society goes in, and what their role will be in promoting that. As it stands now, businesses are often punished by the market (AKA the people) for ‘doing the right thing.’ As a people, we must decide whether we want to correct that. So don’t blame business for being heartless; they do it because the markets demand it. And that’s all of our faults; we should not just hold businesses accountable, but also our governments, politicians, relatives, neighbors, friends, and more than anyone– ourselves.

This makes me want to punch an angel in the face!

[...] Harvard Closes its Business School Doors [...]

Rahul, you are wrong! Haven’t you ever heard that money is the root of all evil? There are lots of other bumper stickers that support my view too!

Barista,

Money is NOT the root of all evil. Check your sources. I believe it’s the love of money is the root of all evil.

Mr. Ford:

“the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil.” From the Bible, 1 Timothy 6:10.

[...] do NYT, também feito pelo Yes Men, há matérias como “Patriot Act derrubado!“, “Harvard fechará portas da escola de economia” e “Fundo de petróleo estatal financiará combate ao aquecimento [...]

@Rahul:
I think you missed something - you are defending businesses and businesspeople, but imho that’s not really the point. Rather we are talking about a system of values and beliefs - and the question raised here is whether these values still fit in our time. Market Capitalism is a (more or less efficient) way of allocating scarce resources - so in our days of abundance it’s simply outdated. But as you correctly wrote: the old ideas are in all of us, not just in the businesses.

And btw. don’t you think this talking about “consumers’ choice/ decision” is a bit…how should I put it…far from any reality? Markets are about power and beliefs - not about rational choice.
Greetings from Berlin.

*”Rather we are talking about a system of values and beliefs - and the question raised here is whether these values still fit in our time.”*

Right, and that’s something that has to be decided as a society. It’s completely ridiculous to think that shutting down business schools is going to somehow take us closer to some kind of global consciousness, or is going to be a byproduct of human enlightenment (as if business is an inherently evil pursuit and will fade away once we have achieved a certain stage of spiritual growth). For our society to make a leap of consciousness, we will need to actively choose it and reprogram our economic incentives system to better enable it to permeate our society. The impetus for that change has to come from within our society, not from some politician, bureaucrat, or businessperson. At best it’s naive and counterproductive to go around blaming corporations and business for social injustices and the shortcomings of our society; at worst, it’s a harmful, divisive, and inflammatory attitude that dismisses the contributions that business can bring to the table.

If you think it’s “far from reality” to see individuals as responsible for their own actions and accountable for the repercussions of their actions, it’s because it IS far from reality. But that doesn’t mean that it is irrelevant, and it doesn’t mean that moving beyond this self-imposed ignorance won’t be necessary to make the changes championed by this idealistic newspaper. We need people– lots of people– to become aware of their impacts on the planet, and we need those people to take action. In fact, getting people to raise their own level of awareness is the *one change* that the world will truly need to move beyond where we are. Finger-pointing and simplistic arguments against business aren’t the solutions.

This one is the best of all… The world shall follow the example… Even if it means closing like 90% of the universities in the developing world…

HOLY F China just took over and now we can’t Google what happened to us.

Great News. Capitalism sucks.

But we still have to organize an economy.

So what would be the best type of economy that refutes the “profit motive” and has production for use as it’s motif?

Amen to what Rahul wrote. I agree with many of the opinions in the articles expressed in this site, but definitely do not share the sentiment that business should be banished. Business is crucial to maintaining society, and markets, if properly designed, are incredibly efficient way to maximize the welfare of society. I will be the first to say that our economic system needs to be reformed (externalities, especially environmental cost and benefits, need to be internalized in market prices to the greatest extent possible) and that business needs to be more tightly regulated in some areas (witness Enron, the subprime mortgage crisis etc.), but that ultimately business and capitalism will help us reach a more perfect society, not the other way around. - Peace, Chelsea

The argument against business may be simplistic, but so is the assertion that business is “neutral”. Do we (consumers) demand advertising? And yet advertising is the single most important tool in getting people to be dissatisfied with what they have (or more to the point, who they are). Advertising is everywhere, from the day we are born in this society; in the programs we watch and every product we pick up. I don’t think “consumers” ever have a chance to be the neutral, rational “decision maker” in the sense you indicate. In fact, it is incredibly hard for people to a) think outside the box (or realize there is a box) and start to do real analytical thinking about the effects of advertising and consumer culture on them, b) get easily-obtainable information on what exactly is in the products they buy and how/where/under what conditions they were manufactured, whose resources were used, and whether they were obtained in a trade that would be equally valid in their home countries, and c) connect to other “consumers” and organize a broad movement to force (for that is what would be required) change on widely-dispersed, well-funded, multi-national business and the goverment(s) it pays for. We “consumers” are all so dispersed and disconnected and busy making money to pay for what we consume that it is extremely difficult to even start a significant movement of that sort. Internet campaigns that inform and organize people are probably the one promising element. So it is not as if objective, irresponsible consumers are the ones creating, much less demanding, the current state of affairs. Yes, people need to be educated about what their actions are doing to the world and their fellow human beings, and there is no doubt we all need to change the way we live and consume and pollute. But it is business, and the mythology we all buy into that surrounds it (neutral, objective, efficient, free, best allocation of resources) that will be the hardest factor to overcome.

@Kris — business IS neutral. Are you arguing that it is inherently bad? If so, where do you get your money from? Where do you get the things you eat and fill your house with? How do you get health care? The truth is that we experience the benefits of business every day, not just in things we buy, but also from the money we make, and services we need. To deny that is to shut your eyes to the complexity of the world, and the ambiguous nature of consequence. Are there negative repercussions that stem from business? An unqualified YES. Are there positive benefits that stem from business? Another unqualified YES. So we need to maximize the positives and minimize the negatives, ok. So how do we do that? We need to set up the economic structure to encourage “good” behavior from businesses. No problem. But who is going to be the arbiter of how businesses should act? Some guy in a government building somewhere? I don’t think so. He can perhaps enforce it, but it’s going to have to come from our society, our society’s expectations, and our society’s demands on each other and ourselves. This means sacrifice, this means awareness, this means making difficult choices. It’s not easy, but nothing worth having ever was easy.

Now, I have difficulty following your argument regarding solutions. It sounds like you are saying that because business is so prevalent, consumers are helpless to effect change. I disagree strongly with that. Are consumers disinclined? Yes. Apathetic? Yes? Short-sighted? Yes. But destroying businesses and attacking the business world will not change that one bit. You can try to legislate your morality/ethics and regulate consciousness, and you may get some positive benefits in the short term, but ultimately, for us to make the full change this planet needs, I don’t think that such regulatory efforts will work. It will come back down to what will be perceived as arbitrary guidelines about what you can and can’t do; people will rebel against such regulations that do not come from mandates from the people, and the voices of their own consciences. I understand that you don’t think that consumers have the power to do anything, but you are wrong. This attitude is the reason that we are facing the crises we are facing. Too many people became too complacent, and acted like they couldn’t do anything to change anything on this planet. They shrug their shoulders and pass the blame onto someone else, and hope someone else will take care of the problems for them. That isn’t going to work. We have to get involved through our choices, and through the people we use to represent us. But the important thing is that we are all involved.

Making this change will require a shift in how we view ourselves and our role in the world. I simply don’t see how it could happen any other way. Anything else will be a short-term, band-aid solution. I agree, it’s hard to motivate people and there are many reasons why consumers want to shift the blame of their own choices on business, but to do so is completely misguided and unproductive. Most of us do not live in countries where someone will imprison you if you don’t buy another SUV, or if you choose to ride a bike instead of driving. These are choices we are free to make, but most people do not think about the consequences of their actions short of how it affects them personally (eg. gas is expensive so I’ll drive less. When the price gets cheaper, I’ll drive more again.). Will it be hard to override that mindset? Hell, yes. But this is the way it has to be, and it is what we must do.

I think this is a cause and effect fake news piece. Because we have a federal maximum wage, people stop attending business school, and hence the closure of HBS. : )

I am all for a less greedy society, but this makes it sound easier than it really is. I’d be surprised if this happens in my lifetime.

lol @ the china comments

Rahul…I like your optimism but wonder whether it isn’t simply of the naive semper fi business school variety that the mock news piece was actually takiung aim at. I get your logic, we’re all hypocrits, until we do something to change the basic economic structures that actually enjoy the herdlike self imposed ignorance that you mention. Indeed, but integrity, honesty, the ability to recognize necessity as opposed to excess and to remain loyal to one’s neighbors, aren’t being emphasized in today’s global version of capitalism. What is: impersonal institutions, driven by policy after policy that continue to distance individuals from expressing basic examples of character. As Richard Sennet says, ‘the qualities of good work today, are not the qualities of good character.’ This, he says, speaking of a bygone era when work was seen as a reflection of many fundamentally “good” qualities of character: loyalty, trust, stability, honesty, fairness. Now, I’m not saying there was ever a utopian economic system, but the nature of work has changed and so to has our general character: sadly for the worse. Now, I’d like to believe this could change but find myself thinking it’s going to take a lot broader vision than anything we hear being offered today.

“Now, I’d like to believe this could change but find myself thinking it’s going to take a lot broader vision than anything we hear being offered today.”

—————-

Yeah, because the current vision is to let someone else deal with it, and to act like it’s totally out of our control. Every problem you described is a problem created by people. I realize that not everyone recognizes need from excess– but what is the solution? To disallow them from buying? To punish businesses for selling? The best I can see is to charge some kind of VAT on all goods and services so as to compensate for social impacts of that consumption. It’s a good start in my opinion, but it’s not going to curb desire, overall it’s not going to create different attitudes towards consumption, and certainly people will fight this forced change tooth and nail. Which is why I said that a real sea change will have to come from within, and it will have to come from people taking responsibility for their own lives and their own impacts, and holding the people they have assigned to represent them personally accountable. Remember too that businesses are not just buildings with independent minds. They are made of people. The government is also made of people. Everything is made of people. Change them, change their motivations, and you’ve changed the system. Ultimately, motivating those people is the only way to make real change because it doesn’t just change them, it changes the entire playing field. Remember how unthinkable it was to get the British out of India? Yet, Gandhi did it through self-sacrifice, and encouraging the self-sacrifice of others. These days, people in India feel like that was some kind of fluke, and that Gandhi’s lessons are irrelevant now. How sad. What it took more of than anything was leadership, but he did not create new sentiments; he simply taught people that if they united, they could bring the changes they wanted. His quote: “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” I believe that quote. The question is, do others? And are they willing to act on it?

YES Men, we need a new ideology, what used to be called capitalism is no longer a valid system. (It is questionable that it was ever a valid system). A valid system would be one that created the greatest good for the greatest number — and it wouldn’t matter who your mother and father was. It would eliminate the categories of rich and poor. It would eliminate the ideology of SELLING. It would promote honesty It would end the justification of might makes right and Social Darwinist ideology generally.

Hi-frickin-larious!

THANKS for your manifesto of sanity

This idea of the “neutrality” of business is quite ridiculous. A society’s young people can be taught different things. They can be taught war, competition, how to take things away from other people, and to live that way. Or they can be taught peace, cooperation, how to build things with other people.

Business teaches the young abilities which are not useful for society. They are useful only in the task of taking advantage of some by others. It is just like how the aristocrats in various societies would learn how to kill people, while the serfs would learn how to cultivate land. In such a society, would the closing down of the fencing schools not be a step forward?

The task of the young in the technological society is to build the world that will be their legacy — they need to learn how to build, and how to dream, how to imagine the possibilities that technology provides. A business education does not help that; it actively interferes.

[...] And now, for a glimpse into the crystal ball… Harvard University Business School will be closing its doors following an unprecedented drop-off in applications this fall, New York Times reports. The school will be renamed the Harvard University School of [...]

Does this also mean the end of cruel and savage bosses?

For instance, did you know that (in the US at least) it is LEGAL to harass, bully, annoy, agitate, or deceive a subordinate for ANY reason, unless it is for an illegal reason? I am not joking about this — I did some research a few years ago when I was trying to liberate myself from one such horror of a corporate menace?

It’s sad, but true. The boss cannot bully you because you are a minority, for example, but the boss can bully you if they simply don’t like you (or need to find an excuse for cutting some staff to meet a budget).

How about an employee liberation Act?

Lol!
It’s an intersting thought, the rejection of free market capitalism and entrepreneurship in society… I mean, who really needs people who foster innovation and job creation?

hooray socialism

Glad they are shutting down the school. As an HBS alum, that means less competition for me!

@Patient - it’s called “at will” employment, related to our right of free association - you are free to resign at any time, and you don’t even have to have a reason. (It helps to have a better job to go to, of course).

Eventually, the tyrant and/or company you used to work for will acquire the reputation they clearly want to have, then nature will take its course.

@Rahul, if we want to reduce or minimize something, then taxing it is a time-tested approach. Consumption taxes will happen once “fairness” is worked into the formula somehow.

what is the time?

Most businesses are started to provide a specific product or service. Then, when the business becomes owned by stockholders, it merely provides something called “product” to gain an increasing supply of money. That is where businesses go wrong.