Canada's Leftwing Academics - Defenders of Economic Inequality?

Posted 7 November 2012

It is a distressing aspect of the Canadian left that it has disavowed any desire for economic equality. There are many reasons why this has occurred, and here we are only concerned with one factor, namely, the role played by Canada’s leftwing academics.

Canada’s leftwing academics are one of the groups that contributes to the formulation of the left’s policy. It is true that these academics have elaborated influential critiques of many of the numerous forms of inequalities in Canadian society; however, these academics have had minimal success in undermining the arguments that justify economic inequality. Canadian leftwing academics do criticize economic inequality but their opposition to it is thoroughly inadequate, is essentially relegated to the advocacy of a minor decrease in economic inequality and is almost never accompanied by a clarion call for economic equality.

It is necessary to inquire to what extent the income of leftwing academics, who are also employees in the workplace, is responsible for their opposition towards, and rejection of, economic equality.  Academics belong to a social class and are susceptible to succumbing to those class interests. It is a certainty that their income has influenced their conception of distributive justice and has watered down any affinity for economic equality that they may have possessed before becoming academics. Leftwing academics have come to accept the legitimacy of extreme differences in income and wealth, and have thus become defenders of these inequalities, because these academics have too much to lose by any significant economic redistribution. The salary of tenured academics is far above the median income in Canada, and numerous academics have annual incomes of over $100,000. These relatively affluent academics know that if there were to be a greater redistribution of wealth, it is highly probable that they would be among those targeted for higher taxes. Consequently, they limit their conception of the rich, or those whom they deem should be subjected to greater taxation, to a very small group from which they conveniently exclude themselves. As an example, Canada’s leftwing academics have demonstrated a supportive and largely uncritical attitude towards the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement. However, that populist movement does not want economic equality and desires, at most, a slight increase in the tax rate of a tiny percentage of the rich, which the OWS movement deliberately grossly understates as the top 1 percent of income earners.

Canada’s leftwing academics belong to the category of the haves, not the have-nots. They believe that they are entitled to what they earn and seldom ask themselves whether their income is excessive. The income of leftwing academics has been attained at a steep price, as in contradiction to their self-image as progressives or radicals challenging the establishment, these academics have demonstrated that they have conformed to the dominant and reactionary belief that wealth is legitimate. When was the last occasion in which a Canadian leftwing academic publicly called for rigorous limitations on permissible income and wealth or suggested that the majority of Canadians have excess income and wealth that should be directed towards the poor in Canada and in lesser developed countries?        

The proverbial middle and upper middle class guilt, formerly a common phenomenon among those on the left who had acquired a relatively lucrative income, now only rarely appears within the ranks of Canada’s leftwing academics. These academics seldom display the unease about their wealth comparable to that exhibited by both the late British leftwing academic Gerald Cohen, who agonized over his relatively affluent position in his book, If You’re An Egalitarian, How Come You’re So Rich?, and by the Australian academic Peter Singer who has called for substantial increases in economic redistribution from the rich countries to the poorer ones.

It would be to engage in selective disdain if only academics were criticized for their salaries and for their unwillingness to advocate for economic equality, as these complaints could be equally directed against other influential people on the left, including union leaders, politicians and staff of nongovernmental organizations. However, leftwing academics are supposed to possess an ability and proclivity to expose the mystifications and deceptions that wealthy people employ to justify their wealth.

It is reasonable to expect that leftwing academics, who have a relatively lofty and privileged position in society, should be proposing an egalitarian society with minimal class differences, which if it were to be obtained, would be accompanied by a considerable diminution of their income and wealth. It is a reasonable presumption that academics be in the forefront in maintaining that all members of society, including themselves, who earn or own more than they need, should be obliged to accept stringent limitations of wealth and income. In an egalitarian society, academics would still enjoy a fair degree of relative affluence, as well as considerable status and influence; the reduction in their income and wealth would hardly constitute a major deprivation. 

Canadian leftwing academics are too wealthy and have too many vested interests to desire any significant economic redistribution. If there is any hope in this regards, it lies with their students who will later themselves be academics but who have not yet acquired the material trappings of an acquisitive society.