Category: Stanford

One wonders what exact path was taken by the following memorandum from the Dean of the Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst for us to find a copy that landed the files of George Stigler at the University of Chicago. Anyhow it is fairly clear that Dean Dean Alfange, Jr. (not a typo, his first name is really “Dean”), a political scientist and then acting department head of the economics department, felt sufficient local push-back for his wholesale acquisition of the cream of academic radical economics that he put together a full paper-defense for the deal, including letters of support by Harvard’s John Kenneth Galbraith and Stanford’s John Gurley. 

Still, Chicago had no dog in this fight so I am modestly surprised that Stigler would have received and even kept his copy of the memo. I guess without academic gossip, faculty clubs would have one less excuse to serve booze to the senior and junior ranks of academic barflies.

A friend of Economics in the Rear-view Mirror writes:

“The most plausible reason the memo on U Mass hiring found it’s way to Stigler’s files is James Kindahl, a U Mass economist mentioned in the dean’s memo. He was Stigler’s PhD student, friend and co-author.”

____________________________

The U-Mass Dean’s Apologia

University of Massachusetts
Memorandum

Date: February 26, 1973

From: Dean, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
To: Members of the Department of Economics
Subject: Recruitment

Offers of appointment have now been formally extended to the following persons:

I believe that you have already been notified that offers of appointment have also been extended to Stephen Resnick as Professor with tenure, effective September, 1973, and to Leonard Rapping as Visiting Professor for the Fall semester, 1973-74. The latter offer has been accepted. Earlier, offers were made to, and accepted by, Ronald Oaxaca, Thomas Russell, and Josephine Gordon at the Assistant Professor/Instructor level. An offer to Marilyn Manser as Assistant Professor/Instructor was extended, but has been declined.

If the offers currently outstanding are accepted, I do not think it would be either immodest or inaccurate for me to suggest that this will have been the most successful and effective recruiting year in the history of the department. We will have filled our long standing gaps in macroeconomics and monetary economics with excellent appointments, we will have added some very promising younger economists in applied fields, and we will have brought in a group of “radical” economists who are, by general agreement, the very best representatives of that school of economists in the United States.

I should have thought that these recruiting efforts needed no justification or defense. However, on the day when the five most recent offers listed above were sent out, I received a memorandum from Jim Kindahl suggesting certain reservations about the recruitment of the “radicals,” and asking me to explain my actions to the department. The remainder of this memorandum is written in response to that request.

First of all, it was suggested that the recruitment of the “radical” group was somehow carried on clandestinely. I am left rather puzzled by that because I hardly thought that the matter was a secret. Each of the members of this group visited the campus and spoke openly and frankly with many members of the department. I have also had occasion over the past few months to speak with a substantial number of the members of the department, and I found no one who was unaware of my recruiting intentions. Those members of the department who chose not to discuss personnel matters with me did so despite the fact that I invited discussion of such matters with faculty individually or in groups. Moreover, the question arose in the department meeting in January, and no one present seemed to me to be in the dark. It is true that I made no formal announcement of recruiting plans to the department, but it should be remembered that the department has no personnel committee, that it rejected my desire to establish an advisory committee on personnel matters, and that it certainly has not been the practice in the recent past to publicize and to encourage broad discussion of recruitment plans within the department as a whole.

Second, it was indicated that a substantial number of department members either have reservations regarding, or are definitely opposed to, the recruitment of the “radical” group. I suppose that to be true. The Department of Economics has not been known in the past for its ability to establish a broad consensus on significant personnel matters, and I assume that no meaningful step in any direction could be taken that a substantial number of members of the department would not either have reservations regarding or be opposed to. With knowledge of this circumstance, the department practice in the recent past has been deliberately to ignore this lack of consensus and to move ahead in the direction thought most advisable by the department leadership. While my strongest desire both as Dean and as acting department head is to establish a departmental consensus on fundamental issues, and my hope is that the work of the department head search committee can be an important vehicle in this regard, it nevertheless seems to me necessary, in the short run, to accept the lack of consensus as a given, and not to allow it to bring the development of the department to a standstill.

It was not my original intention to serve this year as acting department head, nor was it my intention to act without a personnel committee. I had hoped to appoint a member of the department to serve as acting head, but Vice-Chancellor Gluckstern prevailed upon me to act in that capacity after some members of last year’s personnel committee persuaded him that that arrangement would be preferable to having an acting head from within the department. The decision not to have a personnel committee was, of course, an action taken by an almost unanimous vote of the department with full knowledge that I would be serving as acting head. Following that vote, I sought to establish an informal advisory committee to assist me on personnel matters, but I abandoned that plan after protests arose within the department that such a committee would be, in effect, a de facto personnel committee, whose establishment would contravene the department vote not to have such a committee. The point is that I did not maneuver myself into the position that I have been in with relation to the Department of Economics this year. Instead, it would be accurate to say that I was maneuvered into it by departmental action. However, having found myself thrust into the position, I resolved to act vigorously in the area of recruitment in order to dispel the possible image of this department as one so riven by internal disagreement that it could not move forward.

It was obvious to me that the previous recruiting posture of the department—that one hired the best economists one could find, irrespective of field, and presumably also irrespective of whether the person hired would want to teach anything that any students would have any interest in taking—was arrant nonsense, and that it would have to be abandoned before it led to the creation of a department so totally out of balance that it would be incapable of, and uninterested in, meeting the needs of both graduate and undergraduate students. At the start of the year, it seemed to me apparent that there were four pressing recruiting needs to be addressed. First, it was necessary to seek to fill the persistent gaps in macroeconomics and monetary economics that had continued to exist despite the report of the visiting committee and despite the urging of many members of the department that special efforts be made to recruit in these areas in order to meet vital teaching needs. Second, it was necessary to strengthen the department in applied fields, where faculty were spread so thin that it was difficult for individuals to find colleagues with whom effectively to interact. Third, it was absolutely essential that the department become sensitive and responsive to the Affirmative Action program of the university, and that a concerted effort be undertaken to identify and recruit qualified female and minority group candidates. Fourth, it seemed to me impossible for the department to continue to remain insensitive to the ferment taking place within the discipline of economics, in which a substantial number of economists—including some of the most prestigious members of the profession—were challenging the dominant neo-classical paradigm, and calling into question the ability of the profession, utilizing that paradigm, adequately to deal with many of the most urgent social problems in the nation and the world. It is hardly for me to argue that the alternative Marxian paradigm of the “radical” economists is sound and potentially fruitful, and to seek to add “radicals” on that premise. However, it is equally inappropriate to seek to exclude the proponents of that paradigm from appointment in the department on the premise that their approach is demonstrably unsound. As James Tobin explained to me, it is not clear whether the “radicals” can devise the tools adequate to the task of coming to grips with the social problems on which they wish to work, but, on the other hand, it is manifest that conventional economists have as yet been unable to devise tools adequate to this task. In the meantime, an increasing number of younger economists and students have been gravitating toward the “radical” paradigm as more relevant and useful. In this context, a healthy department should, in my view, contain some proponents of the “radical” perspective.

My recruiting efforts this year have been focused in each of these four areas. Robert Coen, to whom an offer has now been extended, was identified by the visiting committee as typical of the macroeconomist that we lacked and needed. Thomas Russell, who has accepted a position in monetary economics, was recommended to me, in the strongest terms, by Dwight Jaffee of Princeton, among others. Additional strength in applied fields will be provided by the appointment of Ronald Oaxaca in labor economics and Josephine Gordon in urban economics, both of whom will also broaden the department from the standpoint of Affirmative Action. In the Affirmative Action area, I have, of course, been strongly assisted by the departmental committee that I appointed to identify female and minority group candidates. The work of this committee is by no means done, particularly since our offer to Marilyn Manser has not been accepted, and continued efforts toward the achievement of Affirmative Action goals may still be anticipated.

It is my manner of seeking to meet the fourth department need, however, that appears to have occasioned the controversy to which Jim Kindahl referred in his memorandum. I was, of course, never unaware that the appointment of “radical” economists to the department would be a controversial matter. I decided to proceed to recruit in this area despite this.  My experience with certain personnel issues in the department over the past couple of years, including the question of a visiting appointment for Sam Bowles this year, has satisfied me—although I know that others involved would conscientiously contend for differing interpretations—that what was occurring was a manifestation of what John Kenneth Galbraith described in his AEA presidential address in December as a “new despotism,” which “consists in defining scientific excellence as whatever is closest in belief and method to the scholarly tendency of the people who are already there. This is a pervasive and oppressive thing not the less dangerous for being, in the frequent case, both self-righteous and unconscious.” Because of this, I had no doubt that the department needed to be broadened and balanced in order to reflect more widely the professional views that are held in the discipline at large.

Sam Bowles, who was, of course, on the campus during the Fall semester, if not in the Department of Economics, assisted me in identifying potential appointees. I was immensely gratified when he himself expressed a willingness to be considered for a position, and his interest led to a similar interest on the part of others of the most outstanding “radical” economists in the United States. I had not initially contemplated the recruitment of a group of “radical” economists, as such, but when the quality of the individuals we might be able to attract became apparent to me, it was obvious that an unparalleled opportunity was at hand to make a major step forward in terms of the professional excellence of the department. As one very traditional member of the department said to me, “Who could have thought that persons of this ability would simply drop in our laps?” The idea of hiring a “radical” group was one that I found to have support among a number of prominent economists, and letters I received from two of these—John Kenneth Galbraith and John Gurley—are reproduced and appended to this memorandum. Still another economist of gigantic national reputation—who could certainly not be described as a “radical”—called me on his own initiative to commend me for my insight into the nature of the economics discipline and to praise me for my courage in going forward with my recruiting plans. While I was most flattered by these encomia, I did not feel that I had displayed either insight or courage, simply common sense. I was also equally aware, that, in the light of the intense divisions within the profession, a substantial number of extremely prominent economists might look with disfavor upon the recruitment of a “radical” group, but, as no attempt seems to have been made in the past to follow a course of recruitment that would have support across the spectrum of prominent economists, I was not deterred by that realization from following a course that I looked upon as a means of redressing the imbalance of the past. I sought, however, to insure that recruitment here would take into consideration the fields in which faculty could be most effectively utilized, and, thus, the “radical” group will add to our resources in the following fields in which added strength can readily be justified: economic development, economic history, industrial organization, and the economics of education.

I have spoken about the “radical” recruitment with a variety of members of the department, including some who would not want to be described as among my supporters. There were some expressions of uneasiness about the size of the group because of the fear that it might come to dominate the department and establish its own orthodoxy from which others would dissent only at their peril. Reservations were also expressed about one of the members of the group whose credentials were less conventional that those of the others. But, by and large, I received indications of support as long as standards of professional quality were maintained. I believe that the sentiments and concerns that were expressed to me were sincere and proper. I have tried to heed them. There is no question in my mind but that customary standards of professional quality have not only been met, but have been far surpassed in these cases. Of the four appointments at the two higher ranks, two, from every indication I received, had widespread support within the department and were extraordinarily well recommended by outstanding traditional economists. The third, although less well known to members of the department, received brilliant letters of recommendation and is regarded as a superb economist by those who have worked closely with him. Because of the reservations expressed with regard to the fourth member of the group, his credentials were subjected to exacting scrutiny, and I am fully satisfied that, despite his less conventional background, his, too, is a distinguished appointment. He has had an active and ongoing program of research; his publications have been well received by those who are most familiar with them, and, perhaps most importantly, the evidence is clear and uncontradicted that he is an extraordinary and gifted teacher.

There remains to be discussed the concern that was expressed regarding the establishment of a possible “radical” orthodoxy. I do not see how it would be possible for a relatively small minority of the department to gain control and establish an orthodoxy without my support, and I want to take this opportunity unequivocally to assure all members of the department that I do not intend to permit that to occur. I am committed as a matter of principle to the establishment of a balanced department and to the maintenance of an atmosphere of toleration for differing methodologies so that theorists and applied economists, neo-classicists and “radicals” can work together and flourish undisturbed by fears that their work will be judged, not by its quality, but by whether or not others in the department would do it in the same way. Education, at both the graduate and undergraduate levels, becomes merely indoctrination unless students are allowed to be exposed to all approaches and perspectives that are widely held within a discipline, and given the opportunity to select among them. It is my fervent hope that education, in the best sense of that term, can be given to students in economics at this institution.

Now that the offers discussed above have been formally extended on behalf of the university, it remains only for them to be accepted, and I have been led to believe that these acceptances may be expected. Since that is the case, I will suggest to all members of the department who do not share my enthusiasm over the success of this year’s recruitment that, at this stage, accommodations would be far more fruitful than recriminations. The Department of Economics at the University of Massachusetts is now “on the map.” We are in a situation in which we can compete far more effectively with the most outstanding departments in the recruitment of faculty. I have been told that there are a sizeable number of graduate students at Harvard who are waiting only for word of the actual appointments of Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis before applying for transfer here, and that is only symptomatic of what may safely be expected to be an enormous increase in the number and quality of the applicants for admission to our graduate program. A corresponding increase in the undergraduate interest in our economics may also be anticipated. In short, I believe that if our outstanding offers are accepted, we will have reached the point at which the frustrations and the miseries of the past can at long last be put behind us. I have little doubt that, within a relatively few years, we will deservedly have the reputation of being one of the genuinely outstanding departments of economics in the United States.

[signed]
Dean Alfange, Jr.
Dean, Faculty of Social
and Behavioral Sciences

DA,Jr/jhg

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Box 3, Red Folder “U of C Econ., Miscellaneous”.

____________________________

The U-Mass Dean
Requesting Cover from Galbraith

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts
University of Massachusetts
Amherst 01002

College of Arts and Sciences
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
Office of the Dean

February 2, 1973

Professor John Kenneth Galbraith
Chalet Bergsonne
Gstaad, Switzerland

Dear Professor Galbraith:

I would like to express to you my very deep appreciation for your indirect encouragement of my effort to bring to the Economics faculty of the University of Massachusetts a group of “radical” economists to broaden the base of what has heretofore been an extremely narrowly focused department. I was particularly gratified by the kind words of support that you included in the letter of reference that you sent me on Herb Gintis.

By this time, Sam Bowles will probably have spoken to you about the possibility of your sending me a general letter of support for the appointment of the five-man group that we hope to recruit over the next two years—Steve Resnick and Rick Wolff in 1973, and Sam Bowles, Herb Gintis, and Rick Edwards in 1974. So that your memory may be refreshed on the accomplishments of this group, I am enclosing a vita for each of them.

I am now reasonably satisfied that my proposal will be supported at the campus level by the Provost and the Chancellor, and, while I have no reason to expect that any objections will be forthcoming from either President Robert Wood or the Board of Trustees, I believe that a letter from you could be instrumental in persuading people that this is a respectable venture, should any questions be raised in the President’s office or at the Board of Trustees. I have heard, indirectly, that a member of either the Harvard or MIT faculty has already written to President Wood advising him to be cautious in giving his approval to my proposal, and your letter would serve as a vital counterweight to that point of view.

I think it would be most useful if you could address the letter to me, rather than to President Wood, because it would then allow me to present it to him at the most propitious time, but I would certainly bow to your preference on this matter.

Once again, I am deeply appreciative of your support.

Sincerely yours,
[signed]
Dean Alfange, Jr.
Dean, Faculty of Social
and Behavioral Sciences

DA,Jr/smr

Source: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith, Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526, Folder “Harvard Dept. of Economics. Discussion of appointments. Outside interests and reorganization, 1972-1973 (1 of 2)”.

____________________________

Galbraith Obliges

John Kenneth Galbraith
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

February 13, 1973

Dean Dean Alfange, Jr.
Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences
College of Arts and Sciences
South College
University of Massachusetts
Amherst, Massachusetts 01002

Dear Dean Alfange:

I was enormously impressed to hear of the proposed appointments—Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis together with Resnick, Wolff and Edwards—at the University of Massachusetts. I have always been proud of my association with the University—including that of an honorary alumnus—but never more than now. With one step you are putting the Amherst campus in the forefront of progressive economic thought in the United States. And this is at a time when discontent with the established modalities in economics—its divorce from reality, its commitment to small refinement—is notably strong among students, the aware public and within the profession itself.

As you surely know, Bowles and Gintis had the strong backing at Harvard of (with others) Kenneth Arrow, Wassily Leontief and myself—together we are three of the last four presidents of the American Economic Association and the only members of the Department to have held this position. Arrow, of course, is our currently active Nobel Prize winner. I know Renick and Wolff only by reputation—and their impressive vitaes—and Edwards only as one of our younger staff members, but they are all obviously men of interest and promise. All of them are concerned with breaking new ground—with bringing a searching and critical attitude to bear on existing ideas and institutions. At the same time all are committed to a rigorous methodology and all are strong defenders of the civil and tolerant tradition in our university and academic life. These matters seem to me important and especially, perhaps, the commitment to hard, diligent and rigorous work. There has been a dissenting tradition in university life in these last years which would liberate man from both physical and mental toil. These men have no part of such nonsense. And, in the end, it is always the critical, not the routine and sycophantic, work which wins respect and attention.

You will understand why, along with others, I regret that we will not have these scholars at Harvard. (I am especially disappointed about Gintis whose promotion the Department supported and who, I thought, would be ours.) I have found association with members of this group exceedingly agreeable, stimulating and specifically useful in recent years, and my own writing has benefited greatly therefrom. In case this seems like casual praise, may I say that I would personally welcome some opportunity for continued association with the seminar work which these men will be doing at Amherst or—better still—which they might be persuaded to offer at the Boston campus, if that is a practical possibility.

Let me again affirm my admiration for your initiative and congratulate you on your good fortune. As one of the most liberal states in the Union, it seems to me clear that Massachusetts and its University are worthy of each other.

Yours faithfully,
[signed]
John Kenneth Galbraith

JKG: mjh

Source:  Photocopy:  University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Box 3, Red Folder “U of C Econ., Miscellaneous”.
Carbon copy: John F. Kennedy Presidential Library. John Kenneth Galbraith, Personal Papers. Series 5. Harvard University File, 1949-1990. Box 526, Folder “Harvard Dept. of Economics. Discussion of appointments. Outside interests and reorganization, 1972-1973 (1 of 2)”.

____________________________

Handwritten Note in Support of the U-Mass Hiring from Gurley

Stanford University
Stanford, California 94305

Department of Economics

January 28, 1973

Dear Dean Alfange:

I have recently heard that the economics department at your university is considering hiring a group of younger economists—Bowles, Gintis, Woolf [sic], Resneck [sic], and Edwards—all of whom have contributed greatly to refashioning economics from its neo-classical form into a social science that has much more relevance to the present-day world. I admire the work of these young economists, some of which has already revolutionized certain areas of economics, and so I hope that they will in fact come to U. of M. as a group. If they do, the economics department there will soon become of the leading ones in the country so far as the younger generation of economists and graduate students are concerned.

I wish you and this undertaking the very best of luck.

Sincerely,
[signed] John G. Gurley
Professor of Economics

Source:  University of Chicago Archives. George Stigler papers. Box 3, Red Folder “U of C Econ., Miscellaneous”.

Image Source: Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis at the Sydney Radical Education Conference,  Copy of “Education for Liberation” by Robert Mackie.