In 1950 the economics department of the Faculty of Political Science at Columbia University was able to amend the foreign language requirement for a Ph.D. in economics to allow mathematics to substitute for one of the two required non-English languages. In 1951 the sociology department wanted to follow suit but this led to a faculty meeting discussion “so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it” ending in a special committee being formed to consider the matter further. The eleven page report of that committee has been transcribed for this post. It follows the excerpt from the minutes of the faculty meeting that would lead to the appointment of the special committee.
The portions of the report that explicity address the issue of the substitution of mathematics literacy for additional foreign language literacy have been highlighted for convenience. Connoisseurs of the discourse of academic rule-making will find much to savour in the minutes and report below. I find it hilarious that a three person committee speaks of “majority” and “minority” recommendations when the humble fact was that “two of the committee members” disagreed with “the other one”.
It is unfortunate that I happened to have stopped my collection of faculty minutes with the year 1951, so that at the present moment I don’t know the ultimate fate met by the report’s recommendations at a later general meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, presumably sometime in early 1952.
___________________
Excerpt from the Minutes of the annual meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, April 27, 1951.
…Professor Lazarsfeld [Paul Felix Lazarsfeld, Professor of Sociology] offered a resolution to permit students in Sociology and Economics to substitute Mathematics for one of the two foreign languages normally required for the Ph.D. degree. In the discussion Professor Wuorinen [John H. Wuorinen, Professor of History] asked to be enlightened on the tendency of the motion. The answer was that Mathematics is a language and one far more necessary to the statistical student of society than any of the languages that consist of words.
Professor Evans [Austin Patterson Evans, Professor of History] opposed the motion on two grounds: first, the principle that all Doctors of Philosophy in Columbia University are rightly deemed able to use the literature of their fields in two foreign languages besides their own; second, the technicality that any change in the requirement must be approved by all three faculties.
From this point forward the discussion became at once so lively and so subtle that the Secretary was unable to keep up with it, and can provide only a feeble rendering of its reality. Professor Angell [James W. Angell, Professor of Economics] urged the far greater range of ideas available in his field through mathematical formulations; Professor Bonbright [James Cummings Bonbright, Professor of Finance] uttered the suspicion that our language requirement was not really effective, and implied that a mathematics requirement would be. Dean Krout rose to reinforce Professor Evans’ point that we could not take separate action as a Faculty.
Professor Evans introduced an amendment of which the effect was to reduce the requirement to one language for all fields. The amendment was not accepted by the first mover and Professor Angell called for a test vote on the original motion. It was carried 25-10; but given the Faculty lack of power to act independently on this matter, Professor Angell moved the appointment of a committee to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree. This suggestion was powerless to stem the debate. Professor Stigler [George Joseph Stigler, Professor of Economics]urged that all departments be treated equally. Professor Wuorinen questioned the relevance of mathematics to the purpose served by the linguistic equipment. Professor Davis [Kingsley Davis, Asssociate Professor of Sociology] wondered how much mathematics would equal one language. Dean Krout likewise wished to know what would be meant by “mathematics”. Professor Lazarsfeld replied that a committee exists and has expressed itself on the nature of the mathematical equipment required by social scientists. Professor Angell revealed that the Department of Economics has the specifications all worked out. Professors Macmahon [Arthur W. Macmahon, Eaton Professor of Public Administration] and Shoup [Carl Sumner Shoup, Professor of Economics] both agreed in considering mathematics a language and raised the spectre of a three-language requirement.
Finally the question was called for, and Professor Angell’s motion to appoint a committee was passed 26-9.
Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962, pp. 1039-40.
___________________
COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE ON LANGUAGE REQUIREMENTS
[Nov. 5, 1951]
Summary
Findings of Fact:
- The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements of faculties and departments.
- Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees retain residual powers which they may exercise when they wish.
- Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the requirements.
- The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirements, and they differed widely.
- In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took account of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages. The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-editing of the language requirement. Thus was established without specific discussion a Faculty rule requiring two languages.
Conclusions:
- The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
- The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement
Recommendations:
- That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
- That the minimum language requirements of the Faculty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
- That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.
A minority of the Special Committee recommends:
- That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
- That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.
FACULTY OF POLITICAL SCIENCE
REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE FOR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE LANGUAGE REQUIREMENT FOR THE PH.D. DEGREE
By letter, dated October 1, 1951, Dean John A. Krout constituted the undersigned as a Special Committee of the Faculty of Political Science to reconsider the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree.
The Special Committee was asked to treat the subject generally in its report and to give special attention to the following questions: (1) Is it wise for the Faculty to permit its Departments to modify the existing language requirement; and (2) If the Faculty determines that it is wise to permit Departmental modification, should the Faculty recommend to the University Council such a change in the language requirement rules without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?
A third question emerges from a reading of the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on April 27, 1951. Some of the members expressed the question in terms of debate over the authority of the Faculty of Political Science under the currently existing “constitutional law” of the University to take action on the language requirement without reference to the University Council for approval.
In an effort to answer the three questions raised, the Special Committee has divided its study into its component parts, namely (1) Have the Departments and the Faculty of Political Science present authority under the Statutes of the University, the resolutions of the Trustees and of the University Council and accepted. practice to change the language requirements for the Ph.D. degree; (2) From a policy point of view, should a change be made; and (3) From a policy point of view, should such a change be made without concurrence of the Faculties of Pure Science and Philosophy?
The Findings of Fact
(a) Under the Statutes of the University the University Council and the Trustees here residual powers which they may exercise as they wish.
This finding is supported by the following evidence:
The Trustees of the University have supreme authority over the “educational policy” of the University. No proposal involving a change in this policy may take effect until after approval of the Trustees, or until after the termination of the second meeting following the introduction of the proposal, in the event that the Trustees remain silent on the subject.
This is so by virtue of the terms of Article 24 of the Statutes of the University, which reads as follows:
Chap. II. The University Council
Art. 24. LIMITATION OF POWERS. No exercise of the powers conferred upon the Council which involves a change in the educational policy of the University in respect to the requirements of admission or the conditions of graduation, shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting of the Trustees shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.
The University Council has the right under the Statutes of the University to consider every proposal, submitted by the Faculties which involves a change in the educational policy of the University.
This is so by virtue of Articles 33 and 142 of the Statutes of the University, which read as follows:
Chap. III. Faculties and Administrative Boards
Art. 33. LIMITATION OF POWERS. Every proposed exercise of the power conferred on any of the Faculties, which involves a change in the educational policy of the university in respect to the requirements of admission, the program of studies or the condition of graduation shall be submitted to the University Council before being recommended to the Trustees, and such recommendation shall not be laid before the Trustees until the Council has acted thereon, or until another meeting of the Council has been held, subsequent to that at which the recommendation was submitted. No exercise of such power by any Faculty shall take effect until the same shall have been submitted to the Trustees at one meeting, and another meeting shall have been held subsequent to that at which it was submitted.
Chap. XIV. Faculty of Political Science
Art. 142. DEGREES. (b) Ph.D. Candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy shall be qualified to receive that degree upon compliance with the conditions prescribed by the University Council by concurrent action with the Faculty of Political Science.
While the authority of the Trustees and the University Council is clearly superior to that of the Faculties in matters concerning the “educational policy” of the University (which would seem to include the language requirement for the Ph.D. degree), the record seems to indicate that this authority has been delegated to the Faculties. The second finding of fact, is therefore:
(b) The University Council delegated to the Faculties of the University in a resolution of the year 1916 its power to specify language requirements for faculties and departments.
The finding is supported by the following evidence:
The Minute book of the University Council contains the following resolution, dated April 18, 1916, which reads as follows in its pertinent provisions:
“A student admitted to the University under the jurisdiction of the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy or Pure Science, who wishes to become a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which his research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:
-
- The student must have satisfied the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the faculty prescribe.
Such an interpretation of, the meaning of the resolution of the University Council, dated April 18, 1916, is supported by the action of the Faculty of Political Science in years subsequent to the adoption of the University Council’s resolution. The record is sufficiently clear on this score to permit the Special Committee to make the third finding of fact:
(c) Since 1916 the Faculty of Political Science has concerned itself with language requirements and has not raised with the University Council in any formal manner changes in the language requirements.
This finding is supported by the following evidence:
On various occasions the Faculty has altered the language requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, as will be indicated later in this report, but after April 18, 1916, the Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science and of the University Council are silent as to any reference of changes in the language requirement to the University Council. References to the University Council appear in the minutes before April 18, 1916.
Compare the minutes of the meeting of the Faculty of Political Science, held on February 25, 1916 (Minute Book, page 404), with the minutes of the meetings of the Faculty of Political Science, held on March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468) and on February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488).
While the Faculty has established a practice of acting on language requirements without reference to the University Council, a minority of the Special Committee feels it desirable to raise with the Faculty the question of whether it might not be courteous to inform the University Council of changes in the future, with an indication that the change has been made under the provisions of the delegation of authority under the resolution of April 18, 1916. There would then be no possibility of a misunderstanding. The majority of the Special Committee believe such informative procedure unnecessary.
The record of the action of the Faculty of Political Science on the language requirements is sufficiently clear to permit the special Committee to make the following fourth finding of fact.
(d) The Faculty of Political Science left the departments free up until the year 1941 to prescribe their own language requirement, and they differed widely.
This finding is supported by the following evidence:
The Minute Book of the Faculty of Political Science records the following action of the Faculty on language requirements for the Ph.D. degree.
(1) December 12, 1913: (Minute Book, page 371)
“The Dean then presented to the Faculty for its consideration certain resolutions of the Joint Committee on Instruction of the several graduate faculties, as follows:
…After the completion of at least one year of residence…..students may present themselves for examination in any two of the subjects, of graduate instruction. The satisfaction of this examination together with a demonstration of ability to read French and German or such other languages as may be accepted will entitle them to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy ……”
The matter was referred to the Committee on Instruction for consideration and report.
The Committee on Instruction reported at, the meeting of January 23, 1914, and the following was ordered entered upon the Minutes of the Faculty: (Minute Book page 375).
“…. (2) Each department shall prescribe, by regulations approved by the faculty and by the dean, the subjects and languages in which the student must show himself proficient and the manner in which his proficiency shall be determined.”
(2) February 25, 1916: (Minute Book, page 404)
“The Dean then recommended to the Faculty the adoption of the following revised regulations for the control of the award of the degree of Doctor of Philosophy:
Students who wish to become candidates for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy will be matriculated by the Dean upon the recommendation of the department in which their research work lies. Departments will recommend students for matriculation upon the following conditions:
….2. The candidate must satisfy the department that he is proficient in such languages as it may under the rules of the Faculty prescribe.”
The recommendation was adopted by the Faculty and referred to the University Council. It was this resolution which evoked from the University Council the resolution quoted above in connection with the discussion of the powers of the Faculty.
(3) March 28, 1919 (Minute Book, page 468)
“The following were moved as a substitute for the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy approved by the faculty at its meeting of May 25, 1916.
-
- Admission to Candidacy.
“2. Languages. The applicant shall demonstrate his ability to read at least one modern European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the professor in charge of the subject of his primary interest or of his researches, be deemed essential for the prosecution of his studies. Normally the requirements in the several fields are as indicated in the list of subjects below. The language requirement must be satisfied at least one academic year prior to the admission of the applicant to candidacy for the degree.”
(4) February 13, 1920 (Minute Book, page 488)
A substitution in the requirements approved on March 28, 1919 was moved and accepted:
“4. Languages. The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to express himself in correct English and to read at least one European language other than English and such additional languages as may, within the discretion of the Executive Officer of the appropriate Department, be deemed essential for each subject as indicated in the following paragraphs:”
There were then listed a considerable number of subjects with varying language requirements for each. There were as much as four languages required of those obtaining their degree in Ancient History, and in American Government, always in addition to English.
(5) April 19, 1940 (Minute Book, page 865)
The Faculty voted to rephrase the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy to read as follows, In the pertinent section:
“6. Matriculation as a Candidate for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy. After not less than one year of graduate residence, after satisfying the department that he is proficient in such languages as it prescribes for a candidate and after satisfying the department that he is prepared to undertake research under its direction, the prospective candidate will be recommended by the department to the Dean for matriculation as a candidate for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy.”
The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1940-1941 continued to carry without change the paragraph adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, and quoted under (4) above. See Announcement for 1940-1941 at pp. 12-13. An examination on the list of subjects with the language requirements for each indicates that there was no longer a single subject which required but one language other than English. All required two languages or more.
The crucial change in Faculty practice on the language requirement occurred in 1941. The Special Committee finds it possible to make the following fifth finding of fact.
(e) In 1941 a re-editing of the Announcement of the Faculty of Political Science took count of the fact that no department required at the time less than two languages.
The re-edited Announcement was adopted by the Faculty without specific reference to the re-edited language requirement. In effect there was established in this manner a Faculty rule requiring two languages when no general Faculty rule requiring a specific number of language had existed previously.
This finding is supported by the following evidence:
The Announcement of the Faculty for the year 1941-1942 changed one word in the paragraph which had been adopted by the Faculty on February 13, 1920, namely the word “one”. This word was changed to “two”, making the statement on languages read as follows: “The candidate must have demonstrated his ability to read at least two languages other than English…” The list of subjects, which had been printed in the Announcement in previous years, continued to appear, there being varying requirements for each subject, but none less than two languages.
No Minute of Faculty action concern specifically the question of the language requirement. Professor Austin P. Evans, who was Chairman of the Faculty’s Committee on Instruction at the time, has informed the Special Committee that he recalls making the change in editing the Announcement. He noted that all of the subjects listed required two languages, and to avoid any confusion on the part of students in reading a general rule requiring only one language and a list of subjects in which all required at least two languages; he made the change. The Announcement was then submitted, for adoption by the Faculty, so that the change in the general statement of the language requirement was adopted as a new Faculty rule.
In the Announcement for the following year, 1942-1943, the list of subjects with the specific foreign languages required of candidates for the Ph.D. degree in each field was dropped. The list has never reappeared, leaving the sole statement of the language requirement the paragraph which has been altered for the Announcement of 1941-1942.
No Faculty action has been found authorizing requirement by subject. It is possible that the deletion occurred as a part of the campaign of the Secretary of the University for shortened Announcements to save money. Whatever the reason, the change strengthened the rule, as amended in the previous year, and removed any indication that the rule had originally been a summarizing of the requirements as established by each department for the subjects under its control.
Conclusions
Having made the above five findings of fact, the Special Committee believes it possible to conclude at this point the following:
- The Faculty of Political Science is free to establish and change language requirements without reference of its proposals on each occasion to the University Council for approval.
- The Faculty of Political Science established a rule of two foreign languages in 1941 by its action on the re-edited Announcement
Considerations Underlying Recommendations
In seeking to find the basis for appropriate recommendations to the Faculty, the Special Committee has examined the report of the special committee for the review of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree, appointed by the President of the University in the autumn of 1937, under the Chairmanship of Professor Woodbridge. The “Woodbridge Committee” report is the most recent of the exhaustive studies of the subject of the requirements for the Ph.D. degree. Reference was made to the language requirement, and this reference seems pertinent to the matter under discussion in this report.
In a preliminary report, dated May 12, 1937 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 349) the Woodbridge Committee proposed that no one should be admitted to candidacy for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy until he had passed an examination. In stating the ground to be covered by such an examination, the Woodbridge Committee included “command of English usage, and ability to read such foreign languages as the department may require”. The Committee suggested further that “The examination including that in foreign languages shall be written, and the quality of the writing be used as a test of the student’s command of English.”
In its final report, dated April 21, 1939 (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 361) the Woodbridge Committee reaffirmed the recommendation of its preliminary report that there be an examination of prospective candidates, but said that it had changed its mind as to the manner of administration and was now of the opinion that the type of examination to be given should be determined by the department concerned and not by any central authority.
Parts of the Woodbridge Committee report were adopted by the Faculties of Political Science, Philosophy and Pure Science in March, 1939. The resolution of the Faculties, as set forth in the record of the University Council (see Minute Book of the University Council, page 373) reads, as follows, in its pertinent provisions:
“1. An applicant may be admitted as a regular graduate student only after he has satisfied, in addition to the general University requirements for admission, any further requirements which may be specified by the Department of his major interest, and which may relate especially to the content and the quality of his prior studies and to his ability in the use of foreign languages.”
The practice of other Universities also seems appropriate to consideration of recommendations. The Special Committee has been informed of the results of a surrey of 18 Universities conducted by the Department of Economics of the University Oregon communicated to Dean John A. Krout by letter dated July 26, 1951. It reads as follows:
“About half of the Universities allow no substitutions or restrict substitutions, such as by prohibiting use of two romance languages. Five Universities have provided for substitution of subjects for a language. These are Harvard, Chicago, Columbia, Minnesota and Stanford, the substitutions being allowed mainly on economics in the first three institutions. Mathematics and statistics are the usual substitutes, though the practices vary. Ohio State requires only one language of candidates with a high competence in one language. The faculty of the University of Oregon was not disposed to allow any modification of language requirements, although the Economics Department and some other departments were seeking modification.”
The Special Committee has considered whether it is desirable that the Faculty of Political Science prescribe minimum language requirements for all departments, and the majority has decided in favor of such a minimum. Such a provision minimizes the probability of subsequent intervention by the Faculty in the affairs of the departments. It is believed also that a large number of the members of the Faculty share the majority’s view that, in so far as it is feasible, there should common minimum standards for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy throughout the Faculty. Prior to 1941 when departments were autonomous in the matter of language requirement they had in fact arrived at a common minimum which became a matter of Faculty decision thereafter.
The establishment of a minimum requirement involves the level of the minimum. The minimum resulting from the decisions of the separate departments prior to 1941 and thereafter endorsed by the Faculty was two foreign languages. For the majority of the students in the Faculty this still seems to be the minimum number of languages required for competence in their fields, especially to give them access to the work of eminent scholars of the past and present. In some fields of study there is a growing body of ideas in mathematical form. It seems desirable therefore, to acknowledge the increasing importance of this means of communication by permitting students to present mathematics in place of one language. We do not suggest that this substitution be permitted by all students but that it be allowed by the departments only where it appears to be especially appropriate to the individual student’s program of study. In fields where statistical analysis is important or desirable this option will assist the student who desires to acquire the mathematical basis for graduate work in statistical methods. It will also facilitate the use of analysis in mathematical form.
There may remain students who appear to need neither mathematics nor foreign languages as suggested above. The Special Committee is somewhat doubtful whether there are such students because in most fields there are works in the basic theory or philosophy in foreign languages or mathematics to which the student should have access. Furthermore, the Doctor of Philosophy degree should certify more than competence in a selected and possibly narrow field of study. It should indicate also a measure in a cultural maturity. Finally students trained by the Faculty are likely to participate in increasing numbers in international associations, private and public, and the University should do nothing, especially at the present time, to discourage the acquisition of a knowledge of languages, except where it is necessary to permit some students to participate competently in the use of mathematical forms for the communication of ideas. These considerations all suggest the maintenance of the present requirement of a minimum of two languages apart from the exception above mentioned in favor of mathematics.
A minority of the Special Committee, while accepting in full the majority’s argument as to the importance of language for any scholar, dissents on the method proposed for enforcing the requirement. The minority finds that language requirements were dictated successfully by the departments without Faculty intervention prior to 1941. The development of the Faculty rule in 1941 seems not to have been caused by any abuse of autonomy by the departments. On the contrary it followed departmental action, which in several cases went beyond it. Its origin as the result of re-editing of the Announcement seems to the minority to have presented no occasion for thoughtful consideration of the change in principle involved. The minority would prefer to return to the procedure existing prior to 1941 when the departments set their own requirements, subject always to the authority of the Faculty to veto the proposal of a department if it seems to have been made without adequate consideration of the issues.
Such a return to departmental autonomy, subject to a reserved right of faculty veto seems to conform to the spirit of the Woodbridge Report. It also seems to have merit in that it would render unnecessary the present attempt of some departments to reduce the language requirements for their students by attempting to fit some other requirement for scholarship in the discipline under the rubric of “language”. Although the minority appreciates that there is reason to argue that some of these substitutions may aid communication between scholars, the minority would prefer calling the subjects what they are, and leaving the departments free to adopt them, whether they be mathematics, statistics, political theory or historiography, without attempting to call them a “language.”
To the minority the mixing of mathematics with the language requirement seems only to becloud the issue, which can be kept clear if no rigid Faculty rule of two foreign languages is set. The departments in the past indicated that they could be trusted. The Faculty has ample power through the veto to restrain any department in the future which exceeds the bounds of the “reasonable”. In consequence the minority prefers the return to the pre-1941 situation, with reservation in the Faculty of the veto with which it can maintain the uniformity as seems to be required.
Recommendations
In the light of the foregoing, the majority of the Special Committee makes the following recommendations:
- That the Faculty of Political Science continue to maintain a rule establishing minimum language requirements for the Ph.D. degree, to which all departments of the Faculty must adhere.
- That the minimum language requirements of the Faulty of Political Science be two languages other than English, it being understood that mathematics may be substituted for one of the two languages if a department so desires.
- That the Faculty of Political Science continue to act in accordance with the delegation of authority by the University Council in 1916, since there appears to be no necessity for parallel action in matters of language requirements by the three graduate faculties.
The minority of the Special Committee recommends:
- That the Faculty of Political Science reaffirm the rule established before 1941 under which the departments were permitted to establish such language requirements as they felt met the purposes of the educational program of the department.
- That the Faculty of Political Science retain its power to veto departmental action, if the action seems to a majority of those present at a Faculty meeting to have been taken without reasonable consideration of the factors involved.
Action by the Faculty Alone
One question asked of the Special Committee remains unanswered, namely, Should the Faculty recommend to the University Council a change in the language requirements without the concurrence of the Faculties of Philosophy and Pure Science?
Since the Faculty’s Special Committee is recommending no change in the existing the Special Committee, the question is academic, but if the Faculty should vote with the minority, the question would be pertinent.
Even if the Faculty should vote to change the rule, there appears to be necessity for parallel action by the three graduate faculties, in view of the delegation of power by University Council in 1916 to the faculties. As the requirements for competent training in the three faculties differ markedly, it is desirable to permit each to deal independently with this problem.
Respectfully submitted
Arthur R. Burns
John N. Hazard
Richard B. Morris
November 5, 1951
Source: Columbia University Archives. Minutes of the Faculty of Political Science, 1950-1962.
Image Source: From Roberto Ferrari, “August Rodin and The Thinker“, Columbia University Library Blog. June 8, 2014.