Response to "The prince and the pauper"

I was saddened to read the March 27 column, “The prince and the pauper,” dismissing those who believe in the corrosive effects of income inequality as a case of “the pauper being jealous of the prince.” I am afraid the columnist allowed his political ideology to impede upon what could have been an important discussion of well-informed, cogent and compelling arguments about the dangers of burgeoning income inequality. His tone was rather dogmatic and dismissive; he deemed it “unbecoming and unfitting for anyone educated” to have a contrarian view.

First off, the video discussed by the columnist is based on a study conducted by one of the most esteemed faculty members at Duke, Dan Ariely. His primary charge against this video is predicated on a false dichotomy and excessive pathos. He claims that “[Marxism] didn’t play out well in actuality,” insinuating those who caution against high levels of income inequality must be quasi-Marxist. It is reckless and fallacious to assert those who argue against vast income inequality are akin to Marxists. Nobel Prize winners such as Joseph Stiglitz—and myriad other respected economists—have published extensive research on the threat that increasing income inequality poses to economic growth and well-being. Additionally, researchers such as Richard Wilkinson have written extensively on the causal relationship between income inequality and indicators of social ills such as increased violence and poor health. In short, academia continues to elucidate how income inequality can grow to dangerous levels that forsake the possibility of social mobility and jeopardize Liberalism’s fundamental ambitions.

Discussion over important issues like income inequality should continue on campus. But the discussion must be substantive rather than trivializing of other perspectives. What is “unbecoming and unfitting for anyone educated” is ignorance of facts and dismissal of other opinions without due diligence. Debate at Duke should strive to be better—our debates over politics, economics or culture must be mature, respectful and vibrant. These are the types of conversations that Duke is worthy of.

Matthew Hamilton

Trinity ‘16