The Anti-Intellectual Northern Michigan University

What we learn from the cancellation of Scott Beaulier

Two weeks ago, Scott Beaulier, my co-author and former student, seemed likely to become the next president of Northern Michigan University. In 2016, he became the youngest business school dean in U.S. history at North Dakota State University. In 2022, he became the dean at the University of Wyoming. An NMU alum, he was on the short list for the presidency of his alma mater.

Until activist Andrew Plocher reviewed Beaulier’s c.v. — and discovered that he co-wrote “Behavioral Economics and Perverse Effects of the Welfare State” (Kyklos, 2007) with me. Beaulier’s candidacy was cancelled in a heartbeat.

If Plocher had accused us of plagiarism, falsification of evidence, or other violation of research ethics, the relevance would be clear. University presidents don’t have to be great researchers, but they are supposed to have basic academic integrity. But Plocher made no such accusations. Indeed, he didn’t even try to argue against our paper. Instead, he hysterically summarized our paper’s thesis.

Here are his remarks, interspersed with my commentary:

“I write to express deep concern about the candidacy of Scott Beaulier, who co-authored an academic article titled ‘Behavioral Economics and Perverse Effects of the Welfare State’ (Kyklos, 2007),” Plocher wrote. “In it, Beaulier and his co-author argue that recipients of government assistance are not just economically disadvantaged—they are behaviorally and cognitively deficient.”

Correct. If you read the paper, we offer plenty of evidence in favor of these claims.

Beaulier and his co-author wrote, “The average recipient of government assistance does not even come close” to rational expectations, and go on to claim that “the poor are much more prone to engage in such activities [as drug use, crime, and unprotected sex] than the rest of the population.”

Another correct description of our position, without any effort to refute our evidence.

“They frame these issues not as consequences of structural injustice but as “pathologies” rooted in poor decision-making,” said Plocher.

The subpar decision-making of the poor is fact; see our cites. The “consequences of structural injustice” is dogma. Plocher presents no evidence that the poor are being treated more unjustly than the non-poor. And if society demonstrably did so treat the poor, the rational response for the poor would be extra caution, not imprudence.

Suppose, for example, that society treated you very unjustly. The sensible reaction is, “The deck is stacked against me, so I should be extra careful,” not “Maybe I should have a non-marital birth?” or “Maybe I should heavily use alcohol?”

“Their conclusion is not merely theoretical: it advances a policy framework that explicitly favors restricting the agency and autonomy of low–income people.

On the contrary, Beaulier-Caplan takes the agency and autonomy of low-income people seriously. Rather than attributing their imprudent decisions to “structural injustice,” we treat them like normal humans who are capable of revising their personal decisions without transforming society first.

To date, Beaulier has not publicly recanted, clarified, or rejected these views. That silence is not neutral. It is consent.”

Yes, it is consent. Consent and integrity. Beaulier could have said, “I was only a grad student when I co-authored the paper. Blame Bryan!” But he didn’t. Thank you for that, Scott. Though I would have forgiven you if you’d shifted the blame to me, I’m proud that you didn’t.

Beaulier’s paper went on to state that “by giving the poor material support, we discourage them from getting jobs, acquiring experience, and eventually pulling themselves up by their bootstraps” (Kyklos, 2007).

This correctly states our position, without any effort to refute it.

Beaulier and his co-author also used sources from the studies of Herrnstein and Murray to make their claims. They directly quote their statement on page 497 of ‘Behavioral Economics and Perverse Effects of the Welfare State’ (Kyklos, 2007), saying, “How intelligent a woman is may interact with her impulsiveness, and hence her ability to exert self-discipline and restraint on her partner in order to avoid pregnancy (1994, p. 179).”

Correct.

This quote can be interpreted as allowing the responsibility of conception to fall solely on the woman.

Someone with poor reading comprehension might so interpret the quote. But the sensible interpretation is each woman has a strong influence on whether she gets pregnant, and that more intelligent women do, on average, use their influence more prudently.

NMU community members are concerned about Beaulier’s respect for women, minorities and those in poverty.

“This matters because NMU is a public institution,” Plocher said. “Our student body includes first-generation students, working-class students, rural students, Indigenous students and others from communities often misrepresented in the very ways Beaulier’s paper describes.”

Plocher never even tries to show that we “misrepresent” anyone. He also misses the truism that you can simultaneously believe that (a) the average member of a group is below-average in some way, yet (b) still judge members of that group based on individual performance. Which, if you know Beaulier, is exactly what he would do.

Indeed, you could say that it is attributing subpar performance of “women, minorities, and those in poverty” to “structural injustice” that shows a deep lack of respect for these groups. If members of your group do worse because of bad decisions, you have a straightforward solution: Make better decisions. If members of your group do worse because of structural injustice, in contrast, your situation is basically hopeless. Revolutionary daydreams aside, what can any one individual do about structural injustice?

If you take the time to actually read “Behavioral Economics and Perverse Effects of the Welfare State,” many readers will find some of our arguments less than convincing. But you should still be repelled by Plocher’s — and NMU’s — utterly anti-intellectual response. This really is akin to responding to arguments for atheism with, “They insult the eternal glory of God.” If human beings can dismiss academic arguments merely because they lead to politically unwelcome conclusions, what’s the point of having academic arguments about politically-charged subjects? To quote the self-contained title of one of my favorite essays, “I can’t help but feel like you’re trying to intimidate me into pretending to agree with you.”

Plocher ended his letter by asking that the Board of Trustees consider their decisions further. His distress over Beaulier’s issues match those of many other NMU community members.

“I urge the Board to weigh not only his résumé, but the full implications of his published views and his ongoing refusal to distance himself from them, NMU’s students, and its future, deserve a leader who believes in their potential, not one who doubts their worth,” Plocher said.

If we’re going to be poetic: NMU’s students, and its future, deserve a leader who believes in their potential to calmly hear controversial ideas and weigh them on their merits. Scott Beaulier would have been such a leader. Hopefully the next-best option won’t be too much worse. But after seeing how badly NMU treated Beaulier, I doubt that anyone with intellectual integrity will want the job.