The following faculty skit comes from the M.I.T. department of economics when memories of the Senate Watergate Hearings (summer of 1973) were still very fresh in everyone’s memories. This skit was likely presented at the 1973-74 annual skit party. Frederick Mishkin received his B.S. in 1973 from M.I.T. and his first year as a graduate student at M.I.T. was in 1973-74. Other graduate students named were either second year or thesis-writers.
I presume “E. Hausman Hunt” was a blend of the names of the MIT econometrician Jerry Hausman and the Watergate conspirator E. Howard Hunt.
“Bob Dean” was likely a blend of the names of Robert Hall (who taught the course 14.123) and Nixon’s special counsel John Dean (wife’s name Maureen).
“Paul Colson” might have been a blend of the names of Paul Joskow and Charles Colson, Nixon’s man for “dirty tricks” and who claimed he would have walked over his own grandmother to get Nixon reelected.
“F.” would appear with the remark about not understanding “goyim” to have been Frank Fisher.
Roger Backhouse graciously made his copy of this skit available for transcription. I have corrected many typos in the original text. If I ever identify the author, I shall update this post.
__________________
The Greatest Faculty Skit Ever Written
(in 1 hour, 15 minutes)
F. This here meeting will now come to order. Let the minutes show that this is the 732nd meeting of the Special Subcommittee of the Econometrics [sic] Society investigating the notorious Westgate affair.
M1: Mr. Chairman, a point of personal privilege—
F. Yes, Mr. Solow.
M2: I’ve been out of town testifying for IBM in Tulsa for the last 7 months. Could you fill me in on what’s been happening?
F. On the night of June 20, 1972 several graduate students were apprehended breaking into Gary Becker’s office. It appeared that these students were after Prof. Becker’s manuscript on a theory of marriage. Several pieces of evidence point [to] the fact that these students were after Prof. Becker’s manuscript on a theory of marriage. Several pieces of evidence point [to] the fact that a well known Eastern economist (with initials PAS) may have funded this break-in for as yet unknown reasons. This committee has been called to investigate this matter.
M1Thank you Mr. Chairman.
F. Will the first witness step forward to testify?
Please state your name.
EHH E. Hausman Hunt.
F. What have you been doing for [the] last 3 months?
EHH. I’ve spent the last 3 months in Charles St. Jail polishing up my lecturing technique. If I could only speak a little faster during my lecture, just think how much more material I could cover.
F. Is it true that you were in charge of organizing the burglary of Becker’s office?
EHH. Yes; I used several graduate students from MIT: my first choices were Rick Kasten and Roger Gordon but we had to reject them since we were afraid they were too talkative. However I finally settled on Rick Mishkin and Glenn Loury; Mishkin because he was so calm and organized; and Louryto comply with equal opportunities satisfy HEW.
F. Is it true that you write econometrics papers under a pseudonym?
EHH. Yes, I’ve just produced my 43rdpaper on the identification problem using the pseudonym “Franklin M. Fisher”
F. Well, I may be an old country bullfrog, but…
Next witness, please
(BH steps forward; Maureen sits in his lap; F. gives the eyebrows to the audience)
F. State your name, rank.
BD. I’m Bob Dean, special assistant professor.
F. And whom do you assist?
BD. Prof. Paul Anthony Samuelson, BA, PhD, L.H.D, L.L.D, Litt.D. (hon), LSD.
F. Can you describe briefly your part in the Westgate affair?
BD. Prof Samuelson was working on a theory of marriage at the same time as Prof. Becker. He had just succeeded in developing the formal first order conditions for the optimal marriage (using the LeChatelier principle) when he discovered Prof Becker’s work. He asked me to arrange for him to get a look at Prof. Becker’s manuscript.
F. Isn’t it true that you got married on or about this same period?
BD. Yes, that was also part of Prof Samuelson’s theory of marriage. He had also arranged for an empirical part of this work; after deriving the first order conditions, he hired a computer programmer to search for the optimal marriage in the department. Maureen and I were chosen. Pressured by Samuelson we agreed to get married.
F. How did you afford your honeymoon on an assistant prof’s salary?
BD. I borrowed some money from a departmental slush fund.
F. What is the source of this slush fund?
BD. It was accumulated for the sale of lecture notes from 14.123; why else do you think we sell those notes?
F. (eyebrows) I see. When did you again meet with Prof Samuelson?
BD. March 21, 1973;
F. What happened at that meeting?
BD. We received instructions from Prof. Samuelson on how to behave on our honeymoon. We asked Prof. Samuelson if it would be OK if our marginal utilities were not equalized; he said that “it would be wrong.”
F. Why was Prof Samuelson taking such an interest in your honeymoon?
BD. He wanted to be sure that his theory involved only “empirically refutable propositions”. He was also worried that we might behave too formally.
F. I don’t think I’ll ever understand you goyim.
F. Next witness. Please state your name.
PC. Paul Colson.
F. For what purpose were you hired by Prof Samuelson?
PC. I was supposed to ghost write the empirical part of the paper.
F. It says here (looking at notes) that you are one of the most dedicated of the applied econometricians?
PC. Yes, I’d run over my own grandmother to get a t-statistic greater than 2.
F. What were Prof. Samuelson’s instructions?
PC. As you know, Prof Samuelson was worried that Bob and Maureen Dean might be too formal on their honeymoon; I was sent along to collect data on their performance.
F. What happened? (eyebrows)
PC. As I peered into their motel room, I saw Bob come out of the bathroom dressed in pajamas and say to Maureen: I offer my honor. Maureen came out in her nightgown and replied I honor your offer.
F. (eyebrows) What happened next?
PC. From then on it was just honor and offer all night.
F. What went wrong?
PC. We forgot to check the second-order conditions and it was only a saddle point.
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book and Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Papers of Robert M. Solow. Box 83.
Image Source: Photo from U.S. Senate Watergate hearings. From left to right: minority counsel Fred Thompson, ranking member Howard Baker, and chair Sam Ervin of the Senate Watergate Committee.