
“I was put up for early promotion to full professor in about 1975, a few years after Marihuana Reconsidered came out. My chief, who had put me up for early full professorship, was on the promotions committee. He came back from the promotions committee meeting and asked me to come to his office to give me the bad news. They had turned me down. When I asked him why he said, ‘Well, they loved your work on schizophrenia, but Marihuana Reconsidered – they hated that.’ I asked why. He said, ‘They said it was too controversial. [..]’ I said, ‘What has controversy got to do with it? We’re in the academy. Isn’t scholarship the criterion, or one of the most important?'”
Related posts:
‘Data is the new oil’: Tech giants may be huge, but nothing matches big data
Tyler Winklevoss: Digital Darwinism
Inclusionary Zoning Makes Housing Less Affordable
A Rogue State and Failed Social Visions
“Hurry Up and Die”: The Inescapable Outcome of Socialized Medicine
Pulling the Plug: Taking Delivery of Gold
Does Innovation Require the Patent Office?
Cui Bono Fed: Who Benefits from the Federal Reserve?
An Inflection Point for US Global Hegemony?
The Case for Restraint in Yemen
Gun Ownership: American Exceptionalism
The Battle for Self-Ownership in Medical Care
Robert P. Murphy: The Economics of Bitcoin
Money is Funny
Free Staters Tell Concord Police: Tanks, But No Tanks