Categories
Columbia Economists Gender Smith Vanderbilt

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. alumnus Charles Emerick, 1897.

 

In the previous post we met Margaret Mulford Lothrop who taught social problems in the Stanford economics department through 1928. Preparing that post, I looked at the Smith College Classbook for 1905 in search of her yearbook picture. I then glanced at the portraits of the faculty to see who would have been at Smith to teach her economics. There I discovered Charles Franklin Emerick, whom I decided to pursue now for Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

At the genealogy website ancestry.com (available at many libraries for free online use, otherwise requiring a subscription) there is a public family tree of the Emerick family that includes some interesting material about Charles Franklin Emerick’s life.

Emerick was appointed instructor in political economy at Smith College to cover the courses taught by Prof. Henry Moore who was granted a year’s leave of absence for a year. (from an unsourced newspaper report, dateline Northampton, Sept. 21, 1899 “Largest Woman’s College—Smith Opens with Over 1200 Students and a Big Entering Class—Faculty Changes.”)

In the Smith College Bulletin for 1919/20, Emerick was listed as “Professor of Economics and Sociology on the Robert A. Woods Foundation”. He served on the Smith Faculty standing committee on graduate instruction at the time of his death.

I have included below the better part of a paragraph that concludes his serial essay “The Struggle for Equality in the United States” (1913-14) and that sounds distressingly familiar. Considering that Emerick taught at a woman’s college, it would appear somewhat ironic that he exclusively uses male gender pronouns whenever referring to college students. 

________________

Vital Data

Birth:    17 Nov 1867 Montgomery County, Ohio, USA

Death: 22 Mar 1920 (aged 52) Northampton, Hampshire County, Massachusetts, USA

Burial: Miltonville Cemetery. Miltonville, Butler County, Ohio, USA

Source: Find A Grave.

________________

Obituary:

Prof. Charles Emerick—The sudden death of Prof. Charles Emerick, head of the department of sociology and economics at Smith college, occurred suddenly from heart failure at the residence in Northampton, Mass., Tuesday, according to word received here. He was the nephew of F.A.Y. Kumler of this city, and had often visited here. While Prof. Emerick was in a weakened condition from an illness of influenza, no cause of alarm had been felt. The body will be taken to Hamilton for burial by his brother. Owing to the illness of a son, Charles Jr., Mrs. Emerick cannot attend the funeral

Source: Transcribed from a scanned newspaper clipping included in the Emerick Family Tree at ancestry.com that does not cite the exact source of the obituary.

________________

Announcement of Emerick’s death in AER

Professor Charles Franklin Emerick, head of the department of economics and sociology at Smith College, died March 22, 1920. Professor Emerick had been a member of the Smith College faculty for twenty-one years.

Source:  “Notes.” The American Economic Review 10, no. 3 (1920): 707-18.

________________

Personal Note 1898, Vanderbilt University Appointment

Vanderbilt University.—Dr. Charles Franklin Emerick has been appointed Instructor in Economics in Vanderbilt University. Dr. Emerick was born November 17, I867, near Dayton, Ohio. He studied at the Cooper Academy in Dayton, and in 1885 entered Antioch College, where he remained two years. He then entered Wittenberg College and graduated in 1889 with the degree of A. B. The next year he entered Michigan Agricultural College and received the degree of M. S. in 1891. Dr. Emerick was then appointed teacher of History and Political Economy at Avalon College, Trenton, Mo., where he remained until 1894. The next two years he studied at the University of Michigan, receiving in 1895 the degree of Ph. M. He was then appointed Fellow in Economics at Columbia University and received the degree of Ph. D. from that institution in 1897. During the past year he has been Assistant in Economics at Vanderbilt University.

Dr. Emerick has written:

An Analysis of Agricultural Discontent in the United States.” Pp. 100. Political Science Quarterly, September and December, 1897, and March, 1898. Reprinted for doctor’s dissertation at Columbia.

Source:  “Personal Notes.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science12 (1898): 85-87.

________________

Other Publications

Charles Franklin Emerick, Ph.D., The Credit System and the Public Domain (Nashville,Tenn., Cumberland Presbyterian Publishing House, 1899), publication of the Vanderbilt Southern History Society.

College women and race suicide.” Political Science Quarterly, Vol. XXIV, No. 2 (1909), pp. 269-283.

A neglected factor in race suicidePolitical Science Quarterly, Vol. XXV, No. 4 (1910), pp. 638-655.

Eight part series “The Struggle for Equality in the United States,” in Popular Science Monthly, Vols. 83/84 (Dec. 1913-July 1914).

________________

From the Conclusion of “The Struggle for Equality in the United States” (1914)

…I am not unmindful of the perils which attend the period upon which we have entered. Some of them have been alluded to in the course of these pages. In addition I will mention the following. First, is the prevalence of a superficial habit of reading and thinking. Few college graduates, even, are capable of sustained thought. Many voters read nothing but a party newspaper. Second, is the difficulty which many voters experience in foreseeing the distant consequences of some kinds of political action. Third, is the vice of indifference and irresponsibility to which some voters are subject. In a large population, the amount of sovereignty that resides in the individual is so small that he is tempted to wonder if it makes any difference whether he votes or not. Fourth, is the temptation to assume that the majority is invariably right, or, at any rate, that it is irresistible and that it is not worth while to try to reverse it. Fifth, the press is interested in selling news and has a certain bias in favor of war. It is therefore tempted to pander to prejudice against foreigners and to foment international ill-feeling. The manufacturers of armor plate and other military supplies are subject to the same temptation. These and other perils, however, seem to me for the most part as inevitable as the dangers which attend the young man who leaves home to go to college, or is set adrift in the world to shift for himself. Moreover, they are largely offset by the critical spirit which has taken the place of a blind obedience to authority and precedent among a large number of the population. As responsibility is the making of the man that is in the boy, so political institutions that depend upon the self-control, public spirit and wisdom of the masses tend to bring out the better side of human nature….

Image Source:  Smith College, Class Book 1920,p. 16.

 

 

Categories
Gender Smith Social Work Stanford

Stanford. Economics instructor for Social Problems. Lothrop, 1915-1928

 

Examining a catalogue for Stanford from the early 1920’s, I came across the name of an instructor for social problems, Margaret Mulford Lothrop. Still at that time sociology and social work were topics taught in the economics department there. From Lothrop’s biography (see below) we see she is reported to have taught at Stanford through 1928. 

While she did not complete a Ph.D. (nor do I have any evidence this was something she ever attempted), she did cover courses in the Stanford economics department and perhaps some enterprising student in Massachusetts (where perhaps personal papers might be located) will follow up on this lead. Lothrop came from a distinguished home but 

_____________________

Coursed taught by Lothrop from Stanford’s Register for 1922/23

Lothrop, Margaret Mulford, Instructor in Economics

A.B., Smith, 1905; A.M., Stanford, 1915. At Stanford since 1915.

67a. Seminar in Social Investigation.—Practical experience in some small investigation. Open only to seniors and graduates who have taken Economics 67 (Introduction to Social Investigation).

Autumn quarter (Lothrop)
autumn, 21

67b. Seminar

Winter quarter (Lothrop)
Winter, 5

103. Care of Dependents.—A study of the problems of the care of dependents and defectives in institutions and in their homes, with special reference to conditions in California. Three trips of inspection will be required.

4 units, autumn quarter (Lothrop) MTWTh 11
autumn, 39

104. Problems of Poverty.—A study of the factors causing poverty, crime, disease, and mental defectiveness, as evidences of social maladjustment; a survey of the possible means of prevention and of the social agencies attempting such work, with special reference to California. Trips of inspection will be included.

4 units, summer quarter MTWTh 11
Summer, 12

105. Crime as a Social Problem.—A study of the problems of crime: the criminal and his characteristics, the treatment of the criminal, the causes and the prevention of crime, with special reference to conditions in California. Three trips of inspection of institutions will be required.

5 units, winter quarter (Lothrop) MTWThF 11
winter, 42

117. Problems of Child Welfare.—A brief survey of problems of child protection and care from the social viewpoint, with special reference to conditions in California.

2 units, summer quarter (Lothrop) TTh 10
summer, 14

118. Seminar in Social Problems.—Practical experience in some investigation.

Winter quarter (Lothrop) By arrangement
Winter, 12

Source: Leland Stanford Junior University, Register for 1922/23, pp. 34, 162-164
_____________________

Biography of Margaret Lothrop from National Park Service

Margaret Lothrop was born to Daniel and Harriett Lothrop on July 27, 1884 at The Wayside in Concord, Massachusetts. She was the only child of parents who were focused on literature and were interested in the preservation of history. Her mother wrote many books under the pen name of Margaret Sydney, including the children’s series the Five Little Peppers, and her father was a publisher, owning the D. Lothrop Publishing Co.

They had purchased The Wayside because of its history, being the house lived in by authors Bronson Alcott, Louisa May Alcott, and Nathaniel Hawthorne, and being a witness house to the British troops marching in and out of Concord on the fateful day of April 19, 1775. With this patriotic and literary upbringing, Margaret became the first member of the National Society of Children of the American Revolution, newly founded by her mother in 1895.

Margaret saw many social events at her home, hosted by her mother, including the Hawthorne Centenary in 1904 where a monument was placed in the yard at The Wayside in honor of Hawthorne, and including fundraisers for such organizations as the Massachusetts Volunteer Aid Society. Margaret knew some of the great literary figures of the time, including John Greenleaf Whittier, Julia Ward Howe, and Samuel Francis Smith. She also saw her mother open their house for sight-seers.

Education

Margaret attended Concord schools, graduating from Concord High School known as a scholar and horsewoman. She attended Smith College, where she was a member of the Philosophical Society, the Italian Club, and a half back on the women’s field hockey team, graduating in 1905. She moved to California in 1912 where she earned her M.A. in Economics at Stanford University.

Career Woman

She moved back to Massachusetts where she worked at the Women’s Education and Industrial Union and the YWCA in Boston from 1913-15. She then returned to Stanford University where she was an instructor in the College of Arts and Sciences through 1928.

During WWI she was in the Red Cross where she was assigned as a Casualty Searcher in France, which included documenting graves, searching for families of men with memory loss, and speaking with dying men to identify their families.

Returning to The Wayside

Following the death of her mother in 1924, Margaret formed a committee in Concord to plan to open The Wayside for tourists in 1928. After serving as the Secretary of the California Society of the Prevention of Cruelty of Children for two years, she returned to The Wayside in 1932. Margaret researched the occupants of the house, coordinated staff and maintained the house for tours, tried to find organizations that would purchase the house for education purposes (to no avail), and wrote the book The Wayside: Home of Authors (published in 1940).

Preservation of The Wayside

During WWII, Margaret served as a member of the Red Cross and the Massachusetts Women’s Defense Corps. Through the 1940s to early 1960s, Margaret continued to maintain the house for tours, responded to letters from other researchers, wrote articles including “My House and the Minute Men,” and conducted her own research, including direct communication with the Hawthorne family.

She worked to have The Wayside declared a National Historic Landmark in 1963, and she sold the house to the National Park Service to become part of Minute Man National Historical Park on June 18, 1965. Margaret worked closely with the NPS staff, including contributing the bulk of her research to the park, giving oral histories, and speaking to groups.

Margaret Mulford Lothrop died in Concord on May 14, 1970. She left an extensive legacy, especially The Wayside, where she had been born and had spent so much time preserving for future generations. The house was re-opened by the NPS on April 17, 1971.

Source: National Park Service. Margaret Lothrop webpage. Also source of the image of Margaret Lothrop in her Red-Cross uniform.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economics Programs Gender Undergraduate

Columbia. Splitting the costs. Department of Economics v. Barnard College, 1906-9

 

The growing pains of the modern university can be seen in attempts to mould ad hoc understandings made earlier into long-term, binding, and explicit rules and regulations. We see this in E. R. A. Seligman’s untiring reminders to the Columbia University central administration and to Barnard College deans as to how to manage the legacy of having first hired John Bates Clark to fill a Barnard position while swapping Clark Barnard hours with the Department of Economics in the Faculty of Political Science hours, either by having department professors offer courses in Barnard College or by allowing Barnard women to take Columbia College or graduate courses. It was complicated, leaving plenty of room for misunderstandings. Seligman can be seen in the following memo and letters to have been one smooth intra-university operator. Still we come away (at least hearing his side of the story) that he would neither give nor take an inch. His motto apparently: Pacta sunt servanda.

____________________

MEMORANDUM AS TO PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENT BETWEEN BARNARD COLEGE AND COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY IN RESPECT TO THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS. [Carbon copy, 1906]

I. HISTORICAL STATEMENT.

In 1895 a friend of Barnard College established for three years the Professorship of History and the Professorship of Economics, on the understanding that each of these departments should offer a corresponding amount of separate instruction to Barnard seniors and graduates, and that the Barnard Corporation would endeavor to maintain these Professorships after the expiration of such term. It was arranged that these professors should lecture at Columbia as well as at Barnard, and that for every course given by them at Columbia, a course should be given at Barnard by them or their departmental associates. The normal number of lectures by a professor was fixed at six; so that the Professor of Economics gave 2 hours at Barnard, the other four being supplied by his colleagues.

In 1898 Barnard College agreed to continue those professorships; and as a recognition of the action of the Barnard Trustees, the Faculty of Political Science decided to open to women holding a first degree, the graduate courses in History and Economics.

When Barnard College was incorporated into the educational system of the University, this arrangement was perpetuated. The 5th and 6th Sections of the Agreement of June 15, 1900, read in part, as follows:

“On and after January 1st, 1904, all of the instruction for women leading to the degree of B.A. shall be given separately in Barnard College……Barnard College will assume as rapidly as possible all of the instruction for women in the Senior year ****** and undertakes to maintain every professorship established thereof or an equivalent therefor shall be rendered in Barnard College; and when means allow, establish additional professorships in the University which shall be open to men and women, to the end that opportunities for higher education may be enlarged for both men and women.

The University will accept women who have taken their first degree on the same terms as men, as students of the University and as candidates for the degree of M.A. and Ph.D. under the Faculty of Philosophy, Political Science and Pure Science, in such courses as have been or may be designated by those Faculties, with the consent of those delivering the courses.

From the foregoing it is clear that so far as the Faculty of Political Science is concerned the opening of the University courses to women was in return for the establishment and maintenance of the professorships, and Barnard College thus declared itself ready to pay one-third of the salary of the professors of Economics, at that time three in number. In addition, Barnard College paid for the Junior work under the Department of Economics.

On this basis the whole system has reposed and has been continued. Changes in the personnel have been made in the mean time, and the instruction given to Juniors by the Department of Economics has been strengthened. Two professors, (or as during this year a professor and an instructor) have taken the place of what was originally an assistant. These changes, which called for an additional outlay on the part of Barnard College, were made with the consent of Barnard.

The Department of Economics and Social Science as it existed up to last spring, has kept strictly to the letter of the agreement. At an earlier period Professor Giddings had agreed to give at Barnard College a course in sociology in return for a suitable compensation. In 1900, however, he ceased to be paid an additional sum and his two hours were counted with the consent of Barnard College toward the six due from the Department, the other four being provided by Professors Seligman and Clark. In 1902 two additional hours were given at Barnard College by the new instructor, Professor Moore. Since then the Department has provided six hours of instruction at Barnard College, (two hours by Professor Clark, two by Professor Seager, and two by Professor Giddings.) It has given an additional two hours by Professor Moore to the Seniors, and it has put the Junior work in the hands of Professors Moore and Johnson (this year [word torn off from corner] Moore and Dr. Whitaker.) Every course given to the Columbia College undergraduates is duplicated at Barnard College, with the exception that it seemed unwise to the Barnard authorities to give the course on Taxation and Finance as being somewhat too remote from the interests of the Barnard undergraduates. The substance of this course is however included in that given by Professor Seager. This explains the fact that 12 hours are given at Barnard College whereas 14 hours are given at Columbia College. This arrangement was made with the consent of the Barnard authorities. In 1906 again with the consent of Barnard College, Barnard Seniors were admitted to the course of Prof. Giddings at Columbia, the Barnard course being discontinued. This arrangement has, however, not yet received the permanent sanction of the Faculty of Political Science.

Although Barnard College is not only getting all that was bargained for at the time, and although it has in addition the services of a full professor for both Senior and Junior work (Prof. Moore.), and although the proportion of the original expense of the Department of Economics paid by Barnard College was at the outset considerably over e4%,–being one-third of the salaries of the professors plus a payment for the Junior work, the proportion of the total expense of the Department of Economics and Social Science borne by Barnard College has now been reduced to 29.19%, Barnard paying at present $8350 out of a total budget of $28,600.

 

Barnard pays:

Columbia pays:

Seligman $5000
Giddings $5000
Seager $3500
Moore $1750
Clark $5000 Devine $3500 University Courses
Moore $1750 Simkhovitch $500
Whitaker $1600 Tenney $1000
$8350 $20250 Total $28600

 

In other words Barnard College receives more than it originally did and pays proportionately less.

 

II. WHAT SHOULD BE THE SHARE OF BARNARD COLLEGE.

Up to the year 199[blank] Barnard College made a money contribution to Columbia for each of the women graduate students enrolled, under the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy, and Pure Science. In that year the money contribution was abandoned, and since then women graduate students have paid their fees directly to Columbia. It might be claimed by Barnard College that this new arrangement absolved it in future from all financial responsibility for or interest in the purely university (graduate) work. This claim is however, negatived by the provisions of the agreement of June 15, 1900 still in force, whereby Barnard College obligated itself to “maintain every professorship established at its instance” and to “establish additional professorships in the University upon foundations providing for courses which shall be open to men and women.” These contractual obligations are in no wise impaired or weakened by the modification subsequently introduced in the method of payment of fees by women students.

It might again be claimed that the financial obligations of Barnard are reduced whenever a Senior course, hitherto repeated at Barnard, is given only at Columbia, but open to Barnard Seniors. This claim, however, is likewise inadmissible if the change be made by and with the consent of Barnard College. For as long as the Barnard undergraduates receive the instruction, and as long as the Barnard authorities consent for any reason, that this instruction be given at Columbia, the financial obligation cannot be deemed to be impaired. As a matter of fact, this situation has not permanently arisen in the department of Economics and Social Science. In only one case, that of the Senior course by Professor Giddings, has a purely provisional arrangement been made for the year 1906-’07, with the understanding and the express statement on the part of the Barnard authorities that this would make no difference whatever in the financial arrangement for the year. It was on this understanding that the scheme was provisionally ratified by the Faculty of Political Science.

No opinion is here expressed by the Department of Economics as to the desirability of opening Senior courses at Columbia to Barnard students. It may be that for pedagogical reasons it is desirable in some cases to repeat courses at Barnard, or in other cases to admit Barnard Seniors to the Columbia courses. It may also be desirable to utilize the services of a professor, hitherto repeating a Senior course at Barnard for instruction in one of the lower classes at Barnard. But whatever decision may be reached by the Barnard authorities in conjunction with the Department of Economics, it is clear that this will not change the financial obligations of Barnard, as long as the Barnard undergraduates receive the same amount of instruction as before.

If it be maintained that the existing contract should be abrogated, the question arises: What share should Barnard College in equity contribute to the expenses of the Department? This question may be discussed on the basis of the number of hours given by the members of the department at Barnard College, at Columbia College, and in the University courses which are open to men and women graduates.

In any such computation it must be recognized that some part of the cost of the graduate instruction should be borne by Barnard College. For, irrespective of the existing contract, it cannot be claimed that women ever possessed a right to share in the advantages offered by an institution, originally established and endowed for the instruction of men without making some proportionate contribution to the support of that institution. The force of this argument is strengthened when it is remembered that every student costs the University more than he or she pays and that every increase in the student body entails the necessity of increasing the teaching course and of providing additional lecture rooms, educational appliances and library facilities.

It is for this reason that in any estimate of the share of the University expenses which is to be borne by Barnard College, a proportionate share of the expense of graduate instruction should be allotted to that institution.

On this assumption, the figures would be as follows:

 

Hours given

Barnard College

Columbia College

University

Clark

2

2 (109-110)

3 (205-6 & 291)

Seligman

3 (1 & 101-102)

3 (203-4 & 292)

Seager

2

2 (105-106)

2 (233 & 289)

Moore

3

1 (104)

2 (210 & 255)

Whitaker

3

4 (1-2)

Giddings

2

2 (151-152)

3 (251-2 & 279)

12

14

13

 

For undergraduate instruction

For Professors giving undergraduate instruction

Barnard pays:

Columbia pays:

Seligman

$5000

Clark

$5000

Moore

$1750

Moore

$1750

Seager

$3500

Whitaker

$1600

Giddings

$5000

$8350

$15250

=Total $23600
In addition Columbia pays for Purely University work

$5000

Grand Total

$28600

Total hours given as above by Professors giving undergraduate instruction = 41.

There is thus chargeable to:

The University 15/41 of $23600 = $8635 + $5000 = $13,635
Columbia College 14/41 of $23600 = $8,058
Barnard College should pay 12/41 of $23,600= $6907
                                                + 1/3 of $13,635= $4543[sic]
$11450

 

Barnard gets 12 hours to Columbia’s 14 and both share equally in the University work, although Barnard is here charged with only 1/3, not ½ of the purely university expenses. Yet Barnard pays $8350 instead of $11,450.

In the above computation Barnard College is charged with 1/3 of the purely university instruction because this was the proportion as arranged when the original professorship was established. On the basis, however, of the actual enrolment of women students the obligation of Barnard College would be slightly less. In the year 1906-07 there re-enrolled (not counting duplicates) in the purely university courses 60 women out of 251 students or 23.90%, i.e. roughly ¼. The contribution of Barnard College on this basis ought then to be: 12/41 of $23,600 = $6,907 + ¼ of $13,635 = $3,490 [sic, should be $3409] or a total of $10,316 in lieu of $8350, the present payment.

 

III. THE REDUCTION CONTEMPLATED BY BARNARD COLLEGE.

Although the authorities of Barnard College have not yet formulated any definite scheme it is understood that they have in contemplation a plan which calls on the one hand for a considerable reduction of the contribution, and on the other hand, the opening to Barnard Seniors of several Senior courses at Columbia College to make good the reduced facilities at Barnard College. In other words, Barnard College does not propose more opportunities with the same contribution as hitherto, nor does it demand the same opportunities with a smaller contribution; but it suggests more opportunities with a smaller contribution.

In considering the contemplated proposition of Barnard College it must finally be remembered that the Department of Economics has been built up on the assumption that the original scheme would be adhered to. All the instructors giving courses in Barnard College have been called with the advice and consent of Barnard College. Some of them have been put in part on the Barnard salary list. The contractual obligation “to maintain the professorships established at its instance” clearly attaches to the new professorships, which were established in 1902 in the department of Economics at the joint instance and expense of Barnard and Columbia. Any financial comparison between the Department of Economics and other departments on the basis of relative hours of instruction given at Barnard College is not pertinent in view of the contractual obligations hereinbefore recited. Barnard College entered at the outset into a definite contractual relation which has been perpetuated by the agreement of 1900 and which has not been impaired by the minor changes of 190[blank] hereinbefore referred to. Above all, the admission of women to university courses was arranged as a quid pro quo, and is specifically restricted in the agreement of 1900 to such courses “as have been or may be designated by these Faculties, with the consent of those delivering the courses”.

It is sincerely hoped that no action will be taken that might imperil this arrangement and that Barnard College may see its way, if not to make what it here suggested as an equitable contribution, at all events to maintain the status quo so that on the one hand Columbia may not be made to assume a still heavier burden, or that on the other hand the department of Economics may not be seriously crippled in its endeavor to provide adequate instruction at Columbia and Barnard alike.

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Papers of Edwin Robert Anderson Seligman. Box 36, Folder “Barnard 36-37”.

____________________

Letter of Seligman to Gill [carbon copy]

New York, December 30, 1906.

Miss Laura D. Gill, Dean,
Barnard College, Columbia University
New York City.

My dear Miss Gill:

Your letter of December 13th was received shortly before the Holidays. In reply, I would say that several weeks ago, at the request of the University authorities I submitted to the Committee on Education of Columbia University a detailed memorandum giving facts and suggestions as to the financial arrangements between Barnard College and Columbia University so far as the Department of Economics is concerned. That matter has now passed out of my hands entirely.

Let me however call your attention to the fact that these suggestions contained in your letter will require action not alone by the Department of Economics, but also by the Faculty of Political Science, as well as by the Faculty of Columbia College. If the recommendation contained in my memorandum to the Trustees were carried out, I think that I could urge the Department of Economics to prevail upon the Faculties concerned to take action in accordance with your wishes; but I am quite decidedly of the opinion that until some definitive financial arrangement is entered into between Barnard College and Columbia University, so far as the Department of Economics is concerned, it will be hopeless for the Department of Economics to expect any action whatever on the part of the Faculties concerned; and without such action nothing could of course be done.

Again assuring you of my readiness to co-operate with you and to take up the matter with the Department and with the respective Faculties as soon as we can learn from the Committee on Education what the financial arrangements are for next year,

I remain
Very respectfully yours

[E.R.A. Seligman]

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

President Butler to Seligman [carbon copy]

December 28, 1908

Professor E. R. A. Seligman,
324 West 86 Street,
New York

My dear Professor Seligman:

I beg to hand you for your information an important letter which I have received today from the Acting Dean of Barnard College. Mr. Brewster points out that Barnard, under the present arrangement, is not securing its just due in the matter of economics teaching. Will you give this matter your attention and offer such suggestions as seem to you appropriate as to how the situation can be bettered?

Very truly yours,
President

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

Seligman to President Butler

Columbia University
in the City of New York
School of Political Science

January 4, 1909

President Nicholas Murray Butler,
Columbia University, City.

My dear President Butler:

In reply to your letter of December 24th, 1908, I take pleasure in stating that I had a very satisfactory talk with Acting Dean Brewster a few days ago. I am enclosing to you herewith copy of the letter which I have sent to him as to the historical development, and which explains itself.

As to the new scheme, permit me to state that in my Budget letter I assumed that there would be hereafter in the second term in the Junior course at Barnard, four sections, as is now the case in the first term. It was on that assumption that I made the recommendations as to assistants.

I quite agree with Acting Dean Brewster that if the situation is to remain as at present, namely, nine hours in the first term and five hours in the second term, the new Adjunct Professor will be entirely competent to take charge of this. That would mean an average of seven hours per week, and as he is to do three hours’ work at Columbia that would mean a total of ten hours per week, which is not excessive. This would, however, reduce the Budget at Barnard from $2,700 to $2,500.

On the other hand, if, as there now seems to be some possibility, the Committee on Instruction of Barnard College decides to make the second term work nine hours (with four sections) the Acting Dean of Barnard agrees with me that the work will be a little too much for one man, and that he ought to have the aid of at all events the part time of an assistant.

Upon the decision to be reached, however, depends therefore the final recommendation of the Department for the assistants in the University as a whole. If no assistance is required at Barnard College the Department of Economics will be able to get on, although with some difficulty, with one high-class tutor, for his work will be to take charge not only of three of the four sections at Columbia, but also of the three new sections in the School of Mines, and this would mean the assumption by Columbia of his salary of $1,000. On the other hand, if the additional work is taken up at Barnard, it will be imperative to have a second man as assistant, at a salary of $500., as the amount of work to be done will be entirely too much for one tutor. We should then arrive at the final conclusion reached in my original Budget letter, which is the employment of two men, at a joint salary of $1,500., in addition to the new Adjunct Professor. What part of this salary of $1,500 is to be paid by Barnard, is, of course a matter on which I am not asked to express an opinion.

Permit me to say in conclusion that I am deeply sensible of the cordial way in which the Acting Dean of Barnard has accepted the propositions of the Department for the improvement of the work. Under the scheme as outlined not only will the work be, I think, entirely satisfactory to the authorities of Barnard College, but it will also be a considerable improvement at Columbia. The Department of Economics will be very glad indeed to adjust itself to whichever of the two alternative schemes may be adopted by Barnard: the one being the maintenance of the present situation calling for an appropriation for assistants of $1,000., to be paid entirely by Columbia, the other—involving additional work at Barnard—calling for an appropriation of $1,500 for assistants, to be defrayed in part by Barnard College.

Respectfully submitted,
[signed]
Edwin R. A. Seligman

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

____________________

Seligman to Brewster [carbon copy]

January 4, 1909

Professor William T. Brewster,
Acting Dean, Barnard College, City.

My dear Sir:

I have the honor to acknowledge receipt of a letter of December 24, 1908, from President Butler, enclosing your letter of December 23, 1908, in which you refer to the courses offered by the Department of Economics at Barnard College.

As the existing situation is the result of steps taken by the administrative authorities of Barnard College and Columbia University, and as these agreements and instructions were never embodied in formal written documents, I venture to send you a written statement of the history of the case, in the hope that this letter may be put on file with the original agreement, in order that the question as to the interpretation of the original agreement may be settled, if it should again arise in the future.

The original agreement made with Professor Clark and the Faculty of Political Science, when he was called to the University in 1895, was to the effect that for every hour given by him at Columbia a member of the existing Columbia staff should give an hour at Barnard College. Under this agreement it was arranged that Professor Clark should give two hours at Barnard and four hours at Columbia. Of the four exchange hours due to Barnard, two were given by Professor Giddings and two by Professor Seligman. Several years later, when Professor Seager was called to Columbia, he took the courses previously given by Professor Seligman.

In the year 1905 when the Chair of the History of Civilization was founded at Columbia University, an arrangement was effected between the Dean of Barnard and the President of Columbia University, whereby the two hour course of Professor Giddings, given at Barnard, was transferred to Columbia, the Columbia course being now, however, open to Barnard students. This was recognized as a substantial equivalence, and since that time the Barnard students have been coming to Professor Giddings’ course at Columbia.

When Professor Henry L. Moore was called to the University in 1902 an arrangement was made whereby a portion of his work was to be done at Barnard in return for the payment of aa portion of his salary b Barnard College. Under this arrangement Professor Moore offered a two hour course to the Seniors at Barnard College, and took general supervision of the Junior work in Economics, which was, however, actually carried on by assistants. Several years later, as the Junior work at Barnard was not entirely satisfactory, the Dean of Barnard College suggested that Professor Moore give up his Senior course and in exchange take an active part in the lecturing and teaching of the Juniors at Barnard. This suggestion was adopted, and as the number of sections gradually increased at Barnard the work was finally divided between Professor Moore and two assistants, the class being divided into four sections in the first term and into two sections in the second term. As a compensation for the Senior course which was now dropped by Professor Moore, the Dean of Barnard College suggested that courses 107-108, given by Professor Seligman at Columbia University be open to Barnard students. This suggestion was adopted by the Department, and ratified by the Columbia Faculty, and has continued ever since.

What I desire especially to emphasize is the fact that in no case did the initiative for any of these changes come from the Department of Economics, but that in every case the initiative came either from the Dean of Barnard College or from the President of Columbia University in conjunction with the Dean of Barnard College. The Department of Economics has been at all times willing and anxious to live up to the terms of the original and supplemental agreements, and has in every case been glad to adopt the suggestions of the authorities of Barnard College. It so happens that during the present year Professor Seager is on his Sabbatical leave of absence, and that Courses 107-108 were not given at Columbia; but this is an exceptional situation, including the $5,000 salary of Professor Clark, with the corresponding work given in exchange at Barnard, the number of hours of instruction given at Barnard are economics A, 9 hours, Economics 4, 5 hours, or an annual average of seven hours per week. The salary list has been $2,700.,–$1,700 for Professor Moore and $1,000 for two assistants. This is an average of less than $400 per hour, and if we include Courses 107-108 at Columbia, which were open to the Barnard students when the supplemental agreement was made, it would reduce the cost per year to considerably less than $400, which I understand is the average in other Departments.

The new scheme of courses which has been elaborated by the Dean of Barnard College to take effect next year, meets with the entire approval of the Department of Economics, and is outlined in another letter a copy of which I have the honor of submitting herewith. I venture to hope, however, that this statement of the historical development of the situation may be put on file, in order to show that the Department of Economics has at all times endeavored to abide loyally by the spirit of the agreement between Barnard College and Columbia University.

Respectfully submitted,
[stamped signature: Edwin R. A. Seligman]

 

Source:  Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Central Files 1890-. Box 338, Folder 13 “Seligman, Edwin Robert Anderson 7/1904-12/1910”.

Image Source:  Barnard College, Columbia University. Boston Public Library, The Tichnor Brothers Collection.

 

 

 

Categories
Gender

Cambridge MA. Women and Economics. Book presentation by Charlotte Perkins Stetson (Gilman), 1899

 

The following newspaper report covers a book presentation by the writer Charlotte Perkins Stetson (later, Gilman) at the First Universalist church in Cambridge, Massachusetts in 1899. I stumbled upon this item looking for news about the Harvard economics department.

The topic certainly was not overstudied in economics departments of the time and I thought it worth adding this newspaper story to Economics in the Rear-View Mirror. Gilman’s early feminist utopian novel Herland (1915) fell into obscurity for most of the twentieth century. The Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study at Harvard has a nice website “From Woman to Human, The Life and Work of Charlotte Perkins Gilman“.

Here a link to a collection of her papers (some available in digital form).

One wonders if any Harvard students and faculty (or their wives) attended the talk and what they thought of her book.

___________________

“WOMEN AND ECONOMICS.”
Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson, Author of the Volume of That Title,
Speaks to a Cambridge Audience.

Source: “The Woman’s Chronicle” issued as the third section of the Cambridge Chronicle, April 29, 1899, pp. 1, 4.

At the First Universalist church on Inman street, last Wednesday evening, Mrs. Charlotte Perkins Stetson talked on “Women and Economics,” dwelling upon several points already brought out by her in her book on that subject, which has already gone through its first and a part of its second edition. Mrs. Stetson won the approval of her audience by her clear. logical reasoning, while her singularly natural delivery pleased all. She is the great-granddaughter of Lyman Beecher and niece of Henry Ward Beecher and Harriet Beecher Stowe. She said in part:

The main cause of all trouble between men and women is the economical dependence of women. It is necessary for woman to exchange her products with the world of economics. The duties of a mother and a wife do not prevent her from doing something else now. Only one woman out of every ten keeps a servant, and so they work and work hard, and receive no pay. Why can they not exert their energies spent on what would be drudgery to most of them in doing what they are better fitted to do and would enjoy more?

Are the women who do nothing, or who spend their days in cleaning, better mothers on that account? Every one who wishes to enter a trade or profession studies it and is trained for it, while we women take upon ourselves the task of caring for the human species without a thought. Can we be doing this in the best way? Does our health justify us in supposing that we are bringing up our children right?

We need education in motherhood. Every woman cannot take all the care of her children because not every woman has the requisite faculty to care for them. It is a specialty and not every woman has the requisite training.

While every woman alone takes care of her own children she cannot do it properly because she has not the advantage of the development of motherhood. She cannot know what her children have in common with other children.

Every woman should have some trade, profession or means of earning her living, which she should become master of, and thereby lift our industry up and our children, who should be watched and cared for by experts who make it their life work, will grow up into strong manhood and womanhood, loving and respecting their mother more, than they would had she, an ignorant amateur, practised upon them.

In this way women would be independent and happier; there would be a new profession; the caring for children and our race would be mentally and physically more healthful, and therefore more harmonious.

At the close of the lecture Mrs. Stetson read a poem, “The Mother to the Child,” from her book, “In This Our World.”

SKETCH OF THE LECTURER.

“Newest of new women; breaker of all idols from childhood up,” says Helen Campbell, in her sympathetic article upon the personality of Charlotte Perkins Stetson.

Although the term “new woman” is seldom. if ever, rightly applied it has an essential fitness when used in speaking of Mrs. Stetson, for it might very naturally be expected that the great-grand-daughter of Lyman Beecher, the grandniece of Harriet Beecher Stowe and of Henry Ward Beecher would be a woman at least unusual and possibly extraordinary. Looked at from one point of view, therefore, Mrs. Stetson is a reformer by instinct and inheritance, the inevitable product of strong generations of men and women who fought or talked all their strenuous lives in defense of truth.

Charlotte Perkins Stetson was born in 1860 at Hartford, Ct. She is the daughter of Frederic Beecher Perkins, and was early a Socialist, not actively so, however, before 1888, when she made her first appearance in public before the Nationalist club in Pasadena, California. In 1890, “Similar Cases,” that remarkable poem through which she is perhaps most widely known, was published in the Nationalist.

It was in 1892 that her written works first began to tell. At that time the Trades and Labor union, of Alameda county, California, awarded her a gold medal for a brilliant essay called “The Labor Movement,” and in 1896 she went abroad, there speedily to be made a member of the Fabian society, an honor so self-evident in these latter days as to need no comment. It was also about this time that she was given the opportunity to talk Socialism from the tail-end of a Socialist van, making its way through one country and another, giving her a chance to study life at every turning of the ways.

Meanwhile, in 1893, she saw the first fruits of her more careful literary work, that is to say, her verse, gathered together and published in San Francisco, in a thin, paper-covered edition, which was intended mainly for private circulation. A second edition was printed in 1895, and in 1896 T. Fisher Unwin brought out the first English edition of her poems in London. A new and enlarged edition of these poems was finally published in 1898. by Small, Maynard and Company, of Boston.

The history of “In This Our World,” as Mrs. Stetson has called her collected verse, does much of itself to show that it is definitely a book that has found its own public. Mr. Howells, indeed, writing in Harper’s Weekly, has characterized it as the best civic satire which America has produced since the Bigelow Papers. And it is not too much to say that the essentials of the best satire are found in these vigorous verses, filled with deep earnestness, delightful humor and a scorn that stings. They are divided for purposes of sequence into three parts, “The World,” “Woman,” and “The March.” Into each of these Mrs. Stetson has put with vigor, nerve and fire, her philosophy of life, a philosophy that is splendidly efficient for men and women who are practically working in whatsoever ways they find to do towards what they are convinced is really the right.

As to “Women and Economics,” published by Small, Maynard and Company, in the summer of 1898, it is in form an essay, or, to quote exactly the secondary title of the book, a study of the economic relation between men and women, as a factor in social evolution.

Although “Women and Economics” has been in the hands of the public less than a year, it is a book which has already made a profound impression upon our most thoughtful men and women.

Mrs. Rebecca Lowe, of Atlanta, Ga., for instance, president of the General Federation of Women’s clubs of the United States, says of it in a personal letter to Mrs. Stetson, part of which we are permitted to quote:

“I want to tell you how heartily I thank you for presenting to the world a book so much needed for setting people to think about women and their economic position. “Women and Economics” contains the basis principle, and for the first time some one has probed deep enough to find the real source from which the evil springs that for so long has provoked the agitation of the woman question. To read and discuss this book would do much for every thinking woman.”

The books have also stirred up a vast amount of controversy. This, too, is natural, since the whole study is an argument, taking the position that women have for many centuries been economically dependent upon men and have, as a result, become more and more feminine and less and less normal human beings. This argument is sustained in a remarkably original and thoroughly vigorous manner from cover to cover. Even the enemies of the book concede that it is by no means a dull volume. It is, on the contrary, one of the most entertaining as well as one of the most logical works upon economics that has ever been published.

Harry Thurston Peck, writing in a recent Cosmopolitan of “Women and Economics,” says: “*  * *  * it is only fair to say that no one can easily overpraise the vigor, the clearness and the acuteness of her writing. She writes, indeed, like a man, and like a very logical and able man. She has humor, quick sympathy, a picturesque and vigorous style, together with a certain rhetorical pungency that, from a purely literary point of view, is wonderfully striking. *  *  *  * Mrs. Stetson is a force that must at last be reckoned with.”

The author of “In This Our World,” and “Women and Economics” represents in her work and words one of the farthest points that has yet been reached by woman in her struggle to gain her true place in society. She is daily winning eager readers, audiences and converts to her cause in this country, and her proposed trip to England, which she is about to take, will doubtless serve to deepen to a remarkeable degree that serious consideration with which she is already regarded in that country.

 

Image Source: Photograph (ca. 1900) by Francis Benjamin Johnson of Charlotte Perkins Gilman in the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Washington, D.C. 20540 USA.

Categories
Courses Gender Radcliffe

Radcliffe. Economics course offerings, 1915-1920

 

Here are six previous installments in the series “Economics course offerings at Radcliffe College”:

Pre-Radcliffe economics course offerings and Radcliffe courses for 1893-94,  1894-1900 , 1900-1905 , 1905-1910 , 1910-1915.

______________________________

 

An asterisk (*) designates Graduate courses in Harvard University, to which Radcliffe students were admitted by vote of the Harvard Faculty.

Economics
1915-16

Primarily for Undergraduates:

A. Asst. Professor DAY. — Principles of Economics.

9 Se., 20 Ju., 24 So., 1 Fr., 5 Unc., 2 Sp. Total 61

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates:

2ahf. Professor GAY.— European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century.

2 Gr., 1 Se., 2 Ju., 1 So., 1 Unc., 2 Sp. Total 9

2bhf. Professor GAY.— Economic and Financial History of the United States.

3 Gr., 2 Se., 5 Ju., 1 So., 1 Unc., 1 Sp. Total 13

6ahf. Mr. P. G. WRIGHT.— Trade-Unionism and Allied Problems.

4 Se., 1 Ju., 1 Unc. Total 6

6bhf. Mr. P. G. WRIGHT.— The Labor Movement in Europe.

4 Se., 1 Ju., 1 So., 1 Unc. Total 7

7bhf. Asst. Professor ANDERSON.— The Single Tax, Socialism, Anarchism.

1 Ju., 2 So., 1 Sp. Total 4

8ahf. Professor CARVER.— Principles of Sociology.

2 Gr., 9 Se., 12 Ju., 1 So., 1 Unc., 3 Sp. Total 28

8bhf. Asst. Professor ANDERSON.—  Principles of Sociology.

2 Gr., 2 Se., 5 Ju., 1 Unc. Total 10

Accounting

Associate Professor COLE.— Principles of Accounting.

5 Se. Total 5

Economic Theory and Method

Primarily for Graduates:

*11 Professor TAUSSIG.— Economic Theory.

1 Gr., 1 Se. Total 2

*13. Asst. Professor DAY. — Statistics. Theory, method, and practice.

1 Se. Total 1

*14. Professor BULLOCK. — History and Literature of Economics to the Year 1848.

1 Gr. Total 1

Economic History

*23. Dr. GRAS (Clark College). — Economic History of Europe to the Middle of the Eighteenth Century.

1 Gr. Total 1

Course of Research

20a. Professor GAY. — Economic History.

1 Gr. Total 1

 

Source:  Annual Report of Radcliffe College for 1915-1916Report of the Chairman of the Academic Board (September 1918), pp. 40-1.

______________________________

Economics
1916-1917

Primarily for Undergraduates:

1. A. Asst. Professor E. E. DAY.— Principles of Economics.

2 Gr., 7 Se., 23 Ju., 19 So., 1 Fr., 3 Unc., 2 Sp. Total 57

For Undergraduates and Graduates:

1ahf. Associate Professor COLE.— Accounting.

6 Se., 5 Ju., 1 Sp. Total 12

1bhf. Dr. J. S. DAVIS— Statistics.

3 Gr., 3 Se., 4 Ju., 1 Unc. Total 11

1chf. Associate Professor COLE.— Accounting (advanced course).

2 Se., 3 Ju. Total 5

2ahf. Professor GAY.— European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century.

3 Gr., 7 Se., 3 Ju., 1 Unc., 1 Sp. Total 15

2bhf. Professor GAY.— Economic and Financial History of the United States.

3 Gr., 8 Se., 6 Ju., 1 So., 1 Unc., 1 Sp. Total 20.

5. Dr. BURBANK, with lectures on selected topics by Professor BULLOCK.— Public Finance, including the Theory and Methods of Taxation.

5 Se., 3 Ju. Total 8

6ahf. Mr. P. G. WRIGHT.— Trade Unionism and Allied Problems.

3 Se., 2 Ju., 3 Unc. Total 8

6bhf. Mr. P. G. WRIGHT.— The Labor Movement in Europe.

1 Se., 2 Ju. Total 3

7. Asst. Professor ANDERSON.— Economic Theory.

3 Gr., 1 Se., 1 Ju. Total 5

8. Professor CARVER.— Principles of Sociology.

1 Gr., 4 Se., 10 Ju., 1 Unc. Total 16

Economic Theory and Method

Primarily for Graduates:

*11. Asst. Professor DAY.— Economic Theory.

1 Gr. Total 1

*12hf. Professor CARVER.— The Distribution of Wealth.

2 Gr. Total 2

Applied Economics

*34. Professor RIPLEY.— Problems of Labor.

2 Gr., 2 Se. Total 4

Course of Research

20d. Professor GAY. — Economic History.

1 Gr. Total 1

 

Source:  Annual Report of Radcliffe College for 1916-1917Report of the Chairman of the Academic Board (September 1918), pp. 91-2.

 

______________________________

Economics
1917-1918

Primarily for Undergraduates:

1. A. Asst. Professor E. E. DAY. — Principles of Economics.

1 Gr., 8 Se., 16 Ju., 29 So., 1 Fr., 7 Unc. Total 62

For Undergraduates and Graduates:

1ahf. Associate Professor COLE.— Accounting.

12 Se., 3 Ju., 3 So., 1 Unc. Total 19

1bhf. Asst. Professor E. E. DAY.— Statistics.

2 Gr., 5 Se., 3 Ju., 1 Unc. Total 11

1chf. Associate Professor COLE.— Accounting (Advanced Course).

5 Se., 1 Ju., 3 So., 1 Unc. Total 10

2ahf. Professor GAY.— European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century.

6 Gr., 6 Se., 1 Ju., 1 So., 2 Unc. Total 16

2bhf. Asst. Professor GRAS (Clark University).—Economic History of the United States.

2 Gr., 4 Se., 1 Ju. Total 7

3hf. Dr. LINCOLN.— Money, Banking, and Allied Problems.

3 Gr., 7 Se., 4 Ju., 1 So. Total 15

5. Dr. BURBANK, with lectures on selected topics by Professor BULLOCK.— Public Finance, including the Theory and Methods of Taxation.

1 Gr., 4 Se. Total 5

6ahf. Dr. LINCOLN.— Labor Problems.

2 Se., 1 Ju., 1 So. Total 4

7. Asst. Professor ANDERSON.— Theories of Social Reform.

4 Se., 1 Ju., 1 So., 1 Unc. Total 7

8. Professor CARVER.—Principles of Sociology.

2 Se., 5 Ju., 5 Unc. Total 12

Primarily for Graduates:

Accounting

Associate Professor COLE.— Accounting Problems.

1 Gr., 3 Se. Total 4

Economic Theory and Method

*11. Professors CARVER and BULLOCK.— Economic Theory.

1 Gr. Total 1

Economic History

*24hf. Professor GAY. — Topics in the Economic History of the Nineteenth Century.

1 Se. Total 1

Applied Economics

*32hf. Professor CARVER. — Economics of Agriculture.

1 Gr., 3 Se. Total 4

*34. Professor RIPLEY. —Problems of Labor.

1 Gr., 1 Se. Total 2

Course of Research

20d. Professor GAY and Asst. Professor GRAS (Clark University). — Economic History.

1 Gr. Total 1

 

Source:  Annual Report of Radcliffe College for 1917-1918Report of the Chairman of the Academic Board (January 1919), pp. 44-45.

______________________________

Economics
1918-1919

Primarily for Undergraduates:

1. A. Dr. BURBANK. — Principles of Economics.

11 Se., 30 Ju., 16 So., 1 Fr., 13 Unc. Total 71

 

For Undergraduates and Graduates:

1ahf. Professor COLE. — Accounting.

1 Gr., 6 Se., 6 Ju., 3 So. Total 16

1chf. Professor COLE. — Accounting (advanced course).

1 Gr., 2 Se., 4 Ju., 2 So. Total 9

2ahf. Dr. E. E. LINCOLN. — European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century.

1 Gr., 7 Se., 3 Ju., 1 So., 2 Unc. Total 14

2bhf. Dr. E. E. LINCOLN. — Economic History of the United States.

8 Se., 1 Ju., 1 So., 2 Unc. Total 12

3hf. Dr. E. E. LINCOLN. — Money, Banking, and Allied Problems.

1 Se., 4 Ju. Total 5

5. Dr. BURBANK, with lectures on selected topics by Professor BULLOCK. — Public Finance, including the Theory and Methods of Taxation.

3 Se. Total 3

6ahf. Dr. E. E. LINCOLN. — Trade-Unionism and Allied Problems.

5 Se., 3 Ju., 1 So. Total 9

7a. Professor BULLOCK. — Economic Theory.

9 Se., 3 Ju., 1 Unc. Total 13

8. Professor CARVER. —Principles of Sociology.

5 Se., 6 Ju., 1 So. Total 12

 

Primarily for Graduates:

Accounting

Professor COLE. — Accounting Problems.

1 Gr., 1 Se., 3 Ju., 1 So. Total 6

 

Economic Theory and Method

*13. Dr. PERSONS. — Statistics. Theory, Method, and Practice.

1 Gr., 1 Se., 1 Ju. Total 3

Applied Economics

*34. Professor RIPLEY. —Problems of Labor.

2 Se. Total 2

 

Source:  Annual Report of Radcliffe College for 1918-1919Report of the Chairman of the Academic Board (January 1920), pp. 41-42.

______________________________

Economics
1919-1920

Primarily for Undergraduates:

1. A. Asst. Professor DAY. — Principles of Economics.

9 Se., 24 Ju., 23 So., 1 Fr., 6 Unc., 2 Sp. Total 65

For Undergraduates and Graduates:

1ahf. Professor COLE.— Accounting.

2 Gr., 10 Se., 3 Ju., 2 So., 1 Unc., 1 Sp. Total 19

1bhf. Asst. Professor J. S. DAVIS.— Statistics.

9 Se., 6 Ju., 2 So., 2 Unc. Total 19

1chf. Professor COLE.— Accounting (advanced course).

1 Gr., 6 Se., 1 Ju., 2 So., 1 Sp. Total 11

2ahf. Dr. E. E. LINCOLN.— European Industry and Commerce in the Nineteenth Century.

2 Se., 1 Ju., 2 Unc. Total 5

2bhf. Dr. E. E. LINCOLN.— Economic History of the United States.

1 Gr., 6 Se., 2 Ju., 1 Unc. Total 10

3hf. Dr. E. E. LINCOLN.— Money, Banking, and Allied Problems.

4 Se., 2 Ju., 2 Unc. Total 8

4bhf. Asst. Professor DAVIS. — Economics of Corporations.

1 Gr., 6 Se., 1 Ju. Total 8

5. Asst. Professor BURBANK. — Public Finance, including the Theory and Methods of Taxation.

10 Se., 1 Ju. Total 11

6ahf. Dr. E. E. LINCOLN. — Trade-Unionism and Allied Problems.

1 Gr., 1 Se., 3 Ju., 1 Unc. Total 6

8. Professor CARVER. —Principles of Sociology.

2 Gr., 3 Se., 6 Ju., 1 So., 1 Unc. Total 13

Economic Theory and Method

Primarily for Graduates:

*11. Professor TAUSSIG. — Economic Theory.

2 Gr., 3 Se. Total 5

*12hf. Professor CARVER. — The Distribution of Wealth.

1 Gr., 2 Se. Total 3

*14. Professor BULLOCK. — History and Literature of Economics to the year 1848.

2 Gr. Total 2

Applied Economics

*32hf. Professor CARVER. — Economics of Agriculture.

1 Se. Total 1

*33hf. Professor TAUSSIG. — International Trade and Tariff Problems.

1 Gr., 1 Se. Total 2

*341. Professor RIPLEY. — Problems of Labor.

3 Gr., 4 Se., 1 Ju. Total 8

Statistics

*41. Asst. Professor DAY. — Statistics: Theory and Analysis.

2 Gr. Total.2

*42. Asst. Professor DAY. — Statistics: Organization and Practice.

2 Gr. Total 2

Course of Research in Economics

*20. Professor CARVER.

1 Se. Total 1

 

Source:  Annual Report of Radcliffe College for 1919-1920Report of the Chairman of the Academic Board (January 1921), pp. 41-42.

Image Source:  Barnard and Briggs Halls, Radcliffe College, ca. 1930-1945. Boston Public Library: The Tichnor Brothers Collection.

 

 

Categories
Courses Curriculum Economics Programs Gender Wisconsin

Wisconsin. Economics Courses and Faculty, 1893-94

 

Early economics course offerings for Harvard, Columbia, Chicago, and a guide to graduate economics study at 23 universities from 1898 have been posted earlier. Today’s post for the University of Wisconsin serves as a reminder of the humble scale of economics departments just(?) 125 years ago: one professor (Ely), one associate professor (Scott), an instructor (Kinley) and two teaching fellows (Swain and Hubbard) covered the sixteen economics courses offered at the University of Wisconsin then. It is also worth noting the disciplines of the academic triplet joined at the hips: School of Economics, Political Science, and History. Finally I note that of three scholarships offered at the school, one was reserved for women.

_________________

Richard T. Ely

Richard T. Ely, the illustrious Director of the School of Economics, Political Science and History of the University of Wisconsin, was born in Ripley, New York, April 13, 1854. In 1876 he graduated from Columbia College, and, as the holder of the Graduate Fellowship of Letters in that institution, spent the next three years abroad in the study of social science, taking the degree of Ph.D. at Heidelberg in 1879. For several years he lectured in Cornell, Johns Hopkins and other Eastern colleges, and in 1885 Dr. Ely went to the associate chair of Political Economy at Johns Hopkins University, which institution he left to become the Director of the new School of Economics in Wisconsin University at the opening of the present college year.

Dr. Ely can receive no eulogy at our hands. His fame is world-wide, and the prosperity of the department under his control attests his powers of organization and successful management. The foundation of this school has been the beginning of a new order of things in the Universsity. A superior class of post-graduate effort has come under the direction of Dr. Ely, and the University of Wisconsin has attracted students from the far East and from the West.

Dr. Ely’s own writings need no comment. His field is large and accurately sustained. He stands foremost in the ranks of the new-school writers on econoimcs, and he has done much to advance economic study to its present enviable position of wide sympathies and scholarly effort.

David Kinley.

David Kinley was born in Dundee, Scotland, August 2, 1861. He came to this country at the age of twelve, and was fitted for college at Phillips Academy, Andover, Massachusetts, graduating from Yale in 1884. For the next six years Mr. Kinley was prinipal of the High School of North Andover, Mass. He then studied a year in Johns Hopkins, and at the end of that time was elected instructor in History and Political Economy in that institution, and instructor in Political Economy and Logic at the Woman’s College, Baltimore. At the beginning of the present college year Mr. Kinley came to the University of Wisconsin as fellow and instructor in the School of Economics.

[Note: David Kinley’s Ph.D. thesis (1892-93) at Wisconsin, “The Independent Treasury”.]

Willam A. Scott

Prof. W. A. Scott was born in Clarkson, Monroe County, New York, April 17, 1862. When sixteen years of age he entered the State Normal School at Brockport, New York, from which he was graduated in June, 1882. In the fall of the same year he entered the University of Rochester, and received therefrom in 1886 the degree of B.A., and a scholarship in political science. The latter was granted for success in a competitive examination on the works of Bluntschli and certain selected French writers on political economy.

During a portion of the academic year 1884-5 Prof. Scott occupied temporarily the position of instructor in Latin and Greek to the Normal School at Oswego, N.Y. The year following his graduation he spent in post-graduate study, occupying at the same time the position of librarian of the Reynolds Library at Rochester. In the spring of 1887 he was appointed Professor of History and Political Economy in the University of South Dakota, and after occupying this position for three years he was granted leave of absence to complete his course of post-graduate study. He entered Johns Hopkins University in October, 1890, was appointed instructor in that institution in January, 1891, and in June, ’92, received the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. Since September, 1892, he has occupied the position of Assistant Professor of Political Economy in the University of Wisconsin.

Besides numerous articles published in the newspapers and periodicals, Prof. Scott has in process of publication at the present time by T. Y. Crowell & Co. of New York, a book entitled: “The Repudiation of State Debts in the United States”.

Prof. Scott is a member of the Alpha Delta Phi and Phi Beta Kappa fraternities.

Source: The University of Wisconsin yearbook, The Badger 1894, pp. 26-29. Portraits inserted between pp. 26 and 27.

_________________

Faculty and Courses of Instruction
1893-1894

Officers of Instruction.

CHARLES KENDALL ADAMS, LL.D., President of the University.
RICHARD T. ELY, Ph.D., L.L.D., Director and Professor of Political Economy.
JOHN B. PARKINSON, A.M., Professor of Constitutional and International Law.
FREDERICK J. TURNER, Ph.D., Professor of American History.
CHARLES H. HASKINS, Ph.D., Professor of Institutional History.
WILLIAM A. SCOTT, Ph.D., Associate Professor of Political Economy.
VICTOR E. COFFIN, Ph.D., Assistant Professor of European History.
DAVID KINLEY, Ph.D., Instructor in Administration and Political Science, and Lecturer on Money and Banking.
H. H. SWAIN, A.B., Fellow in Economics.
CHARLES M. HUBBARD, A.B., Fellow in Finance.
O. G. LIBBY, B.L., Fellow in History.

 

Introductory.

The purpose of the school is to afford superior means for systematic and thorough study in economics, political and social science and history. The courses are graded and arranged so as to meet the wants of students in the various stages of their progress, beginning with the elementary and proceeding to the most advanced work. They are also designed to meet the wants of different classes of students; as, for instance, those who wish to enter the public service, the professions of law, journalism, the ministry or teaching, or those who wish to supplement their legal, theological, or other professional studies with courses in social science or history. Capable students are encouraged to undertake original investigations, and assistance is given them in the prosecution of such work through seminaries and the personal guidance of instructors. A means for the publication of the results of investigations of merit and importance is provided in the University studies, the expense of which is met by the state.

 

Courses of Instruction.

I. ECONOMICS.

  1. The Principles of Political Economy. — A survey of the principles of political economy in their present state. Emphasis will be laid upon the sociological character of the science and upon the importance of the subjective standpoint in the explanation of economic phenomena. — Ely’s Outlines of Economics. — Three hours per week during the fall term. — ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT and MR. SWAIN.
  2. The Classical Economists. — A study of the development of economic theory as exhibited in the writings of Adam Smith, Ricardo, Mill and Cairnes. Characteristic parts of the writings of these authors will be assigned to the students for careful study, and conversational lectures will be given for the purpose of summarizing, systematizing and supplementing the class discussions. Three hours per week during the winter term. — Associate PROFESSOR SCOTT.
  3. Money and Banking. — A study of the functions and history of money and banks and of the problems connected therewith. Especial attention will be given to the history of bi-metallism in this country and Europe, to the various banking systems of the world, and to our own monetary and banking problems. — Walker’s “Money, Trade and Industry,” Laughlin’s “History of Bi-metallism in the United States,” and Dunbar’s “The History and Theory of Banking.” — Three hours per week during the spring term. — ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.
  4. Practical Economic Questions. — Socialism, Communism, Co-operation, Profit Sharing, Labor Organizations, Factory Legislation and similar topics will be discussed in this course. Its aim is to familiarize students with the problems of our social life and the plans suggested for their solution, and to give them actual practice in the investigation of such topics. — Three hours per week during the winter term. — MR. SWAIN and MR. HUBBARD.
  5. The Financial History of the United States. — A survey of the financial legislation and experiences of the United States, including the finances of the Colonies and the Revolutionary epoch. — Three hours per week during the spring term. — MR. HUBBARD.
  6. Distribution of Wealth. — Rent, interest, profits and wages. Plans which have been advocated for bringing about what their authors regard as a better distribution of wealth will be discussed. — Two hours per week throughout the year. — PROFESSOR ELY.
  7. History of Economic Thought. — The history of economic theories in classical antiquity will be sketched; their development under the influence of the Christian era and the middle ages to the time of the Mercantilists will be discussed at greater length. The rise and growth of economics as a distinct branch of social science. Existing schools of economic thought. — Three hours a week during the winter term. — PROFESSOR ELY.
  8. Theories of Value and Interest. — History of value and interest theories down to the present day. The seminary method of instruction will be employed, and each student will be expected to study critically the writings of the theorists examined. — Twice a week throughout the year. – ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.
  9. Theories of Rent, Wages and Profits. — A critical study of the history of these theories conducted in the manner described in the previous course. — Twice a week throughout the year. — ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.
  10. Theory of Exchange. — The history, methods and theory of domestic and foreign exchange will be considered in this course, under the two following heads:
    1. Money. — This is an advanced course, open only to those who have done the equivalent of courses 1, 2 and 3. In it a knowledge of the history of money will be assumed, and attention devoted to the critical consideration of such topics as the international movement of the precious metals, the theory of prices, bimetallism, paper money, etc. — Two hours a week throughout the winter term. — MR. KINLEY.
    2. Banking. — This is also an advanced course. The history, theory and practice of banking will be studied, including a comparison of the existing banking systems of different countries, the theory of credit, bank paper, the management of stringencies and panics, and the proper attitude of government towards the banking business. – Two hours a week throughout the spring term. – MR. KINLEY.
  11. Socialism. — Historical account of its origin, followed by a critical examination of its nature, strength and weakness. — Three hours per week during the fall term.— PROFESSOR ELY.
  12. Business Corporations. — The nature and economic functions of corporations, including a sketch of their origin and history. Lectures. — One hour per week during fall term. — MR. HUBBARD.
  13. The Economics of Agriculture. — A discussion of those economic topics which are of especial interest and importance to farmers. This course is designed primarily for the students of the college of agriculture, though any student who desires may be admitted. — Lectures.—One hour per week during the winter term.—ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.
  14. American Taxation. — Brief examination of federal taxation and a more detailed study of taxation in American states and cities. — Three times per week during the spring term. — PROFESSOR ELY.
  15. Sociology. — This course will consist of an historical study of the nature and principles of growth of the social body, and of a critical investigation of the positivist, the synthetic, the evolutionary, and other theories of society. — Three times a week throughout the fall term. — MR. KINLEY.
  16. Economic Seminary. — This is designed primarily for advanced students who wish to carry on special investigations under the guidance which the department affords. Each student, with the consent of the instructors, may select a topic of investigation for himself, or one may be assigned him connected with the subject selected for the main seminary work of the year. The subject for 1893–94 will be American Taxation. A subordinate feature of the seminary work will be the review of recent books and important articles published in the periodicals. — PROFESSOR ELY and ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR SCOTT.

ARRANGEMENT OF COURSES.

Of the above courses, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 12 are elementary. All beginners will take course 1; for those who wish to make a more special study of political economy, — with a view, possibly, of making it their major subject of study, — course 1 will be followed by courses 2 and 3 and these by course 6; those who expect to do most of their work in other departments, but desire such a knowledge of economic science as is needed for purposes of general culture and the proper performance of the duties of citizenship are advised to take courses 4 and 5 after course 1. Special students in economics are also urged to take courses 4 and 5 during the first year of their economic study, if their time will permit. Courses 7, 8 and 9 are theoretical. Course 7 is designed to furnish students with a general knowledge of economic literature and the general features of the development of economic thought. Courses 8 and 9 furnish opportunity for critical and exhaustive study of the most important economic theories, and are designed to cultivate the power of independent judgment; in other words, to equip competent students for original work in the domain of economic theory.

At least courses 1, 2 and 3, or their equivalent, must have been taken as preparation for courses 8 and 9. Graduate students will find it to their advantage to take at least courses 7 and 8, and, if possible, course 9 during the first year of their graduate study. Courses 10, 11, 12 and 14 furnish training in the application of economic principles to the affairs of practical life.

 

II. HISTORY
[11 courses listed…]

III. POLITICAL SCIENCE
[7] Courses by Professor Parkinson
[…]

ADMINISTRATION
[3] Courses by Mr. Kinley
[…]

 

Library Facilities

The General University Library, including the department libraries catalogued therewith, contains about 29,000 volumes and 8,000 pamphlets. About 200 of the best American and Foreign periodicals are taken. The College of Law has a special library of 2,300 volumes, and in addition students have access to the state law library, containing about 25,000 volumes, and to the city library of Madison, containing a well-selected collection of over 12,000 volumes.

The library of the State Historical Society contains about 76,000 volumes and 77,000 pamphlets. It is exceptionally rich in manuscript and other material for the study of the Mississippi valley. The collections of the late Lyman C. Draper are included in this library. Its files of newspapers and periodicals are among the most complete in the United States. There are over 5,000 volumes of bound newspapers published outside of Wisconsin, and the files cover, with but few breaks, the period from the middle of the seventeenth century to the present.

There is an excellent collection of United States government documents, and the material for the study of American local history, Western travel, the Revolution, Slavery, and the Civil War, is unusually abundant. In English history the library possesses the Calendars of the State Papers, the Rolls Series, and other important collections, including works on local history. The Tank collection (Dutch) offers facilities for the study of the Netherlands. The library of the Historical Society is accessible to students of the University, and thus affords exceptional facilities for the prosecution of advanced historical work. The Historical and Economic Seminaries have been generously granted special facilities in the rooms of the library. The Historical, State, University and City libraries afford duplicate copies of books most in use, and to a large extent supplement one another.

During the year 1892–93 the Regents of the University appropriated five thousand dollars for the supply of special works for the use of the seminary students of the school. The works supplied by this fund afford good facilities for investigations of an advanced nature.

These library facilities are unsurpassed in the interior, and equaled by very few institutions in the country.

 

Fellowships and Scholarships.

The University offers nine annual fellowships of $400 each, which are open to general competition without restriction except in one instance. During the current year three scholarships of $150 each will be awarded to members of the school. One of these is furnished by the Woman’s Club of Madison, and is open only to Women.

For further information, address

PROFESSOR RICHARD T. ELY,
Director,

Or the
REGISTRAR OF THE UNIVERSITY.

 

Source:  University of Wisconsin. School of Economics, Political Science, and History. Announcement for 1893-94 (Madison, Wis., 1893), pp. 3-8, 14-15.

Images Source: The University of Wisconsin yearbook, The Badger 1894.

Categories
Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard/Radcliffe Economics Alumna, Rita Ricardo Campbell, 1946.

 

In the last post we met the 1948 Harvard economics Ph.D. alumnus, W. Glenn Campbell. Now it is time to meet his wife and fellow economist, Rita Ricardo (Radcliffe economics Ph.D., 1946). 

I have stumbled upon statements claiming that Rita was a direct descendent of David Ricardo, but they are incorrect. As she herself correctly wrote in the following letter to the White House (she was actively seeking to follow Martin Feldstein as Chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under Ronald Reagan), she was a “collateral descendant” of that great classical economist, David Ricardo.

For exercise I climbed the Ricardo family tree to establish the degrees of separation between Rita and David, with whom she was indeed distantly related. She was clearly proud enough to flaunt her Ricardian pedigree professionally. My executive summary of the genealogical bottom line: Rita’s great-great grandfather was a third cousin of David Ricardo, and you can count the links yourself below. The main source used is the Lewis Family Tree Project at ancestry.com.

_______________

From a letter by Rita Ricardo-Campbell
to Michael K. Deaver,
Deputy Chief of Staff, White House.
November 21, 1984

“As a collateral descendant of the famous British economist David Ricardo, (that incidentally qualifies me as an Hispanic under the law!) I note that the well known Ricardian theory of the debt supports the President’s economic policy which I fully endorse.”

Source:  Ronald Reagan Presidential Library.

_______________

Radcliffe Ph.D. Thesis

Doctor of Philosophy
Degree awarded October 1946

Rita Ricardo Campbell, A.M.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Labor Problems.
Dissertation, “Annual Wage and Employment Guarantee Plans”

Source:  Reports of Officers Issue, 1946-47 Sessions. Official Register of Radcliffe College Vol. XIII, No. 6 (December, 1947), p. 21.

_______________

Hoover Institution Obituary

Rita Ricardo-Campbell
1920-2016

The Hoover Institution announced today that renowned economist and senior fellow Rita Ricardo-Campbell died on March 7, 2016, at the age of ninety-five.

“Rita Ricardo-Campbell will be remembered for her meaningful contribution to health care and Social Security research.  While the loss is great, it is heartening that her legacy will live on through the Hoover Institution’s Glenn Campbell and Rita Ricardo Campbell National Fellows program,” stated Tom Gilligan, Director, Hoover Institution.

Ricardo-Campbell’s depth of experience extended to both the private and public sectors. She served as a director of the Gillette Company, the Watkins Johnson Company, and the Samaritan Medical Management Group. On the public side, she was a member of the President’s Economic Policy Advisory Board (1981-1989), a member of the National Endowment for the Humanities (1982-1988), a member of the President’s Committee on the National Medal of Science (1981 and 1991), and a member of the Advisory Council on Social Security (1974-1975).  She held teaching posts at Harvard and Tufts Universities before becoming an economist on the Wage Stabilization Board in Washington, DC, and subsequently as an economist for the House Ways and Means Committee.

“The impact of Rita’s work is well understood.  But what people don’t know is that Rita was a true pioneer, ahead of her time,” said Ed Lazear, Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution.  “She was the first female professor of economics at Harvard and throughout the years had significant influence on political leaders, all while raising her beautiful family.  She was an inspiration and will be missed by many.”

Ricardo-Campbell was a prominent writer, authoring a number of reputable books:  Social Security: Promise and Reality; The Economics and Politics of Health; Issues in Contemporary Retirement(coedited with Hoover Institution’s Edward Lazear); Aging: Social Security and Medicare; Below-Replacement Fertility in Industrial Societies; and Women and Comparable Worth.

A native of Boston, Massachusetts, Ricardo-Campbell received her bachelor’s of science degree from Simmons College and master’s and PhD degrees from Harvard University. She was preceded in death by her husband, former Hoover Institution Director W. Glenn Campbell. She is survived by three daughters, Diane Rita Campbell, Barbara Lee Gray and Nancy Elizabeth Yaeger, and four grandchildren.

Ricardo-Campbell’s research papers are available at the Hoover Institution Archives.

Source: https://www.hoover.org/press-releases/hoover-institution-celebrates-life-fellow-rita-ricardo-campbell

Image Source:  Rita Ricardo, Class of 1941. Simmons College Yearbook Microcosm, p. 64.

_______________

The 9-generation line from Samuel ‘Moses’ Israel Ricardo
to Rita Ricardo-Campbell

Samuel ‘Moses’ Israel Ricardo (est1624-ca1692) and Diana Israel (1628-1709)

Daniel ‘Samuel’ Israel Ricardo (1657-) and Rebecca ‘Jacob’ Nunes Mendes (1660-1722)

Benjamin ‘Daniel’ Israel Ricardo (1694-1768) and Gracia ‘Isaac’ Saraga (1701-)

Daniel ‘Benjamin’ Israel Ricardo (1722-1787) and Rachel ‘Salomon’ de Rocamora (1745-1787)

Abraham Daniel Ricardo, 1786-1842 and Benvenida ‘Abraham, David’ Senior Coronel (1789-1828)

Daniel Abraham Ricardo 1812-1871 (Birth in Amsterdam) and Jetje Catarina ‘Elias’ Barentz (1811-)

Aaron Daniel Ricardo (1852-1920?) born in Amsterdam, died in London and Rebecca ‘Abraham’ Lopes Salzedo (1850-1900)

David ‘Aaron’ Ricardo (1878-) and Elizabeth Jones (1900-), both born in England

Rita Ricardo-Campbell (16 Mar 1920 (Boston)-July 3, 2016 (Stanford)

 

The 5 generation line from Samuel ‘Moses’ Israel Ricardo
to David Ricardo

Samuel ‘Moses’ Israel Ricardo (est1624-ca1692) and Diana Israel (1628-1709)

David ‘Samuel’ Israel Ricardo (1652-) and Estrella (Strellia) ‘Joseph’ Amadeos (1663-)

Joseph ‘David’ Israel Ricardo (1699-1762) and Hanna ‘Abraham’ Abas (1705-1781)

Abraham ‘Joseph’ Israel Ricardo (1735-1812) and Abigail ‘Abraham’ del Valle (1753-)

David ‘Abraham’ Ricardo (1722-1823) and Priscilla Wilkinson(1775-)

Categories
Columbia Gender

Columbia. Faculty of Political Science Not Yet Supporting Admission of Women, 1892

 

It is not clear whether the undersigned were actually against the admission of women to the graduate courses offered by the Faculty of Political Science of Columbia University in 1892 or procedural sticklers navigating troubled waters (or both). In any event, this is a pretty curious document.

___________________

Names, Ranks, and Fields of Signers

Edmund Munroe Smith, Professor of Roman Law and Comparative Jurisprudence
Frank J. Goodnow, Professor of Administrative Law
Edwin R. A. Seligman, Professor of Political Economy and Finance and Secretary of the Faculty
William A. Dunning, Adjunct Professor of History
John Bassett Moore, Professor of History and Political Philosophy
Herbert L. Osgood, Adjunct Professor of History

___________________

Admission Interruptus

Columbia College
In the City of New York
School of
Political Science

Jan. 15, 1892

Seth Low, LL.D.,
President of Columbia College.

Dear Sir:

We, the undersigned members of the Faculty of Political Science, desire to withdraw for the present our assent, given separately and without consultation, to the admission of women to our University courses. It is evident to us, on reflection, that the admission of women to certain courses makes it very difficult to exclude them from any, and that the assent of each professor in so far prejudices the decision of all: and we think that a change of policy of such importance should be made only by the Faculty, and after general and full discussion.

We see moreover the possibility of great detriment to the work of the School of Political Science if this question should be determined without a degree of harmony in the Faculty which does not as yet exist.

Yours respectfully,
[signed]
Munroe Smith
Frank J. Goodnow
Edwin R. A. Seligman
Wm. A. Dunning
J. B. Moore
Herbert L. Osgood

Source: Columbia University, Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-. Box 339. Folder: “1.1.19; Smith, Munroe; 5/1891-11/1909”.

 

 

Categories
Bryn Mawr Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard/Radcliffe. Economics PhD alumna, Ruth Jackson Woodruff, 1931

 

Besides the curricula of graduate education in economics, every so often Economics in the Rear-view Mirror presents the life-stories of men and women who have received a Ph.D. in economics. Where did they come from and where did they end up, along with all the stations in between. Today we meet Ruth Jackson Woodruff, a Radcliffe Ph.D. (1931). This was back in the day when Harvard and Radcliffe still differentiated their doctorates.

___________________

Doctor of Philosophy

Ruth Jackson Woodruff, A.M.

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Economic History since 1750. Dissertation “A History of the Hosiery Industry in the United States before 1890.”

Source:  Annual Reports of Radcliffe College for 1930-31 (February, 1932), p. 21.

___________________

Publications

Woodruff, R. (1921). A Classification of the Causes of Crime. Journal of the American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology, 12(1), 105-109. [Written while still a student at Bryn Mawr College.]

Ruth Woodruff, “The Hosiery Industry,” Bulletin Series No. 5, Junior Employment Service, Board of Education of Philadelphia (Philadelphia, 1925).

Alexander, N., & Woodruff, R. (1940). Determinants of College Success. The Journal of Higher Education, 11(9), 479-485.

___________________

Life and career dates

December 21, 1898. Born in Scranton, Pennsylvania.

1919. Bryn Mawr, A.B.

1920. Bryn Mawr, A.M.

1927-28. Attended University of Pennsylvania.

1931. Radcliffe, Ph.D. in economics.

1932-1953. Dean of Women at the University of New Hampshire. [Began as assistant professor of economics in the College of Liberal Arts]

1954-1962. Professor of Economics in the College of Liberal of Arts of the University of New Hampshire.

1962-1965. Professor of Economics at Whittemore School of Business and Economics of the University of New Hampshire.

1965. Retired.

October, 1983. Died in Newtown, Pennsylvania.

Categories
Economists Gender Harvard Radcliffe

Harvard-Radcliffe. Economics Ph.D. alumna, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, 1950

 

 

According to her New York Times obituary, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain (April 24, 1918—April 1, 2013) became known as “the fairy godmother of women’s studies” during her time as program director at the Ford Foundation (1971-1981). But before beginning her highly successful career in research project sponsorship, she had taught at Connecticut College, the School of General Studies at Columbia University, and at Hunter College, having studied undergraduate and graduate economics at Radcliffe-Harvard. She was awarded in 1950 a Ph.D. for her thesis, “Investment Policy in Large Corporations”.

After listing her scholarship awards at Radcliffe along with the dates of her academic degrees, I include two items that provide the testimony of a few of those who knew her professionally and personally. We learn (among many genuinely important things) that towards the end of her long life, she was a regular reader of Paul Krugman’s New York Times columns and “for whatever reason[,] she wanted to see, meet, engage, or possibly hang out with men”. She was clearly an inspirational figure for many and that “she loved being an economist”.

________________________

From the Radcliffe College Annual Presidential Reports

Freshman Year

Marian [sic] Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of an “Emergency Award” from the Permanent Charity Scholarship Fund.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1935-36, p. 37.

 

Sophomore Year

Marion [sic] Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a Lois M. Parmenter Undergraduate Scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1936-37, p. 32.

 

Junior Year

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a partial Abby Y. Lawson Memorial undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1937-38, p. 31.

 

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of a partial Permanent Charity Fund undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1937-38, p. 33.

 

Senior Year

Mariam Kenosian (class of 1939). Recipient of an Ellen M. Barr undergraduate scholarship.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1938-39, p. 30.

 

Mariam Kenosian Bachelor of Arts (June 1939) cum laude (Honors) in economics.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1938-39, p. 35.

 

Graduate School

Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, Master of Arts (March 1948).

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1947-48, p. 21.

 

Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain, Ph.D.  (June 1950).

Subject, Economics. Special Field, Business Organization and Control. Dissertation, “Investment Policies of Large Corporations”.

Source: Radcliffe College, President’s Report for 1949-50, p. 20.

________________________

In Memoriam: Mariam K. Chamberlain, 1918–2013
Posted on April 3, 2013

Dr. Mariam K. Chamberlain, a founding member of the Institute for Women’s Policy Research and the founding president of the National Council for Research on Women, was the driving force behind the cultivation and sustainability of the women’s studies field of academic research. She is the namesake of IWPR’s prestigious Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship for Women in Public Policy, which trains young women for successful careers in research. Throughout her life, Dr. Chamberlain fought discrimination, established new roles for women, and championed the economic analysis of women’s issues. She passed away on April 2, 2013, at 94, just a few weeks shy of her 95th birthday, following complications from heart surgery.

A Lifetime of Lifting Up Women’s Voices in Academia and Research

The daughter of Armenian immigrants, Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain was born and raised in Chelsea, Massachusetts, a working class suburb of Boston. Interest in the prevailing conditions of the depression led her to economics. She attended Radcliffe College on a scholarship and worked as a research assistant in the summers for Wassily Leontief, who later won the Nobel Prize in economics. During World War II, she worked at the Office of Strategic Services (OSS), on the staff of a “brain trust” of economists and other social scientists assembled by General William (“Wild Bill”) Donovan to aid in the war effort. As part of the research and analysis branch, she worked on estimates of enemy, military, and industrial strength.

In 1950, Mariam Chamberlain received her Ph.D. in Economics from Harvard University, making her one of the few women of her generation to earn a Ph.D. in the field. In 1956, Dr. Chamberlain joined the Ford Foundation, where she served as a program officer in Economic Development and Administration, and then Education and Public Policy, until 1981. While at Ford, she spearheaded the funding of the academic women’s research and women’s studies movement; she is said to have provided nearly $10 million in support of new feminist initiatives. Her projects fostered a new analysis of women’s position in society, expanded women’s choices in the university, and supported the development of equality in law. She played a major role in building the academic infrastructure necessary to better understand women’s experiences and inform improved policies for women. In short, she paved the way for organizations like IWPR to thrive, and stocked the research pipeline with skilled women and men who have made important contributions to the study of women and public policy.

Economics and the elimination of discrimination against women around the world remained the heart of her wide-ranging activities. After leaving the Ford Foundation in 1982, she headed the Task Force on Women in Higher Education at the Russell Sage Foundation. The Task Force’s work culminated in a published volume, Women in Academe: Progress and Prospects. Before leaving Ford, she had funded an initial meeting of a group of women’s research centers. That meeting established the National Council for Research on Women, which unanimously elected her its first president. She served in that role until 1989, after which she continued to go into the office every day as Founding President and Resident Scholar.

A Legacy of Training the Next Generation of Women Policy Researchers

IWPR owes much to Dr. Chamberlain. In 1987, Dr. Heidi Hartmann founded IWPR out of a need for comprehensive, women-focused, policy-oriented research. Dr. Chamberlain, who dedicated her career to lifting up women’s voices in academia, recognized the importance of a policy research institute centered on women, grounded by social science methodology, economics, and rigorous data analysis. Applying academic research to inform better policies for women was a natural extension of Dr. Chamberlain’s work, and she became a founding member of IWPR and served on its Board of Directors for nearly 20 years.

IWPR endowed the Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship in Women and Public Policy to recognize the legacy of Dr. Chamberlain’s tireless efforts to open doors for the women researchers who came after her. Nearly 20 young women have gained valuable research experience as Fellows at IWPR since the beginning of the Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellowship. Past Mariam K. Chamberlain scholars have gone on to hold positions at government agencies such as the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Congressional Research Service, earn advanced degrees from universities such as Harvard University, Columbia University, Stanford University, The George Washington University, and Brown University. Rhiana Gunn-Wright, IWPR’s current Mariam K. Chamberlain Fellow, was just recently named a 2013 Rhodes Scholar. The fellowship has allowed IWPR to expand its research capacity, strengthen its commitment to cultivating the next generation of women researchers and leaders, and ensure that a pipeline of experienced women researchers are at the policy-making table.

The fellowship helps sustain Dr. Chamberlain’s legacy, built on the belief that relying on credible data and research, rather than anecdote and bias, leads to better policies for working women, which in turn contribute to improved long-term outcomes for their families. May she not only rest in peace, but rest assured that, because of her efforts, there are many more women able to take up the torch she leaves behind.

Source:  Institute for Women’s Policy Research.  Blog post captured by the internet archive, Wayback Machine, on May 13, 2013.

________________________

Excerpts and selections from speeches at Mariam Chamberlain’s Memorial

From Florence Howe, founder of Feminist Press, blog post (July 15, 2013).

From the Eulogy by David Kenosian (nephew)

I got my first impressions of Mariam through my father, her younger brother Harry, who told me about her life as the daughter of Armenian immigrants in Chelsea, Massachusetts, as a student at Radcliffe, and as a pioneering career woman. He admired his sister because, I think, she epitomized what he saw as key Armenian values, education and hard work. She herself affirmed those values; she insisted that her older brother Tony was the scholar in the family who set the standards of achievement. But following Tony’s example meant overcoming poverty and possibly the reservations of her parents who, like many Armenian parents back then, assumed that their daughter would marry and have a family. In continuing her education Mariam took the best of Armenian culture to break free from its constraints, and later did the same on a larger scale. At Harvard she like other women had to use a different entrance to some buildings than men. She later committed herself professionally to opening doors for women across the country in decades of tireless work.

Mariam’s talents impressed her professor, Edward Mason, who helped build an economic research branch in the OSS. Last December, Mariam told my nephew Tom and me that Edward Mason took her and other assistants to a summit meeting in Canada to support the American delegation: without eight years of entering Radcliffe, Mariam had gone to a conference where Churchill and Roosevelt met. With characteristic modesty she added that she never saw Churchill or Roosevelt. As a woman, she had a better working relationship with her British counterparts than with the men in the American delegation. You can see the hallmarks of her later career; her determination to overcome barriers, her service in the cause of justice, and the collaborative and at times international spirit of her work…

 

Professor Lois Gray, “On Mariam Chamberlain”

I first met Mariam Chamberlain in 1959—fifty-four years ago—not in New York City where we both lived but in Jamaica, West Indies, where her husband, Neil Chamberlain, and I were invited as speakers at an International Conference on Labor. Neil, a leading scholar and writer in the field of industrial relations, was my professor at Columbia University where I was studying for my Ph.D. Both of us brought out spouses to the conference. Neil bonded with my husband who was a labor leader, and Mariam and I discovered our common interest in opportunities for working women. A long lasting friendship grew out of this chance encounter in the Caribbean. [Note: Mariam and Neil were married in 1942 and divorced in 1967?/1970?]

Over the years I came to know about and admire Mariam’s path-breaking role at the Ford Foundation where she was responsible for funding women’s studies programs in universities throughout the United States and other countries. At our occasional lunches she casually referred to experiences in Nairobi, Pakistan, Europe, and South America. I also witnessed her emergence as a leader in the American Economics Association, where she was able to bring feminist issues to the fore in a profession dominated by men. In the year 2000 we were both involved in a comparative analysis of women’s progress toward leadership recognition in various professions, ranging from military to corporate. I wrote the section on Women in Labor Unions, and Mariam, on Academic, for a book published by the American Woman. We had fun comparing notes on our findings. (Women do better in achieving leadership roles in academe than in corporations or unions.) Throughout my more than fifty years of knowing Mariam Chamberlain, I never ceased to be amazed—awed—by her any accomplishments in creating lasting institutions and programs for the advancement of women. Always unassuming and laid back, Mariam was a powerhouse who changed our world. Her life of selfless dedication is a role model for us all.

 

From Dr. Debra L. Schultz, “Remarks”

…Because of Mariam, I learned that as a woman, one simply obtained a PhD. I had no role models for this and she demystified it for me. If getting a doctorate in economics at Harvard as the girl child of Armenian immigrants during World War II was no big deal, what did I have to complain about?

Mariam loved being an economist. During our last visit in March, she reminisced about her time as a Radcliffe undergraduate, when her mentor, future Nobel Prize-winning economist Wassily Leontief, would read the students chapter drafts sent over by John Maynard Keynes! For a moment, I felt her transform into that excited young woman intellectual and it was thrilling.

Averse to the touchy-feeling side of feminism, she nevertheless drew circles of adoring young women around her, by keeping track of our every personal and professional move. I’m proud to have followed in her footsteps to become a feminist in philanthropy—I never knew such a thing existed before Mariam and the Ford stories—and to work with women internationally, which Mariam did decades before it was trendy.

Mariam never seemed to inhabit a particular age, and she also had a slightly naughty twinkle in her eye. Very little got past that eye, even if she pretended not to notice slights or injustices that came her way. Her satisfaction came from supporting, connecting, and catalyzing. When I had the great opportunity to help start the first international women’s program at the Soros Foundation, Mariam told me ruefully that as a program officer, “you give away your best ideas and let others implement them.” She modeled a generous way of empowering others, not aggrandizing herself…

 

Marjorie Lightman, “Remarks”

…Since girlhood Mariam had probably regarded the people and opinions voiced around her with an alienated eye. She certainly set expectations for herself in line with an internal compass. After all, at 18, while her brother chose Boston College she chose Radcliffe.

Mariam often told me that she was fortunate to have always worked in organizations that were young and making their mark on the world. Who would not thrill at Harvard classes reading John Galbraith’s newest works in manuscript; or working at the OSS in Washington during the World War II, when Gen. Wild Bill Donovan brought together “best and the brightest” to outwit the enemy?

Her commitment to elite institutions on the rise never wavered. When she lived in New Haven with her husband, Neil Chamberlain, who was an economist at Yale, she became part of the Yale Growth Center – an economic think tank founded in 1961. After her divorce, she joined the Ford Foundation, which under McGeorge Bundy had the heady atmosphere of new possibilities and the kind of intellectual energy that made risk into an adventure.

Working under Marshall Robinson she became part of Ford’s audacious $40 million investment in reconceiving business education. The plan to effect change in undergraduate business education and to institute an academically acceptable Masters in Business administration privileged large and mostly elite institutions with funding that sometimes dwarfed mere mortals. Rarely have a foundation’s plans been so successful.

By the time women’s clamor for change had reached the ears of Ford in the early 1970s, Mariam had become a skilled program officer and absorbed lessons of success from the business education program. With a pot of money that was approximately ¼ that spent on business education, she sought out nascent organizations that could become long-lasting institutions and anchor women-centered research and education into the future.

She spread her funds among research centers, academic programs, and scrappy grass-roots organization and coalitions. Not surprisingly they included Stanford, Michigan, Wellesley, and two centers at Radcliffe – Schlesinger and the Bunting. However, risk was the nexus of her intellectual landscape. She was, after all, an economist who thought in algebraic equations. The unknown “x” factor was central to her calculations. And it was in this space – between the provable, the probable and the possible – that she made her most original decisions. She believed that the Feminist Press, IWPR, and the National Council for Research on Women would be the institutions of the future.

It was also in this space that our friendship thrived. We had very different kinds of minds and education. We often disagreed. Her conviction that economics was the queen of disciplines was never shaken. She would ask why I spent my time on history, let alone ancient history. Just recite the facts, she would say. I would respond that the facts had different interpretations. She would parry: not if you presented them properly. I liked life lived on the margins. She was unwavering in her conviction that change came through institutions. She wanted data; I insight. We were intellectual sparring partners who never were bored by our exchanges and who never were threatened by our differences…

 

From “Eulogy” by Mary Rubin

…In 1982, Mariam asked me to join her at the Russell Sage Foundation on a book project to examine progress and prospects for women in higher education, a companion assessment to an earlier book by Alice Rossi. Immediately she welcomed me into Russell Sage’s heady atmosphere of notable social scientists, and often invited me to tag along at elegant meals and meetings she hosted for prominent feminists. Today, whenever I invite a guest for lunch at the Harvard Club, I relish following the tradition she established.

Becoming a Resident Scholar at Russell Sage represented a crucial transition in Mariam’s life. She could have chosen to envelope herself in nostalgia for what Ford had enabled her to achieve. But that was never Mariam’s way. Instead, she stayed vigilant for opportunities. She maintained her accessibility to a steady stream of feminist scholars and practitioners who arrived seeking her advice and contacts in the foundation world. In these meetings, I learned to pay as much attention to what she didn’t say as to what she actually said.

Not only did she help me to find my voice in discourse with thinkers who’d completed their doctorates before I was born, she introduced me to Zabar’s coffee beans, elegant Italian leather boots by Galo, and the pleasures of eating only hot fudge sundaes for dinner. I had barely started working for her when she agreed to guarantee the lease on my first-ever apartment—a railroad flat on the Upper East Side with a claw foot bathtub in the kitchen. In characteristic fashion, she shared my delight, while simultaneously withholding her opinion of its truly miniscule size.

No matter how early I arrived at work, or how late I stayed, she was always ensconced in her office; however, she never pressured me to adopt the same schedule. She set high expectations, but rarely criticized. Hers was a quiet form of guiding and shaping. She taught me to listen intently, to ask probing questions, to be steadfast in advocating my perspective. Her goal always was to win others over, never to squash them. When a discussion moved in an unproductive direction, I watched how she lightened the atmosphere by describing a favorite New Yorker cartoon—and then resumed her line of argument. I’m guessing she used this technique frequently while at Ford…

 

Dorothy O. Helly, “Remarks”

I came into Mariam’s orbit in the late 1970s through Marjorie Lightman and the Institute for Research in History. We connected in the following years over a number of shared interests, one in particular being curriculum transformation, first at Hunter College and later among the faculty throughout the City University. She often urged me to “write it up,” for to Mariam, if it was worth doing, it was worth telling others about it. We traveled in the same groups that went to Nairobi and Beijing, and through these years of international women’s studies concerns, I became a “station” on the way for women from abroad seeking information about grants, coming to me at Hunter and being sent by me to Mariam, wherever she was located, from Russell Sage to Roosevelt House to the latest offices of the National Council for Research on Women.

Mariam, Florence, and Helene became a troika in my life as well, and they always surprised me with their delightful hostess gifts at the annual New Year’s party my husband and I gave to celebrate the Millennium and the decade that followed.

Mariam and I met up over the years at the conferences of National Women’s Studies Association and the Berkshire Conference on Women’s History, often having at least one dinner together to discuss whatever was the latest news or just to schmooze. Many times these dinners included at least one other woman, and I listened to their projects being presented to her for help and approval. I remember in particular the dinner with Heidi Hartmann when her policy organization was barely more than a gleam in her eyes.

I also remember being in the same university dormitory in Nairobi and chatting in the hallway before going to bed. We were in the same Swiss-run hotel in Beijing, seeing each other at breakfast and dinner. In other words, Mariam and Women’s Studies were intertwined in my life, a person with whom one could talk about the latest issues, particularly transforming the curriculum and the problems facing the new Ph.D. programs in Women’s Studies. I know that Mariam was an important sounding board for many people. It was a way for them and her to keep up with the latest activities in the field . It also provided a way to tap her suggestions, based on her wide, wide knowledge of who was doing what and, of course, where it might be possible to get project funding.

Mariam’s generosity was open and casually extended. When she had to cancel her trip to Australia for a meeting of the International Congress on Women, she offered me her prepaid room. I accepted, and then, in the same spirit, shared it with another woman who did not have a place to stay. Mariam, of course, wanted a full report when I returned.

We sat together, often literally, on the board of the Feminist Press, and across the table at Parnell’s with people like Marjorie and Blanche Cook. On the trip from Beijing, via Helsinki, we both accepted a $200 bribe from the airline to bump us off our flight to take another one three-hours later. That allowed us time to wander the Helsinki airport, window shopping, and my personal coup was to convince Mariam, who never seemed to buy herself any personal luxury, to purchase a large amber and silver ring. She wore that ring on occasions like Feminist Press and NCRW galas, and she was wearing it the last time I saw her this year. Like so many others, my life was touched by hers, and I have many happy memories by which to remember her.

 

From Lybra Clemons “Eulogy for Mariam”

…After graduate school and years of working at nonprofits, I began working at the National Council for Research on Women (the Council) in 2003. My office was next door to Mariam’s….

Towards the end, it was quite interesting to see Mariam. She had good days and not so great days. I have to say that her unpredictability was somewhat entertaining. I wonder if she was doing this for us….just to keep us on our toes and to get a giggle every now and then.

Honestly – I would walk in the door of Parnells (her favorite restaurant), and wonder what decade Mariam thought she was in today. Sometimes it was 1972….. and all of her stories would center around that decade. Then it was 1935…… But – we indulged her.

Again –there were days when Mariam was so sharp, that I felt downright stupid and couldn’t keep up. If you had not read and/or analyzed Paul Krugman, she was not amused.

One of our last outings together at Parnells was particularly interesting. Mariam, Gwen, Joan and I dined with Mariam and observed her becoming more concerned with the “lack of men”. She kept saying “where are the men?”… and pointing to people at Parnell’s. She would see a man and say “there’s a man”. Clearly she wanted to make sure we included men…. Well, I think that was the point. I love Mariam dearly, but for whatever reason she wanted to see, meet, engage, or possibly hang out with men – I knew that Parnell’s was likely the last place that we should look for sourcing these types of men. But – the point was well taken….

 

From “Remarks” by Helene Goldfarb

Good evening. My name is Helene Goldfarb and I am the President of the Feminist Press at CUNY. I am here to speak of Mariam as a friend for many years but also as a very important part of who the Feminist Press was and what it has become over the years because of her nurturing and caring. Mariam, who was a Program Officer at the Ford Foundation, was one of the first to make a grant to the Feminist Press. It was for $12,000 for Who’s Who and Where in Women Studies. Interestingly, she wouldn’t let us use computers because she “didn’t want to become involved with us” but she changed her mind and introduced us to Terry Saario also at Ford who gave us our first large grant for the “Women and Work” high school series. Mariam continued her interest in the Press and gave us a small grant to bring five women to Copenhagen in 1980 and to organize two weeks of workshops and panels on women’s studies.

Even after she left Ford in 1982, Mariam’s interest in the Press never flagged. She became a very active member of the Board of Directors of the Press and remained on our board until she passed away last month. While she was not as active as she would have liked to be this past year or so, whenever Florence and I met her for dinner at Parnell’s, the Press was always on her mind. I miss those dinners at Parnell’s and Sunday is a little lonelier for the lack of them.

It is always a little difficult to express thanks publically for the many years she contributed not only expertise to the Press but also donations. Without her support, our Galas would not have been as successful and we certainly would not have been able to print many of the books that are found in bookstores today…

 

Heidi Hartmann

Mariam Chamberlain was a cherished adviser to myself and to the Institute for Women’s Policy Research. She was a founding member and a generous supporter from its inception in 1987. She served 18 years on our Board of Directors. She was knowledgeable and wise about the ways of foundations, and while she was unfailingly encouraging and supportive, I learned to pay attention to the rare instances in which she expressed skepticism about the likelihood of getting funding for some particular project or other. More often her suggestions of where to go and whom to meet with led to productive relationships for IWPR. She understood that nonprofits would actually sometimes have negative profits, and I recall one instance when several of IWPR’s board members were a bit agitated about a couple of years in the red in a row, when she said something like, “aren’t deficits normal for nonprofits?” and then she lent us funds so we could pay our bills until some expected grants arrived. Her general view seemed to be that if an endeavor was worthwhile it might go through some ups and downs but it would prove its worth in the long run. And she was in it for the long run.

Mariam and I both studied economics at similar institutions and knew many of the same people and, despite the difference of a generation, had had some of the same experiences in being a small minority in a male-dominated field. I believe I first met Mariam at a business meeting of the American Economics Association, probably in the early 1980s when a group of progressive members was trying to pass a set of resolutions. My cohort was sitting together, and when our resolutions would come up we would all raise our hands while the rest of the hands remained down, except for one, a small, older, very professional-looking woman. The content and the outcome of the motions are long forgotten, but I recall Mariam like it was yesterday. That event provided a hint of the deep and abiding radicalism that was Mariam.

I got to know Mariam better at the 1987 NWSA meetings held at Spellman College when we, both being frugal, stayed in the dorms and asked them to assign us a roommate and we got each other. Just then in the process of forming IWPR, I shared my dreams for IWPR and we shared some personal stories in late night discussions. My mother is virtually the same age as Mariam and came to America on her own in 1938, and so I like Mariam was an immigrant daughter. And like her I rose up from poverty through getting good grades and earning a scholarship to a top school. Perhaps because Mariam was so much like my mother (both very smart, courageous, kind, and persistent), I thought of Mariam as my intellectual mother, an intellectual version of my own working-class mother.

Mariam loved IWPR because we use economics to advance women and she knew how much difference having numbers makes in the policy world. She loved being part of that world through IWPR. She valued the fellowship we named after her in 2001. IWPR typically funds a young woman en route to graduate school to work at IWPR for an academic year to learn practical research skills in a policy setting. More than 100 young people apply every year, and thousands of graduating students learn about Mariam and the opportunity to use social science to help achieve social justice. I am very pleased to let you know that Mary Rubin and the Borrego Foundation have generously provided IWPR with a challenge grant of $95,000 to honor Mariam’s 95 years by expanding our Mariam K. Chamberlain fellowship to give an opportunity to a second fellow each year.

Mariam’s choice to recognize the Feminist Press, the National Council for Research on Women, and IWPR in her will reflects her lifelong commitment to the radical idea of considering women fully human. Many of us here share that commitment and share our love of Mariam….

 

Image Sources:  Mariam Kenosian Chamberlain from Radcliffe Yearbook, 1939 and New York Times obituary (April 7, 2013).