Paul Samuelson’s Economics triggered a conservative cancel-culture backlash unlike any economics textbook before or after. In the previous post we saw how William F. Buckley, Jr.’s attack on the use by Yale professors of Samuelson’s Keynesian textbook forced the chairman of the Yale economics department to defend the honor of his department before the Old Blues (alumni).
M.I.T., home of the heretic Paul Samuelson, proved to be ground zero of this anti-Keynes reaction. This story is well-known now thanks to Yann Girard. The artifact transcribed for this post is a short essay published by Ralph Freeman who was head of the M.I.T. economics department from 1933 to 1958. In it Freeman defended the honor of his department much as Lloyd Reynolds’ essay did for Yale economics.
Cf. “Negotiating the ‘Middle-of-the-Road’ Position: Paul Samuelson, MIT, and the Politics of Textbook Writing, 1945-55,” by Yann Girard in MIT and the Transformation of American Economics (Annual Supplement to Volume 46, History of Political Economy, ed. by E. Roy Weintraub). Durham: Duke University Press, 2014.
______________________________
President to Department Chair
“Incoming!”
November 6, 1951
Professor Ralph E. Freeman
Economics Department
Dear Ralph:
Thank you for the Atlantic Monthly with McGeorge Bundy’s article which I have. I wish that his defense could have a wider circulation than it received in the Atlantic.
The Buckley book concerns me mainly because of its attack on Samuelson’s text and because of the wide distribution the Buckley book is receiving it is going to stir up a lot more people.
I venture to send you some of the things that come to my desk simply by way of keeping, you informed of the steady bombardment on Paul Samuelson’s text. This bombardment has been increasing in intensity. Yesterday a member of the Corporation came to see me about it. He had not previously had contact with the book, but he had been approached by various business people who were bitterly critical of the book and who brought to him a publication issued down south which raked over the old Namm comments [Benjamin Namm, “Would You Enter a Door Marked ‘Socialism’?” in Collier’s Weekly (April 29, 1950), pp. 34-49] upon the book.
I have just received a copy of the Brooking Institution study, “A Survey of Economic Education” by McKee and Moulton. I am afraid that the comments made in this study on page 17 in regard to economics textbooks will still further stir people up despite the qualifications which the authors carefully include in their statement.
I hasten to reassure you that despite the mounting criticism I stand no less steadfastly behind Samuelson’s right to take the point of view that seems right and proper to him. I think our best defense against criticism is the one that I repeatedly make, and which I assume to be wholly true, and that is that in our own teaching of economics at the Institute we do not follow any line, that we seek to present a balanced point of view and to give the student the tools so that he can reach his own conclusions. I was interested in Bundy’s statement in his Atlantic article that in attacking Mr. Buckley’s book, he did not wish to maintain that Yale was perfect and that “it is possible that Yale…..would benefit from the appointment of a strongly right-wing economist.
I am sure that so long as we can show that our own teaching of economics is not distorted in any direction and that we are not subtly indoctrinating students with any biased point of view, that we have an unimpregnable and sound position.
Yours cordially,
J. R. Killian, Jr.
JRK: mh
* * * * * * * * * *
Department Chair to President
“We’re cool kids, really”
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of
Economics and Social Sciences
Cambridge, Mass.
November 19, 1951
President James R. Killian
Room 3-208
Dear Jim:
As I indicated to you in a recent conversation, a group of the Department staff is preparing a new book of readings to supplement the textbook which we use in Economic Principles (14.01 and 14.02). I have been delaying writing you about this until final decision has been made as to the contents of this new book. However, a tentative table of contents is now available and I enclose it herewith.
As you will observe, the projected book of readings aims to present a variety of points of view ranging from radical to conservative, from Marx and Engels to Pope Leo XIII. There are also readings from classical economists such as Adam Smith, Ricardo and Bastiat. Articles criticizing recent government policies are included as well as various opinions on the economics of the defense program. The use of this book will enable us to do on a large scale what we are already doing with a limited number of collateral readings.
I should like to emphasize once more that the members of the Department as a group range around the center in their economic thinking. There are no extreme radicals or extreme conservatives among us. We try to take a view toward economic problems which is balanced and objective, and in class we try to present both sides of the controversial problems that come up for discussion.
From some of the attacks aimed at Samuelson’s book, I get the impression that economists are to be condemned if they do not unequivocally approve of everything now being done in the name of private enterprise. This attitude, of course, is absurd. If the economic system is to be kept in working order it must be subjected to a critical analysis. In fact it is the job of the economist to do just this.
Some of the more extreme conservatives who are today attacking the teaching of economics are inclined to adopt an ostrich-like attitude. After all we do live in a mixed economy — one that is partly private enterprise and partly government control. This is a fact. Should this fact be hidden from students? The answer is clear. But some of our critics talk as though any discussion of what they regard as undesirable trends should be eliminated or reduced to a minimum.
I can assure you that no member of this Department is trying to undermine the system of freedom. In fact, it is quite the reverse. We are all trying to understand it with a view to making it work better and last longer. Though there is disagreement amongst us on particular issues, we are in agreement on that basic issue.
I am not sure there is much more that I can say. We would be glad to meet any of our critics face to face in a friendly discussion of any points on which they think we are in error. We do not claim to have all the answers. Our analysis might well be improved as the result of more exchange of ideas with intelligent business men.
Yours sincerely,
[signed] Ralph
Ralph E. Freeman
REF:rw
[in pencil]
Copies of this letter sent to:
Mr Gray [Daniel M. Gray?] of Stoner Mudge [Stoner-Mudge Co., Inc. of Pittsburgh]
Bradley Dewey [Life Member of MIT Corporation, 1932-74]
Dr. Warner, Pres. Carnegie Tech [John Christian Warner (1897-1989), President 1950-65]
Donald Carpenter [Life Member of MIT Corporation, 1943-95]
John Hancock [Member of MIT Corporation, 1949-55]
Walter Beadle [Life Member of MIT Corporation, 1943-88]
* * * * * * * * * *
President to Department Chair
“Be like Yale.”
November 28, 1951
Professor Ralph E. Freeman
Economics Department
Dear Ralph:
Professor Shultz sent me a copy of an article by Lloyd G. Reynolds entitled “The State of Economics at Yale.” This article seemed to me to be a first-rate exposition of the philosophy and methods of the department at Yale. The material is set forth not in a defensive manner at all, and to me was fairly convincing.
This is the kind of statement that I have been hoping that someone might prepare on our own department program here. I think it would be of great help to the Visiting Committee and to the department and the administration in supporting the interests of the department.
I have returned the Reynolds article to Professor Shultz. If you haven’t seen it, you may be interested in borrowing it from him.
Yours cordially,
J. R. Killian, Jr.
JRK: mh
* * * * * * * * * *
Department Chairman to President
“You asked for it.”
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
Department of
Economics and Social Sciences
January 17, 1952
Dr. James R. Killian
Room 3-208
M.I.T.
Dear Jim:
I have had sent to you a little article entitled
“Economies at M.I.T.” You may recall that you suggested I try my hand at an article of this sort.
I hope it will be of some help in dealing with correspondence regarding the operations of the Department. Several others of the staff have read and expressed general approval of the contents. It has been suggested that it might be submitted to The Technology Review which might be willing to supply us with some reprints.
I welcome any criticisms or suggestions for additions or omissions.
Yours sincerely,
[signed:] Ralph
Ralph E. Freeman
REF: TW
cc: Dean Burchard
Source: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Office of the President, Records, 1930-1959, Box 93, Folder “8. Freeman, R.E., 1945-54”
__________________________
Note: the following is a transcription of the printed article found in the archive with Freeman’s letter. The typed draft sent to M.I.T. President Killian is identical, only minor editorial changes were made for publication.
Economics at M.I.T.
[1952]
The Economics Staff, with Diverse Backgrounds and Views, Aims to Impart a Technique of Logic for Solving Economic Problems in a Complex Society
By Ralph E. Freeman
One of the most difficult problems confronting the professional teacher of economics is the competition he meets from other and more effective teaching agencies. The writer refers to the educational impact of the home, the press, and the radio, as well as the propaganda coming from special-interest groups of one kind or another. These agencies have a competitive advantage. The teacher may be in contact with his class for only two or three hours a week for a part of a year, while his nonacademic competitors have been working on these students since their early childhood.
This disadvantage may seem to raise the question as to whether the economist can really teach the subject at all. Doubts on this score are further increased by the unsettled condition of the world during the last decade — a state of affairs that has created many uncertainties for the individual. A student worried about his future can hardly be blamed for indifference toward a subject which often seems dull and remote from his immediate interests. Another disadvantage is the youth and inexperience of the average college student. Favorable experience with the veterans who came to the Institute after World War II indicates that maturity is a great advantage in the study of economics. All these difficulties in the way of the teacher tend to make him humble when appraising the impression he leaves on the minds of the younger generation.
These obstacles, however, are also a challenge to the economist to improve his teaching techniques. The Economics staff at the Institute has been continually experimenting with new materials and methods and, though it is not fully satisfied with the results, progress has been achieved. We have tried to keep up with the increasing mass of quantitative data becoming available and to keep abreast of improvements in analytical techniques and of shifts in emphasis resulting from changing economic conditions.
An interesting example of such a shift is to be found in the treatment of unemployment and price levels. Prior to the 1930’s, these problems were of secondary interest to most economists. A great deal of what they wrote and taught was based on the assumption of full employment and relatively stable prices. The attention of economists was directed mainly to the way in which productive agencies were allocated among various industries and enterprises. The leading problem was to discover that distribution of human and material resources which would best promote the material well being of the people.
In recent years the economist’s inquiry has focused on economic fluctuations. Unemployment of resources has thus become a major problem for investigation along with a study of changes in the level of prices. Because ups and downs in employment and periods of inflation and deflation are associated with changes in income available to purchase goods and services, the spotlight has been turned on income analysis. The study of national income has been stimulated by the publication of improved statistics emanating chiefly from the Federal Government and by the development of new and better techniques of analysis.
These statements are not meant to imply that the traditional subjects have been abandoned. The economist is still trying to explain what the economic system is and how it operates. He is still concerned with the role of prices and profits in organizing economic activity and with the functions of money and markets in assigning labor and capital to their more productive uses. What has happened is a reorientation of these traditional inquiries around the problems of income, employment, and price levels. This new approach seems to have brought the study of economics nearer to the daily lives of people and closer to the problems with which businessmen are most vitally concerned.
The fact that the beginner in economics is normally young and inexperienced makes it necessary for the teacher to spend a good deal of time describing the facts of economic life. National income, for example, only becomes meaningful as it is broken down into components and expressed in quantitative terms. It is usually desirable, therefore, to start with a discussion of the income of individuals, corporations, and governments. How is the total income of the nation divided among families and groups? How are corporations organized? How do they compute their earnings? What is the role of government and what changes are taking place in the relation of the government to the individual and to business? These are among the questions with which the student of economics is confronted in the early stages of his study. In addition, in most of the subjects offered, time is devoted to describing various institutions such as banks, labor unions, and farmers’ organizations which help determine the nature and direction of economic activity.
The main objective of economic education, however, is not to fill the minds of students with facts and statistics, but to impart to them a technique of thinking by means of which they can analyze and solve economic problems for themselves. General principles must be developed that are applicable to a broad range of situations. Among these principles are those that can be applied in understanding changes in the price of goods, changes in wages, interest, and profits, in the general price level and in the national income.
The economist is concerned, for example, not so much with what the price of wheat is or has been, as he is with the forces that interact to determine the price of wheat or any other commodity. Though he may study past changes in national income, he is primarily interested in the reason why the national income shifts from one level to another. In other words, he tries to develop an integrated theoretical framework which can be used in the analysis of economic problems.
At M.I.T., the economist is regarded as a teacher, not a preacher. His function is not to radiate his own political views nor to propagandize for his own particular social philosophy. His job is to encourage students to form their own opinions. He is not too concerned with what these opinions are. His main job is to ensure that the opinions, whatever they may be, are reached through a logical process of thought, rather than as a result of prejudice or hearsay.
The Economics staff of about 30 full-time members has been recruited with this objective in view. When a new man is taken on, we ask two main questions. Is he equipped by training, experience, and intelligence to carry on creative, scholarly work in his chosen field? Is his personality such as to hold out the promise that he will be a competent teacher and a congenial and co-operative colleague? As the result of this method of selection, the group we now have includes no freaks or extremists. Though there is a broad diversity of view on many of the controversial issues of our times, all of the members of the Department share a desire to preserve and improve the free institutions of America. These men rank high in the profession and compare very favorably with economists in other leading institutions.
Some people may find it hard to accept the idea that divergence of opinion should be regarded as a healthy condition. Why, it may be asked, should I tolerate a colleague who disagrees with me on government controls, the merits of labor unions, taxation, monetary policy and other questions? My answer would be that differences of opinion give rise to a lively interchange of ideas which is an important element in the educational process. Progress in economics, or in any other scientific discipline, would be stifled if an effort were made to enforce conformance to a single pattern of thought.
No matter how firmly we may believe that a given policy is the correct one, there is always a good chance that the man with a different opinion may have something meritorious to propose on his side. A story is told of Al [Alfred E.] Smith who was traveling in upper New York State with two companions, a Protestant and a Catholic. It was early on a bitterly cold Sunday morning when the two Catholics arose to attend mass. Looking at the Protestant sleeping peacefully in his warm bed, Al Smith said to his friend: “Wouldn’t it be awful if he were right and we were wrong!”
The chance that the other fellow may be right, or partly right, makes it inadvisable to strive for unanimity of thought and opinion. Tolerance of diversity is necessary for the preservation of the spirit of free inquiry which is the breath of life of an institution devoted to education and research. Such tolerance is one of the main features distinguishing a democratic from a totalitarian society.
As indicated above, this concept is applied in the Institute’s educational practices. In all courses, whether they are offered to undergraduates or graduates, the Department of Economics and Social Science tries to present contrasting views and opinions. In the beginning course in Economic Principles, which has been required of all students at the Institute, this procedure is subjected to severe time limitation. But even here this practice is followed. For several years we have been using supplementary readings presenting divers points of view and a new collection of such readings to accompany the textbook has just been prepared — a compilation that includes extracts from economic writings of all sorts, ranging from Karl Marx to the National Association of Manufacturers.
Besides this course in Economic Principles, there are many others, both on the undergraduate and the graduate level. These include several in the fields of labor relations, statistics, finance, theory, and international economics. There are courses in business cycles, technological innovation, and in the economics of particular industries. The Department also offers courses in psychology and international relations. As the name implies, the Department of Economics and Social Science is one that covers a wide field. It is a part of the School of Humanities and Social Studies and has close ties with the activities of historians and others who come under the same administrative direction. The bringing together of a number of different social studies exerts a broadening influence on both staff and students. It tends to make us look at human beings as members of an ever-changing, complex society subject to many influences in addition to those of an economic nature.
Virtually every student at the Institute takes economics at some point in his program. In addition to those subjects included in the Humanities Program, designed for the Institute as a whole, other subjects are tailored to fit the needs of professional courses such as those offered by the Department of Business and Engineering Administration. The Department also offers a four-year curriculum for undergraduates — Course XIV — leading to a bachelor’s degree in Economics and Engineering. Through emphasis on relationships among engineering, economics, and human relations problems, this Course aims to provide students with an understanding of both technical and non-technical aspects of our industrial society.
There is also a graduate division. There are about 50 students in this group, most of whom are candidates for the Ph.D. degree. Many of these men have come to M.I.T. from liberal arts colleges. They go into government, business, labor unions, and teaching as professional economists.
Because the training of the professional economist, normally requiring about seven years, is spent mainly in the classroom and the library, his knowledge of actual business practices is more limited than if he were actively employed in industry. This limitation of experience is a handicap of which the men on the Department’s staff are acutely conscious. We do not have as much direct contact, as might be desired, with what goes on in the factories, banks, railroads, public utilities, and other business enterprises whose activities we study.
Efforts are being made to bridge the gap between economic theory and business practice. Graduate students are encouraged to find summer employment in industry. Some of the staff members have had temporary jobs in business or government. Others have had an opportunity to get into close touch with industry through research projects. In recent years they have undertaken investigations in textiles, shoes, coal, housing, electronics equipment, and a variety of other industries. Several of our instructors act as consultants to business firms and have had ample opportunity to rub shoulders with businessmen and get a better idea of their operations and problems.
The Department also brings in businessmen to meet with classes and join in round-table discussions. The system of Visiting Committees is also helpful in getting the staff into touch with leaders in industry, finance, and the professions. But more of these contacts are needed. If we are to keep our feet on the ground, we must have the counsel and criticism of men of practical affairs.
The development of the new School of Industrial Management should be of material assistance in strengthening our contacts with leaders in the business world. Though the Department of Economics and Social Science will not be administratively a part of this School, it will be housed in the same building and will co-operate in carrying out its educational and research program. E. P. Brooks, ’17, Dean of the School, who is now in charge, is consulting with business leaders and hopes to enlist their aid not only in planning the project but also in executing the plans. The Department of Economics and Social Science should benefit, at least indirectly, from these extensive outside relationships.
We are grateful to the Alumni and other friends of the Institute who have taken an interest in our work. The Department is indebted to the companies which have supported our Industrial Relations Section, and have helped finance graduate fellowships and research activities; it hopes for a continuation of this interest and support. Such support will be needed if the Department is to maintain its position and to improve and expand its operations.
The number of students being graduated from Course XIV is now relatively small. and the demand for their services is high; but in the future we hope to increase the enrollment, and employment conditions are not likely to continue as favorable as they are today. This Course is new and therefore not yet widely known. Because it combines basic education in engineering and science, as well as in economics, and other social studies, its graduates have a broad background that should make them useful in a wide variety of jobs.
This spring the Department of Economics and Social Science expects to move into the recently acquired Sloan Building along with the School of Industrial Management. Readers of this article are invited to come and visit us in our new quarters. We will show you our Industrial Relations Library and our Psychological Laboratory. We will tell you about the Scanlon Plan that is making a valuable contribution to the betterment of employer-employee relations. We will describe research projects under way and point with pride to a growing list of publications by members of the Department. We would like to discuss with you the plans we have for future development in psychology and political science. The reader may be interested in meeting some of the staff or in talking to groups of students and if he can bear it, we will also tell him about some of our trials and tribulations. And perhaps he may have something on his mind he would like to tell us. If so, we will gladly listen. Our new address will be 50 Memorial Drive.
Source: The Technology Review (April 1952), pp. 304-6, 320.
Image Source: This portrait of Ralph Freeman can be found in the 1950 yearbook. The copy used here comes from the MIT Museum website where it no date has been provided. Colorized by Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.