In can hardly be surprising that the relationship between a visiting committe dominated by business people and an academic department of economics might suffer from incompatible visions of what constitutes “good” economic research, teaching and policy.
The Harvard’s visiting committee in 1950 thought the secret sauce missing from a proper economics department was a professorial advocate of business enterprise to counterbalance an alleged dominance of Keynesian and socialist positions. This was the principal criticism of the committee. Other shortcomings claimed were inadequate planning/coordination between graduate and undergraduate programs, too few professorial heavyweights teaching in the undergraduate program, and a tendency for professors’ policy consulting activities to crowd out their expected instructional and research duties.
The chairman of the economics department’s visiting committee at mid-century was the Chicago businessman, Clarence B. Randall (Harvard A.B., 1912).
Harvard President’s James B. Conant’s conclusion in his 1952 response:
Over the last fifteen years the Department of Economics has been at fault in not attempting to meet the Visiting Committee in a spirit of wholehearted cooperation. The Board of Overseers has been at fault, I venture to suggest, by not widening the membership of the Visiting Committee to include more professional economists and more businessmen who have been working closely with university economists.
___________________________
For private circulation NOT for publication
CONFIDENTIAL REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNIVERSITY TO THE TWO GOVERNING BOARDS ON THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS OF THE FACULTY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES
(Accepted by President and Fellows of Harvard College on January 7, 1952, and by the Board of Overseers on January 14, 1952)
TO THE PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE:
TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF HARVARD COLLEGE:
On November 27, 1950, the Chairman of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics reported in writing to the Board of Overseers. The report, which is attached, raises serious questions about future appointments to the permanent staff. As the President of Harvard is responsible for presenting to the two Governing Boards the names of those who he is persuaded should be the future professors, such questions concern him directly. I have, therefore, felt obliged to examine personally the validity of the “most pressing criticism” in the report of November 27, 1950. My findings and recommendations are contained in this confidential report which I hope may be accepted by formal vote of each of the Governing Boards in January.
For a number of months now I have been studying the teaching of economics at the university level. In so doing, I have talked with academic economists on three continents, with those employed by business and by government, and with members of the business community. I am convinced that the Harvard Department of Economics is a distinguished department. As far as the types of economic theory and analysis presented to the students are concerned, it is typical of departments of economics in the leading universities of the English-speaking world. The educational problems discussed in the first seven paragraphs of the Visiting Committee’s report are likewise typical. Indeed, they are not confined to teachers of economics. Difficulties in reconciling the needs of the undergraduate and the graduate student with the scholarly pursuits of a professor and calls for expert services are to be found in the majority of the departments of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. It is the constant aim of the administration to hold the balance even between the various types of teaching and research. To this end, the informed criticisms of visiting committees are helpful. But important as these questions are, they do not warrant a special written report from the President of the University. Therefore, I shall state here only that I am satisfied that the department is taking steps to improve the teaching of undergraduates and will take further steps in this direction, particularly as regards the introductory course.
My examination of the status of economics in American universities today has revealed the fact that in at least fourteen major universities questions are being raised by persons who are not economists about the teaching of economics. It is a curious fact that at the same period of history in which there is a certain degree of national unrest about academic economists, one group of businessmen (the Committee for Economic Development) is closely associated with professors of economics in a series of investigations of vital problems. It seems a pity that the confidence that part of the business community has in at least some university economists does not receive as much publicity as do the attacks by others who claim our schools and colleges are teaching “collectivism.” Not that any such charge is made by the Overseers Committee here at Harvard. What is criticized is only “that the Department as presently constituted lacks balance with respect to the viewpoint of its members.” This is a reasonable criticism and warrants a careful investigation. The Visiting Committees of the Board of Overseers are both special pleaders for and critics of the departments or faculties which they visit. That doubts and questions should be raised by them from time to time on any or all matters is obviously of great advantage to the University.
At the outset of my inquiry the difficulties of formulating criteria for cataloguing the viewpoints of economists became evident. I tried the test of Keynesian and anti-Keynesian but soon discovered I was using a totally inadequate analytic tool; I became convinced that Keynes himself was an anti-Keynesian before he died. The Overseers report states categorically that there are “one or more socialists” in the Department. With this statement I must respectfully but firmly disagree and in so doing point out both the difficulties and the necessity of defining terms in the social sciences. The term “socialist” as used in countries where socialism is a live political issue means one who advocates by democratic political action “the nationalization of the means of exchange, production and distribution.” It might be a good thing to have a socialist on the staff of a department of economics, but as a matter of fact there are no socialist professors of economics at Harvard today.
One could classify economists, at least theoretically, in terms of their political beliefs, but except for communists and socialists this is a very difficult matter in the present flux of political opinion. Furthermore, people’s political convictions, like their religious beliefs, are often subject to violent change. Everyone speaks of the dangers of introducing political criteria into the consideration of academic appointments. If analyzed, I believe these dangers stem largely from the fact that political views do not represent a bias relevant to an academic intellectual discipline as does a philosopher’s adherence to a philosophic doctrine such as idealism or logical empiricism. Political opinions are temporary, emotional, and subject to change under social duress; it is to avoid such duress that politics and religion are considered “out of bounds” in judging persons for academic posts in the United States in the mid-twentieth century.
The Chairman of the Visiting Committee in his report speaks of a “social spectrum.” I have attempted to use this concept to classify present-day economists as radical or conservative without getting into the political quagmire to which I have just referred. I have had little success except that in a vague sort of way a number of informed observers have expressed the view that the leading universities of the nation were about equally radical or conservative as regards their departments of economics. But if the President is to direct a department or an ad hoc committee as to future appointments, he must have some more definite criteria as to a man’s position in the social spectrum, and these I have failed to find. For example, I find it difficult to decide whether advocacy of strengthening the Sherman Anti-Trust Act is radical or conservative. I ask myself was the Harvard Department a generation ago radical or conservative? In retrospect it seems conservative to many; forty years ago it was considered radical, as the free-trade point of view predominated. When I first took office, some discussion in the Board of Overseers indicated that there were those who used a man’s attitude towards organized labor as the touchstone of his radical or conservative outlook. This is no longer so. As a consultant to the Government, an economist may take a strong position as to need for immediate drastic action to offset a depression or control an inflation. In recent years such rather technical economic opinions have bulked large in some people’s minds in classifying economists as being to the left or right. For example, if you confine your attention to fiscal policy in the immediate past, you could find two professors in the Harvard Department today to place in opposition to one another. But I have become convinced that no criteria of lasting value in terms of a social spectrum can be devised for the guidance of any body charged with responsibility for nominating candidates for appointment in a department of economies.
Balance in a department of economics today, I have concluded. should be first, balance between special fields, and second, balance between types of methods employed by the professors. As to fields such as labor, agriculture, money and banking, the Committee has raised no issue; there is no problem special to economics here. The question arises in chemistry, in history, in biology, to name but three instances. As far as I can, I insist that for the permanent appointments a balance of fields be a secondary consideration since an adequate coverage of all subjects can be taken care of through appointing assistant professors. Rigid insistence on having each field represented by a permanent appointment limits the number of candidates and tends to encourage the appointment of “good” rather than “excellent” men. The same is true as regards methods. Yet, as in the case of special fields, I must admit that there should be some effort made to achieve a balance among the permanent members of the staff, provided that in so doing there is no sacrifice of the quality of the appointments.
From my studies I have concluded that a layman may well classify economists in three groups according to the methods they employ: (1) theorists using models and the logical deductive approach; (2) investigators concerned with statistical aggregate analysis; (3) an empirical approach to specific problems as illustrated by the ad hoc case study of business problems. I have the impression that, in general, college departments of economies are relatively weak as regards the third of these methodological classes. In contrast, the Harvard School of Business Administration is strong here and until recently has been less concerned with the other two methodological approaches. The Harvard Department of Economies, if I understand the Chairman correctly, has felt for some time that this relative methodological weakness needed correction. Two professors of the Business School faculty are now giving a course in the Department. Further, in a letter replying to the criticism of the Visiting Committee, the Chairman, speaking for the Department, writes:
“As a result of your letter and our discussions with you, we have carefully considered the question of balance of fields of interest in the Department. While we are not prepared to concede that we are more unbalanced than other departments of economics, we agree that our balance could be improved. In particular, our Department, like most others, could be improved if we had at least one member whose major interest was what we might call the economics of enterprise. We believe that this is a field of growing importance, but it is one that has not been widely cultivated in economics departments. An additional member of the Department who could give an undergraduate course in the Economics of Enterprise and a graduate seminar on the same lines would contribute to a better balance of the Department. We suggest that the Corporation consider allocating an additional permanent position to the Department at the full professor level.”
To follow this suggestion would lead to no end of difficulties in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences; other departments would be quick to press for an increase in their quota of permanent places. But I am glad to report that much the same end can be accomplished because the Dean of the Business School has expressed his interest in a joint appointment. With his consent and with the concurrence of the Provost I therefore recommend that the Corporation agree to appoint one full professor of economics over and above the quota allowed by the schedule of appointments for the Faculty of Arts and Sciences established a decade or so ago. I further recommend that this professor hold an appointment in three faculties, namely, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business Administration, and the School of Public Administration, and that his salary be charged to the three faculties in such amounts as the President shall determine. Further, that the nomination for the new chair be made by the permanent members of the Department of Economics of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences and six members of the Faculty of the School of Business Administration appointed by the President after consultation with the Dean, the two groups to sit together as a nominating committee, and the name or names thus nominated to be passed on by an ad hoccommittee as is usual in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
The directive to the nominating committee would be as follows: to submit one or more names of men of character, high scholarly distinction and first-rate teaching ability who have an understanding of business as it is actually operated. To that end, the man in question should have had contact as a scholarly investigator or consultant with the operations of industry and commerce; he should have an awareness of the positive role of business enterprise in a changing and developing economy. His teaching would be directed towards presenting to Harvard College students a realistic view of business management and its relation to the total economy. If this report is accepted by the two Governing Boards, I shall proceed with this appointment.
The last paragraph of the report of the Visiting Committee requires special comment. It is stated that “This problem of balance within the Department will not be solved by the ad hoc committees. There only the qualifications of the particular man are under consideration. It is not the function of such a committee to determine whether the man’s appointment will restore balance or add to lack of balance.” I must beg leave to take exception to this exposition of the role of the ad hoc committees, and in so doing call the attention of the new members of the Board of Overseers to the Report of the Special Committee to Review the Operation of the “Ad Hoc” Committees in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The ad hoc committees determine nothing definitely, that is true. But they advise the President and through him the two Governing Boards as to whether or not the appointment suggested by the department is the best possible appointment that can be made all things considered; and among the considerations are the needs of the department for teachers and scholars in this or that subdivision of the field and with this or that scholarly technique at their disposal.
An ad hoc committee does far more than pass on “the qualifications of the particular man under consideration”; an ad hoc committee often recommends that someone other than the candidate nominated by the department should be considered. And such recommendations have more than once resulted in the appointment of a person who had not even been on the list considered by the department. As presiding officer of these ad hoc committees, I can certify from experience as to their effectiveness; I can assure the members of the two Governing Boards that in the field of economies, as elsewhere, I shall endeavor to see to it that the names I present are in my opinion the names of the best people to appoint. For the temporary appointments at the assistant professor and instructor level, the Dean of the Faculty performs the same function as the ad hoc committee.
The acceptance of this report by the two Governing Boards will mean that they agree with me that the issue of an individual’s radicalism or conservatism or a man’s political attitude is inadmissible in connection with his appointment. (I have made it clear elsewhere that I would not be a party to the appointment of a member of the Communist Party, for reasons I need not here repeat.) Balance between special fields and different methodological approaches in economics we shall strive for, and I recognize that it is a proper function of the Governing Boards from time to time to see that this is done, though not with respect to a particular appointment. There will be no directives to the nominating group or the ad hoc committee in terms of a man’s political views or his position on what has been referred to as a social spectrum. Since that will be the case in economics as in other fields, only the validity of the evidence I present as to a man’s character and competence as a scholar and teacher will be relevant to the decision about an individual in either the Corporation or the Board of Overseers. Once the ground rules are determined by the two Boards, the responsible officials must be trusted to operate within them. On no other basis, in my opinion, can this University function satisfactorily.
In conclusion I wish to express my deep appreciation for the spirit in which the report of the Visiting Committee is written. The Chairman states that it is not his intention “to initiate controversy or to suggest that we view with extreme alarm any phase of the Department’s work.” And later in the report he states, “No friend of academic freedom need fear the purpose which underlies our comment on this matter. . . We would be the first to insist that a professor must teach that which he honestly believes and we know that the fact that this differs from viewpoints which we may hold as individuals is altogether immaterial.”
I feel sure that the Chairman speaks not only for his Committee but for the whole Board of Overseers when he makes these statements, which are by no means universally accepted today in the United States. I need hardly state that even questions concerning the criteria to be employed in judging candidates for appointment in controversial areas — questions that touch sensitive nerve centers in a university today — are quite within the province of the visiting committees. Indeed, no one can have the slightest objection to the critical discussion of these matters in a university, provided, as in this case, the discussion is initiated by duly constituted committees within a constitutional framework.
Unfortunately, the public criticisms of professors in these days do not all conform to the restrained pattern set by this report. Rather the demands for “firing” or “muzzling” professors or censoring textbooks have increased in number and intensity in the last few years. I suppose all members of the two Boards are familiar with such irresponsible attacks as those of Zoll in his “Reducators” and the rather violent statements about the teaching of economics emanating from more reputable sources. I mention these matters for they have a certain relation to the problem that a president of a university faces today when he must recommend action in a controversial area such as economics. The analogy with his distant predecessors’ problems in theology comes to mind.
The existence of hostile critics and extremists makes it imperative for fair-minded men concerned with the future of education to thrash out their differences of opinion around a table. Over the last fifteen years the Department of Economics has been at fault in not attempting to meet the Visiting Committee in a spirit of wholehearted cooperation. The Board of Overseers has been at fault, I venture to suggest, by not widening the membership of the Visiting Committee to include more professional economists and more businessmen who have been working closely with university economists. But the situation is better in both respects than it was a few years past; in my opinion it can be still further improved.
In these critical days when economic decisions play so vital a part in determining national and international policies, it is unfortunate that an atmosphere of hostility exists to some degree throughout the country between the management of industry and academic economists. Whatever can be done here at Harvard to increase the understanding between men of good will within and without the University cannot fail to be of service to the nation.
Respectfully submitted,
JAMES B. CONANT
January 3, 1952
___________________________
No. 2 REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TO VISIT THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
TO THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS OF HARVARD COLLEGE:
Some three years have elapsed since a written report has been submitted to the Board of Overseers on behalf of the Committee to Visit the Department of Economics.
Once each year since that last report the Committee has met socially at dinner with the members of the Department, has met privately with the Provost to discuss the problems of the Department, and then has met in executive session. In addition to these annual meetings, the individual members of the Committee have endeavored conscientiously to inform themselves privately about the organization of the Department and the program of instruction.
It is not our purpose in making a report at this time to initiate controversy or to suggest that we view with extreme alarm any phase of the Department’s work. We do have apprehensions, but our viewpoints have been fully expressed to the President and the Provost, both of whom have encouraged us at all times to be frank in such criticisms as we have had to present.
The particular points which we have to make may be rather briefly stated.
It will be recalled that in the last previous report attention was drawn to the fact that the Department seems to lack over-all planning. We still think that a sound criticism. The Department contains brilliant individuals who are passionately devoted to their particular approach to the subject matter. But it could hardly be fairly said that their efforts are coordinated into a comprehensive plan, whether it be furnishing undergraduates a well-rounded training in economies or carrying on research at the graduate level.
Another criticism which has been made by others is that the members of the Department seem to emphasize the importance of their work with graduate students to the prejudice of undergraduate instruction. Few, if any, of the distinguished members of the Department are ever seen or heard by undergraduates, and we think this a great loss. We believe it to be important that Harvard give her best to those undergraduates who for the first time in their lives are approaching this highly significant subject, in order that their minds may be stimulated and broadened by the inspiration of great teaching.
Another criticism which has been made is that too many members of the Department absent themselves for extensive periods from their University duties. We recognize the demands that Government properly makes upon the University for the loan of Harvard economists. We also believe that a Harvard professor can benefit through working on projects for business managements or labor organizations. There must, however, be reasonable balance between such occasional outside employment and the first duty of the professor to the University. We believe there is ground for this criticism of the Economics Department and that the matter warrants careful study by the Provost and the Department Chairman.
The most pressing criticism, however, which we have to offer is that the Department as presently constituted lacks balance with respect to the viewpoints of its members. It is particularly the trend toward lack of balance which disturbs us.
No friend of academic freedom need fear the purpose which underlies our comment on this matter. We would be the first to insist that a professor must teach that which he honestly believes and we know that the fact that this differs from viewpoints which we may hold as individuals is altogether immaterial. This is too obviously right to need discussion.
But that is a totally different question from that of believing that all viewpoints should be ably represented within the Department. The most determined champion of academic freedom would join us we believe in urging the importance of balance in a controversial field. This is an old and familiar problem at universities; for example, in the departments of philosophy. There we believe that sound university administration always seeks such balance. We suggest that comparable balance is not presently to be found within the Department.
We have in the Department, for example, one or more Socialists, some zealous followers of British economist, John Maynard Keynes, and some who advocate the extension of economic controls by Government. Some of these men are nationally known for their views and are both active and zealous in promoting Them. But on the other side of the social spectrum, the Department seems to lack men of equal ability and zeal who hold opposing views and are prepared to teach them.
This problem of balance within the Department will not be solved by the ad hoc committees. There only the qualifications of the particular man are under consideration. It is not the function of such a committee to determine whether the man’s appointment will restore balance or add to the lack of balance. That delicate question can be solved only through leadership by the President, the Provost, and the Chairman. We have confidence that they share our concern and we hope that this statement of our apprehensions will be helpful to them.
CLARENCE B. RANDALL
November 27, 1950
Source: Harvard University Archives. Confidential Report of the President of the University to the Two Governing Boards of the Department of Economics of The Faculty of Arts and Sciences, 1952 January 3 (Archives Stacks UAI.20.962.5)
___________________________
Members of Visiting Committee,
Department of Economics
1950-1952
Chairman:
Clarence B. Randall
President, Inland Steel Company
Vice-Chairman:
David Rockefeller
Foreign Department, Chase National Bank
Members:
Henry W. Clark
Maritime Associates
Jack I. Straus (1951-52)
President, H. H. Macy Company
Sinclair Weeks
United Carr Fasteners Corp., Reed and Barton Corp.
Frederick C. Crawford
President, Thompson Products, Inc.
David F. Edwards
President, Saco-Lowell Shops
Devereux C. Josephs
Carnegie Corporation
Walter Lichtenstein
First National Bank of Chicago
Thomas S. Lamont (1950-51)
New York
David E. Lilienthal
formerly Head of Atomic Energy Commission
Edward R. Mitton (1951-52)
Jordan Marsh Company
Gilbert H. Montague
New York Lawyer
Edwin G. Nourse
formerly with Council of Economic Advisers
Ralph Robey
National Association of Manufacturers
Charles F. Rowley
Peabody, Brown, Rowley and Storey
Hermon Dunlop Smith
Marsh and McLennon, Insurance, Chicago
George Terborgh
Allied Machinery
Leo Wolman
Professor, Columbia University
Source: Harvard University Archives. Department of Economics, Correspondence and papers (UAV 349.11), Box 25, Folder “Visiting Committee, 1950-52”.
Images Sources:
(Left) James B. Conant Page, Atomic Heritage Foundation website.
(Right) Portrait of Trustee of the University of Chicago, Clarence B. Randall, from the University of Chicago Photographic Archive, apf1-03000-082, Hanna Holborn Gray Special Collections Research Center, University of Chicago Library.