cc
of the next session is >> Sara Goldrick-Rab: The topic
Interest: How Universities The Narrowing of Public
And we have with us Elizabeth Popp Berman, assistant professor
of sociology at the University
She received her PhD in sociology from the University
of California Berkeley in 2007, and she studies how social
institutions make decisions about how to organize
the relationships with the
and elsewhere. marketplace in higher education
called Creating the Market She's written a great book
Becomes an Economic Engine, which was published this year by
Princeton University Press and
Award from the Social Science receiHistory Association.Book
I am really excited that she's
As it turns out, we were Spencer here.
decade ago, and I can't believe I'm old enough to say that now,
neither one of us should be.
here. And then we're going to hear,
also, a perspective on her talk from Sheila Slaughter as well.
So this should be a very
appreciate you all being here. stimulating session, and I
you very much, Sara. >> Elizabeth Popp Berman: Thank
conference today is the public So topic of the larger
higher education in the 21st interest in the future of public
I'm going to talk primarily about the scientific research
function of the university, and I'm going to talk mostly about
the 20th century and not the
I'm going to try and move that 21st.
what does the things that have into a point where we're saying
or so say about where we are now happened over the last 30 years
going in the future. and where we're going to be
of the talk, this is my book Just to give you a quick sketch
Market University: How Academic thaScience Became an Economicthe
Engine. Really, the main thing that I'm
trying to do here in this book
Slaughter's term, explain where did academic capitalism come
from, and in the science end at the university in particular.
So why did US academic science
And I'm going to try to make move toward the market?
here today. thrOne is to give you a briefime
explanation of why did
Just sort of the empirical universities make this shift.
Then to kind of connect back to some of these larger questions,
what has this meant in the long run for universities, and then,
in particular, what are the implications for the future of
public higher education specifically.
So those are the three main things that I'm going to try to
talk about today. The main research strategy of
the book is I look at three different practices that are
pretty widely seen as representing this shift and can
look at those historically as case studies.
And so I examine the emergence
expansion of university industry of university patenting, the
the emergence of faculty research centers, and, finally,
in the bio sciences. entrepreneurship, particularly
is that these are all practices, And so the larger strategy here
and some intersections between obviously there's some overlap
on a relatively independent these, butrajectory. developed
And, thus, you would assume that
they share in terms of why they emerged at the time that theyt
did, what caused them to emerge,
of larger trend about why universities have moved in the
direction that they have. My initial sort of oriented
question here was try to
universities, industry, and evaluate government.e roles of
In driving this, my initial expectation was that a lot of
this was going to be about
looking for new resources that universities going out and
had periods of cut-backs, that particularly, in the '70s you
actively seeking new ways to universities were kind of
sense. make money, which would make
it was really policy decisions What I found was actually that
thing driving these changes, that were the most important
actively saying we're going to much more than universities
money. go out and find new sources of
second round of research because And so that kind of lead to a
difference here were really the policquite diverse.at made a
More diverse than I was expecting.
And, in addition to some of the ones that you would expect, like
the Bayh-Dole Act, there were also very important ones.
Big capital gains tax cut made a
of biotech entrepreneurship. big difference for the emergence
unrelated as changes in pension Tfund regulations, which really
transformed the venture capital market and again, made a very
big difference to the emergence of biotech entrepreneurship.
So it was this very eclectic
beyond just things that appeared group of decisions that went
at universities or academic to directlyscience.or be aimed
What they did share, though, was
relatively narrow time frame. tSo we're looking at about 1978
to 1985.
similarity. And when I really went into the
politics of these decisions,
about the economic impact of what I found was that arguments
really critical to making these technopolicy decisions.n were
And so, I won't go into the details of all this, but I
looked at 10 decisions overall, all but one of which were made
in that time frame. That one there on the bottom
happened a little bit earlier.
of the 10 of these cases, you can see a really strong evidence
of a lot of arguments saying
decision because the US economy is in the tank, and we need to
figure out how to turn it around.
The way to do that is to
innovation because we know that technological innovation drives
economic growth.
visible. So 9 of the 10 it's very
make a pretty reasonable case that introducing these arguments
was decisive. Usually the evidence for that is
that you had people trying to promote the policy before that.
This is the case for the
They had been trying to push is Bfor a while..
It wasn't until they sort of
started framing the proposal in terms of the economic impact ofd
innovation that it was able to
So that's kind of the core become politically successful.
I'm going to say today is that argument of the book and of what
was coming to think about whscience and technology asre
specifically an economic input
was relatively new. Now, from where we stand today,t
it's kind of hard, I think, at
not see science and technology times to imagine how you could
That seems kind of almost self-evident based on how we see
the world today.
important for me early in this One thing that was kind of
much things had changed was I pwent to visit the archives atow
the University of Illinois. This is a picture of ILLIAC,
which was one of the first
of Illinois in the early '60s. supercomputers at the University
'60s, the governor asked the And in Illinois in the early
try to figure out what the president of the university to
regional economic development. university could do to help
been in a good position to do this, Illinois should have been
great.
chemical engineering, electrical They had top 10 departments in
chemistry. engineering, physics, I think
able to do this. They had the resources to be
He had faculty members from Seconomics and some of thee.
different sciences and from regional planning, I think, and
they met for a year and a half
university help drive regional to try and figure out how can
At the end of it they came out economic development.
you can imagine. with the most lackluster report
university could possibly do. ThThey made some sort ofe
halfhearted suggestions that
for engineers, maybe we can do maybe we can have night classes
made the great classic academic suggestion that perhaps we could
study regional economic development.
But they really didn't have any way of thinking about what is
the university's economic contribution specifically.
If you fast forward, just by my good fortune, the university got
a very similar request 30 years later in 1999 from the governor
to evaluate, again, what it could do to help leverage its
economic impact.
answer. They created a vice president
for economic development. They titled their annual report
the University of Illinois: Engine of Growth or something
like that.
They expanded their technology It was something very similar.
They started an incubator program for new start-ups.
They had a whole different
what it was that the university did in relation to the economy.
So that's kind of one example of
terms of how we think about what how much things have changed in
does. thThe second example, I'm sures
many of you are familiar with the report on Science: The
Endless Frontier, but for those who might not be, this was
written by Vannevar Bush, published in 1945, kind of the
document that laid out post-war science policy.
A few years ago, economist Paul Samuelson acknowledged that he
actually drafted much of the
So if you would think that report.
science policy would kind of anything sort of laying out
it, it would be a report that havehad been drafted by an to
economist.
little mention of anything that Buis explicitly economic.ry
There's a brief mention that
industries which is going to science can create new
and counted the amount in which they talk about economic issues.
It's about 3% of the whole
So a very minor theme. report.
examples of how the way we think And so these are just some
about schanged over time.ogy has
And that I just said. So, one thing I want to
emphasize here, though, is that moving towards thinking about
science as being important
growth and economic development also means that you necessarily
have a shift away from thinking about some of its non-economic
impacts, its other kind of
don't necessarily always line up impacts to the extent that they
So if you think about where this with economic development.
start to think about the issues in these terms, it didn't come
from university administrators. They did sort of jump onto this
relatively early, but that was
It actually emerged with not the origins of this change.
Economists started really talking a lot about the role of
innovation in driving growth
certainly in the 1960s, and you can even see it among economists
who were pretty prominent in
So this was out there among policymakers in the '60s, but it
wasn't a message that got a lot of resonance at a time when
innovation in the US seemed to
and people weren't that concerned about the economy and
the state of the US and the larger global marketplace.
It really wasn't until the 1970s
downhill, we start to have a when the economy is really going
largely from large R&D intensive pretty concerted push by people
this innovation issue and to companies to really emphasize
US needs to fix. push this to something that the
has become a prominent enough Anissue that it's starting tohis
become seen among policymakers
That we need strengthen technological innovation to help
the economy.
popular with both republicans This iand democrats.at is
It's not a terribly controversial thing at the time.
Everybody kind of is able to get
Republicans and democrats, of course, have very different
ideas about what it is that you should do to do that.
Republicans generally want to cut taxes, deregulate,
strengthen patent rights, and loosen antitrust regulations.
Democrats are much more interested in doing something
that looks more like industrial policy.
But they're both really agreeing
to somehow improve innovation. on this core idea that we need
you have, basically, you have Wall these different sorts oft
policies. Again, some of them these things
that are pretty directly aimed
but some of these policies that atare really in other policye,
areas, like tax policies and
are framed in terms of their this pension policy issue, that
to improve innovation. ability to harness innovation or
that somebody says is going to And certainly not every policy
the policies that are able to be improve innovation passes, but
have a little bit of a political framed that way just kind of
particularly compelling edge at a argument.en that's a
And so these policies, again, they're not exclusively sort of
conservative or right leaning.
You do have a lot of industrial policy kinds of things mixed up
in here, but they're all more or
driving innovation. Now, university administrators,
like I said, they're not at the cutting-edge of this, but they
kind of get on board with this
There's a couple of reasons. program relatively
that these policies or these One, even though I did not find
in direct response to seeking practices wrevenues.ing kind of
A lot of these new practices
were doing pretty well were coming out of areas that
There was a lot of money for the financially.
It wasn't like they had to go become entrepreneurs because
they didn't have any research money.
Nevertheless, universities were relatively strapped, and so once
it became clear, especially by
it's becoming clear that biotech the late '70s, about 1979, when
lucrative for a certain set of really is going to be very
The universities are starting to people.
should figure out how to take some advantage of financially.
The other issue is that it's
policymakers really care about becoming increasingly clear the
And so even if this might not necessarily have been many
university administrators first choice of the language that they
might want to frame their own,
in, it's pretty politically wconvenient to be able to dos
this. So you see a pretty rapid shift
of university administrators
this sort of language of the towards getting on board with
technology is a specifically purpose of science and
And, in a lot of ways, this was a successful decision.
We talked a lot over the last, I
of the problems that guess, day and a half about many
there has been a lot of money that has gone into trying to
figure out how to leverage
economic ways, and that's a splace that I think money still
is available at a time when a lot of other kinds of money
aren't. So, strategically, this has been
a pretty good decision. So, I want to move from there to
talking a little bit more about where we are today, how that
affects where we find ourselves now.
So, what have the long-run
I think to some extent, it had effects of this been?
I don't think that things have been mixed.
some people thought they might, and I don't think the promise of
using science and technology to drive development has been quite
as wonderful as other people
One microcosm of this, perhaps, is patenting where the fear has
been that universities are sort of going to patent everything,
and it's going to have a really hindrance on people's ability to
use that knowledge to do
There have been some effects. Fiona Murray has done work on
the anticommons effect, so the
prevents other people from using extent to which patenting stuff
And there is a modest effect. It's not that large.
On the flip side, though, you can also say, well, patents, the
number of patents being issued
flat for about the last 10 to universities has been pretty
So it's not like people are just years.
and it's going to take over patentingeverything.ore stuff
So, again, not as extreme,
initially might have thought, but there are some issues, some
significant issues. One of the most significant, I
think, is what's happened in
clinical medicine, it's very medical research, partly because
treatments actually do difficult to evaluate what
people now who have some sort of sometimes, and there are so many
outcome. financial interest in the
industry related to the Ypharmaceutical industry whosele
job it is to manage publications
a whole set of people whose job wit is to ghost write articlesot
and attach them to other people,
where you sort of run the risk you really sort of reach a point
enterprise of believing the stuff that's out there in
peer-reviewed journals. So that's one place that it's
really more problematic than
Another is that it's just difficult to measure but there
has been some shift.
funding, areas that are more If you're shifting towards
That means necessarily there are commercially relevant.
you're not necessarily funding going to be other things that
One example of this might be in agriculture where there's a good
bit of money for funding a
crops but much less money for handffunding something likeinate
sustainable agriculture or more minor plant varieties that it
might makes sense to have investment in but just aren't
going to be particularly
short run. commercially valuable in the
here is just that, again, at a The other thing to keep in mind
particularly increasing, to some time when budgets aren't really
game. exIf you're pulling money awayum
from one particular type or if
particular type of research, you're putting money into one
you're not supporting at the there's something else that
I'll give you one example, sort of a contemporary example of how
this can kind of play out when
the economic impact. you shift towards focusing on
you guys, some people at least NSF, I don't know how many of
last year or so NSF has been are aware of this, but in the
criteria by which it awards undertakingrants.iew of the
And so about 10 years ago, or a little bit more, NSF added a
criteria where in addition to sort of talking about the
intellectual merit of your
its broader impacts. project, you have to talk about
at this point, and so people This is pretty well established
grant. incorporate that into every
the American COMPETES Reauthorization Act, which is an
economically oriented science and technology policy if there
ever was one. They asked NSF to reevaluate
these criteria, and the America COMPETES Act laid out a set of
goals for science.
that kind of fall into two main And so itcategories. of goals
One is sort of an economic set
Increase competitiveness, development of a globally
competitive STEM workforce, increased academic industry
partnerships. Then there's sort of a more
educational set of goals, both
level. at the K-12 and undergraduate
security at the end there for They kingood measure. national
Why not?
But what NSF had proposed as of last summer when it published
its proposed revised criteria for comment was that for broader
impacts instead of saying what
which is kind of a general your impact on society would be
have to address one or more of open-ended question, you'd now
And while there aren't these specific goals.
these specific goals, it's a necessarily anything wrong with
broader impacts might be. So if you just think of all thes
things that might not count as
include something like helping broader impacts, that would
improving health, you're food security or helping with
change, you could think of all preventing or mitigating climate
into economic competitiveness, sorts of things that don't fall
that might be important. education, or national security
on this, and I don't know Noanything about the internalck
politics behind it, but they
retaining more of a benefit to have since moved back towards
tying the merit criteria to socthese specific goals.than
So perhaps this isn't going to, this doesn't look like it's
going to play out the way that
But the thing that I wanted to it did initially.
of language you use about what highlight here is just the kinds
have real effects in terms of ywhat's going to get funded and
what's not. If you're going to focus on
funding stuff that is clearly economic in nature, there are
other things that aren't
justifiable anymore. necessarily going to be
minutes here to kind of tie this So, coming back for a few
about the future of public back to what does this mean
In some ways, a lot of the higher education, in particular.
here apply more or less to changes that I've talked about
generally. public and private institutions,
criteria, obviously that's going If NSF changes their merit view
private universities. Probably the biggest difference,
I think, though, in how this
institutions is that this is affects public versus private
going on since the '80s, but you certainly not new, this has been
level push to try to figure out how to use universities to drive
regional economic development.
from the assumption that in a time of non-growing budgets, at
best, this is a zero sum game.
putting your money into trying To the extent that you're
and technology to drive regional to figure out how to use science
that you're not putting it, maybe most notably undergraduate
education.
Albany. The governor of New York has put
$800 million over the last
which, I checked the website, I think it's 53 undergraduates it
enrolls.
So almost entirely a research center intended to drive
regional economic development totally not focused on
undergraduate education, and
university is not only cutting this is at a time when the
departments. budgets but actually closing
priorities. Other universities have seen a
lot of this as well.
campus. One of the few areas of growth
in the University of California over the last decade has been
these couple, there's four
called? inInstitutes for science andy
innovation that focus on
There's a quantitative biology different specific sciences.
information science one and so one and a nanoscience one and an
These are large scale public/private partnerships.
The point is to leverage state
contributions. dollars with industry
this is probably the Wisconsin At Wisconsin, the equivalent of
Again, large scale Institutes of Discovery.
Certainly, public/private connections can be useful and
worthwhile, and I don't mean to suggest that the people who are
in these institutes aren't doing
again is if you shifted this valuable science, but the point
shifting away from other direction, you're necessarily
don't necessarily always talk about completely explicitly.
So, if you want to say what are some things to think about
what this means is that this
simultaneously with this shift is happening
education. investment in undergraduate
important thing is that, And another probably equally
technology drives economic certainly, while science and
sense, it's much less clear that growth in some sort of broad
leverage it to drive regional unieconomic development.vely
There's a handful of places that
they've also had a lot of, think have done this very well, but
but they've also had a lot of of the Stadvantages. the MITs,
It's much less clear that a place like Albany or even a
place like Wisconsin is going to
hoping for by making this kind get the kind of pay back it's
So to come back here at the end to this question that we talked
about so much yesterday about the Wisconsin Idea.
The Wisconsin Idea, and I have
Wisconsin, I lifted this from, I to admit, not being from
tell my students. So perhaps this isn't the best
summary of the Wisconsin Idea,
problems important to the state but unand its citizens. solve
That seems pretty consonant with
yesterday. what everybody was saying
than for universities to serve That's a much broader vision
And being an economic engine as an economic engine.
That might be one way to serve, but that's a very limiting set
of possibilities that you have. And many of the kinds of ways
that people talked about the
serving the state, some of them were economic, but some of themy
were much more practical, much
solving problems or educating more difuture citizens.toward
It was a much more diverse
I will just leave with something mission.
speculative, but I thought it was something that would be at
least a little bit
I think it's also arguable that sort of shifting toward this
economic kind of thing plays out
universities as well as on the on the educational side of
If you think of the extent in which we sort of move towards
thinking about education as investments in human capital.
I think, again, it's a very similar, it's an analogous kind
of shift where we see the purpose of education as being
it's ability to give people this, it's an investment that
you undertake because it's going
return. to gAnd I think there's somemic
implications of that that maybe we would not always be so crazy
about, or at least that kind of move away from the traditional
sense of what a public
One is, for example, that this university is.
assumption that we're going to tends to go along with an
more of the cost burden of their shift toward individuals bearing
taking on more debt. education, generally through
theory doesn't have to imply I realize that human capital
all the costs and you can have that individuals have to bear
that, but the way people positive externalities and all
ends up like this. actually talk about it often
trying to think about how do we leverage the impact of education
with specifically economic goals
it should be over somebody's in mind, it's a long-term idea,
this payoff, but we often approach it in a very short-term
way, and so you end up in situations where the way that
you try to increase people's
many people through college as human capital is by getting as
mentioned this morning, the risk possible which, as Sheila
just sort of water it down and of that is, of course, that you
anything that's really you're not necessarily doing
in the long-run. contributing to people's skills
be different than the ideal So the impmight be.on tends to
And finally, of course, not just
but, again, about values, again a qufocusing specifically onion
education as an investment with an economic return kind of
leaves out of the conversation
particularly some of the civic other sorts of values, and
see result from higher purposes that we might like to
So, if we say that universities are an economic engine, which,
again, certainly not the only way that people talk about
universities, but is a much more
conversation than it would have been, certainly, 30 years ago,
and I would say even 10 years ago.
I just like people to kind of think about the idea that this
is a narrower mission than the
think, the traditional mission Wisconsin Idea or in general, I
And that necessarily if this is the one, the mission that we're
going to choose and go with and that dominates, you should also
be aware that that's necessarily
things we're choosing not to going to mean there are other
there that aren't necessarily salways explicitly articulated.s
So I will stop there. [APPLAUSE]
Okay, I'm going to make some comments.
This is an excellent paper. I really enjoyed it.
There are many important points.
Is the mic on? Can you all hear me?
especially, I think, the zero sum game where if you invest in
some of these things the there's
The lack of disinterested knowledge, which was, of course,
one of the main things that universities supplied for the
public good.
an economic investment in the Thknowledge that is available.s
And the narrowing of the sorts
appropriate to the mission. Some things to think about.
I think it was not just the economists who are responsible
for this, and not just the
I really think that it was that economists said coincided with
the power dynamics of the business class at an opportune
moment. The turning point is the
mid-'70s. Why then?
Certainly because the economy is
that's not the only thing. starting to get in the tank, but
Keynesian economics and the Ibeginning of the neoliberalnd
term. Keynesian economics in the US
played out as guns and butter.
through the Cold War military Sspending in return for ay
somewhat welfare state. And a substantial segment of R&D
was done by universities in that
Basic research with all the ironies that involves, and so it
was mainly Department of Defense
It was a lot of money. funding.
Johns Hopkins, said US Steven Muller, then president of
Cold War and not just in the universities enlisted in the
There were language programs, often replaced by area studies,
an interesting shift from women to men, participation in the CIA
and many other intelligence gathering ventures for which
Yale was particularly known, and
on. USAIDI lost my place here.t goes
Oops, I'm going the wrong direction.
The mid-1970s was right after the end of the Vietnam War, and
military funding was down,
universities where the weapons especially for research
Defense had not been delivered sought by the Department of
universities were penalized for that even before the end of the
Vietnam War.
sites of protests against that And where campuses had become
At least one research university war, including this one.
was from the University of president testified, I think it
calling for reinstatement of DOD Rochester, before Congress
that protest would never happen fagain and the statement thate
students who had protested were class traitors.
But even more importantly,
only for research universities, but for defense industries which
had played an important part in keeping the American economy
strong. And the US was losing ground in
manufacturing compared to Germany and Japan.
1983 was the later, and the US
The US business class, had slipped on every indicator.
leaders of large industries, operationally defined as the
wrote about, infuriated by the was, as David Dixon so clearly
cross-industry regulation in success of protest in initiating
case before, like environmental aquality and worker safety andhe
health, and there were two
now. others but I can't remember them
at this stuff. It's been a while since I looked
four. Politically, business leaders
began to develop think-tank type
variety of areas that pushed for organizations across a wide
neoliberal approach to the what we would now call a
The one that was, I thought, economy.
education was the business always most salient for higher
principal's only organization of higher education forum was the
the CEOs of corporations, and, the leaders of corporations and
shortly after that, the CEOs of as they universities.be called
I would argue that the
be captured under the competitiveness legislation that
happened in the '70s, '80s, '90s
COMPETES. It was talked about at that
period as competitiveness legislation.
I think you may say that
Yeah. I would say the competitiveness
stuff came a little later.
yet until '81 or so. They weren't using the language
Yeah. By the early '80s they were
talking about it in those terms.
president's testimony before >> And if you look at the AAU
see that they then use what I Cocall the, they switch from aou
narrative of basic science to a narrative of entrepreneurial
science in their testimony
I love Wesley Posvar's most of before Congress.
He said, "We will contribute to innovation.
We will change the economy by orders of magnitude with less
inputs than we are called for now."
So, I think we have,
corporate think-tank-led policy that drew on economist thought
going back to Hayek and others
and innovation, but unless you about human capital technology
the whole thing, I'm not sure it had the turn the end of the war,
And that led, eventually, to a would have happened.
industrial policy from the sort of federal policy that was
No specific winners and losers bottom up.
subsidized through a variety of competitiveness policies, most
of which have implications for
And I think we're still there. research universities.
book but what I've read of it so And I love your book, not your
turn had its roots in the sorts of things I'm talking about.
Can I respond?
I think it's an interesting question of how much of this was
about the organized business
wasn't because I think, for me, one of the things that I found
surprising was the extent to
behind this actually, I think, which the intellectual stuff
And it wasn't coming from Chicago schools, like the people
you would think of as neoliberal.
The people who were making these
center-left, Kennedy growth arguments were
This is like the Robert Solows. >> I don't disagree with that,
but I think stuff only gets picked up when you have business
people and policy people who do it.
It's true.
think the business was I think, to me, the place that I
organized way was in pushing the successful in sort of an
pushing the idea that innovation idea, they were very good at
do something about innovation. is important and that we need to
organized success. And I think that was an
It's interesting, a lot of it emerged in the National Academy
of Engineering. >> Sure.
Yeah. >> So that's really where a lot
of the conversation coalesced.
You can see that they've given >> They agree by the '90s.
the national academies. >> Yeah, this is the early '70s
even that I'm talking about.
organized large R&D intensive companies who are promoting the
argument that we have to do something about innovation.
And then, of course, those set
idea of what the solutions are of people have a very specific
up with this sort of larger conservative business interest.e
But to me what's interesting was
picked up by both sides. the extent to which this was
promoted by conservative And I don't see it as much being
groups. >> Well, it depends on whether
you consider the places like the
conservative. BusinProbably you wouldn't.orum
No, no, I'm willing to say
They're not super that tconservative.vative.
So I just think that that's the new consensus.
And I think it's not necessarily
I do think it's a lot of conservative.
But I guess for me the thing liberals who go that way too.
coming from them. The business class pushed it,t
but I really do see this as more
And I think that if you hadn't of a bipartisan move.
have lot of left-leaning had a lot of, I think that you
also pushing this same idea. technocratic economists who were
is that you have people who really believed, who saw a roles
for government in managing
rethinking of science in these science, but they were
And then once you start to think economic terms.
the success of science is about that economic.w we measure
Whether you're on the left or on
you decide that that should be the right is going to end up how
practice. But either way you're going to
focus on one particular set of
not be as interested in another. things that science can do and
would disagree is not that So I guess the place that I
this in conjunction with a business interest wasn't pushing
I just think there was a lot particular set of policies, but
people sometimes acknowledge. m>> That may very well be the
case. 75% of both Houses vote for
competitiveness legislation with
two other ones between 1980 and the exception2005.AFTA and maybe
And I know it was almost
Yeah. I'm saying 75% is not lightly
taken.
of both the left and the right, if we want to use that language,
for all of the competitiveness
the things that happen in legisadministrative law.ing of
Should we take some questions?
So we don't have fundamental
We won't be as lively as you disagreements.
No. >> That was pretty and Richard Vedder.
lively.