For background on the 1937 case involving the Harvard economics instructors Alan R. Sweezy (brother of Paul Sweezy) and John Raymond Walsh, whose appointments were not renewed in spite of positive recommendations from the department of economics, see
Lovejoy, Arthur O. “Harvard University and Drs. Walsh and Sweezy: A Review of the Faculty Committee’s Report.” Bulletin of the American Association of University Professors (1915-1955), vol. 24, no. 7, 1938, pp. 598–608. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40219387.
The artifact of value that concludes this post is a draft of Wassily Leontief’s responses to fifteen questions sent out to junior instructional officers at Harvard by the Faculty Committee tasked to review the case and which ultimately released two reports:
Report on the terminating appointments of Dr. J.R. Walsh and Dr. A.R. Sweezy, by the special committee appointed by the President of Harvard University. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1938.
Report on some problems of personnel in the Faculty of arts and sciences by a special committee appointed by the president of Harvard university. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1939.
__________________________
Conant Appoints Committee to Investigate Walsh-Sweezy Case
Dodd, Morison, Morgan, Perry, Murdock, Schlesinger, Shapley, Frankfurter, Kohler Named
The Harvard Crimson, May 28, 1937
The complete text of President Conant’s report to the Overseers may be found in column four. [next item below]
Admitting “the existence of substantial doubt within the University as to the justice or wisdom of the University’s action” in regard to the Walsh-Sweezy case, President Conant wrote a letter to the Overseers dated May 26th in which he announced he had appointed a committee to investigate the affair.
The committee will be made up of the nine professor who received a memorandum from 131 junior teachers requesting a report on the issues involved.
At the same time President Conant wrote both Walsh and Sweezy announcing that he very much regretted the misconstruction of the University’s April 6th statement “as a reflection on your teaching capacity and scholarly ability.” In the last paragraph of the letter the President pointed out that the committee will investigate not only the case of the two men but also “the larger questions involved in the promotion of younger men.
The text of the President’s letters to Walsh and Sweezy follow:
Text of Letter
“I understand that the University’s statement issued on April 6 has been misconstrued in some quarters as a reflection on your teaching capacity and scholarly ability. I very much regret this. No such reflection was intended; the statement in my opinion cannot justly be taken as implying that you are not an able teacher or scholar. All that was meant or implied was that your political views and activities outside the University had nothing to do with the decision and that the choice among several candidates was made according to academic criteria.
“I am writing you this letter, after appointing a committee to investigate your case and some of the larger questions involved in the promotion of younger men, in order that you may not be under any misapprehension as to my personal feelings toward you. “Very sincerely yours, James B. Conant.”
TEXT OF REPORT
The Harvard Crimson, May 28, 1937
“To the Board of Overseers:
“In view of the fact that there is not another stated meeting of the Board until Commencement Day, I am reporting to you in writing concerning the case of the two instructors in Economics which I discussed with the Board at the meeting on April 12.
“On May 18, I was informed by a group of senior professors that they had received a memorandum from 131 junior teaching officers of the University requesting them to report upon the issues raised by the University’s action in respect to Messrs. J. R. Walsh and A. R. Sweezy, instructors in Economics. The memorandum was addressed to the following nine professors: E. Merrick Dodd, Jr., Felix Frankfurter, Elmer P. Kohler, Edmund M. Morgan, Samuel E. Morison, Kenneth B. Murdock, Ralph B. Perry, Arthur M. Schlesinger, and Harlow Shapley.
“This group informed me that they would prefer to have this inquiry conducted by a committee appointed by the President. I have replied that it is clear that the nine men to whom the memorandum was addressed have the confidence of the petitioners. For that reason I have requested them to make the investigation which the petitioners desire and have appointed them a committee for that purpose. I assured them that the University would make available any information they may desire, and I might add that the Chairman of the Department of Economics has informed me that he welcomes the inquiry.
“I expressed the hope that the report of the committee would he available by the middle of the coming academic year. Since the appointments of Dr. Walsh and Dr. Sweezy run for two years, there is ample time for me to reopen their cases if the committee’s report warrants it.
“Inasmuch as there has been some misunderstanding about a public statement issued on April 6, I have written letters to Dr. Walsh and Dr. Sweezy of which copies are appended.
“No further action or comment on my part would seem to be required until the committee have made their report. I should, however, like to say that the existence of substantial doubt within the University as to the justice or wisdom of the University’s action is sufficient ground for welcoming an inquiry.”
Questionnaire of the Committee on the appointment and promotion of junior teaching officers at Harvard.
Interleaved with a draft copy of Wassily Leontief’s responses.
CONFIDENTIAL
September 20, 1937
Dear Sir:
The undersigned Committee has been appointed by the President to consider certain questions relating to the method of appointment and promotion of junior teaching officers in Harvard College. It will be of great assistance to the Committee if you will write frank answers to the questions below, together with any general comments you care to make on the broad problems involved, and send them before October 9, 1937, to the Secretary of the Committee, Kenneth B. Murdock, Master’s Lodgings, Leverett House, Cambridge. Your answers and comments will be regarded as strictly confidential and shown to no one except members of the Committee. If it seems desirable to quote from or refer to them in the Committee’s final report, this will be done anonymously.
- In your opinion, is the treatment of junior teaching officers at Harvard and the administrative policy and procedure in respect to their appointment and promotion satisfactory; or have you suggestions as to how it might be improved so as to create a better opportunity for intellectual development and professional advancement?
Leontief: For the lower ranks of the teaching staff the problem of creating a “better opportunity for intellectual development” is fundamentally a question of firing and not of hiring and promoting.
As long as the position of instructorship is considered to be a temporary one and while only a small proportion of the junior staff can be absorbed by promotion into the higher ranks, the position of the average junior officer will necessarily be precarious. No administrative devices can obviate the necessity of discharging annually a large number of tutors and instructors. At best it might be possible to secure new jobs for some of these the university could help the parting[?] men in their search[?] for new positions, In any case it is well to avoid in parting any at worst [it] should be possible to avoid unnecessary affront to their personal sensibilities. ([The] case Sweezy, Walsh is a good example of how it should not be done).
- Has any pressure been exerted upon you to publish, as a condition of your appointment or promotion at Harvard? If so, do you consider this pressure advantageous or harmful to your intellectual development? From whom has the pressure come?
Leontief: The pressure to publish comes from the fact that no man can be promoted without having shown some printed results of his scientific work. It is not personal pressure but pressure of “circumstances”. I find that this pressure is harmful only insofar as it is associated with the presumption that articles are not “real” publications and thus puts a premium on wordiness.
- Has your research and publication grown continuously out of your doctor’s thesis and graduate studies; or has there been a conflict or change of interest? If the latter, specify the causes and nature of the conflict or change.
Leontief: My research and publications developed rather continuously, without serious conflicts.
- Have you been given a clear definition of what you should do, in scholarly work and teaching, in order to merit appointment or promotion? By whom? Has such advice been helpful or misleading? In answering this question specify your relations to senior members of your Department, the Dean of the Faculty, senior colleagues or personal friends in other Departments.
Leontief: I never asked anybody for a clear definition of what to do to merit promotion. I was told, however, by the head of the department that since I am working in a rather new field it will be necessary to wait and see what the ultimate results will be before deciding whether or not I am to be kept on. I spoke with the Dean of the faculty once; I discuss my current academic problems with the head of the department two or three times a year; among my close friends I have senior as well as junior members of the department. My relations to all others are quite cordial.
- Have you felt any conflict between research and teaching, either in respect to the amount of time given to each, or the type of ability and interest required for each? Have you ever been advised to neglect one in favor of the other? If so, by whom? Can you give an approximate statement of the proportion of your time given to teaching, and the proportion to research?
Leontief: Considering the issue of teaching vs. research from a somewhat more general standpoint than that of your question I wish to call your attention to the fact that in the field of economics it acquires a quite peculiar aspect.
The problems, methods and the general body of knowledge change so frequently that one not actively engaged in the process of scientific work would most likely be ignorant of the most significant present day developments.
While a “good teacher” in physics or history can naturally be expected to command a solid, up to date knowledge of his subject, the “good teacher” in economics—if not engaged in active research—lacks with a very few exceptions this elementary prerequisite of pedagogical activity. This applies not only to graduate instruction but also to the higher type undergraduate courses. I personally have never experienced any conflict between my research and teaching activities for the simple reason that both coincided in their subject matter. Approximately one third of my time is devoted to actual teaching.
- To what extent have you received help and encouragement from your senior colleagues, in your teaching, and in your research?
Leontief: With some of my colleagues I maintain a very close contact in research as well as collaboration in teaching. In one instance, for example, we visit each other’s lectures (advanced courses) with a view to closer coordination of subject matter and methods.
- At what point in his career does it seem to you that a teacher at Harvard should have definite assurance of permanent tenure?
Leontief: [Blank]
- By what standards, and by whom, do you feel that your qualifications for permanent appointment are likely to be appraised? Do you feel confident that the appraisal will be just? If not, what method can you suggest for securing a just appraisal?
Leontief: So far as I know, in the department of Economics appointment to associate professorship is discussed and decided by a “committee of full professors” or the “executive committee” which comprises also associate professors. I have no reason to believe that an “appraisal” by such a committee would not be just.
I think that my standing as a scientist and teacher will determine the opinion of the senior members of the department in the first instance. Secondary considerations of “strategic” character however are also likely to influence in greater or smaller degree their attitude.
In order to achieve a greater uniformity of standards and reduce the influence of various subjective motivations to a minimum it would be advisable in my opinion to
a) define more rigidly the membership of the appointing committee.
b) to require each member of the committee to submit a written, motivating opinion (however short) which would be forwarded to the president of the university together with the final vote of the committee.
- Do you believe that serving at Harvard prior to any decision as to your permanent appointment has been beneficial to you as regards your teaching, your scholarship, and your professional career?
Leontief: Yes.
- Have you refused offers from other institutions since you have been at Harvard? What reasons led you to refuse them?
Leontief: No.
- Do you believe that your personal opinions, in relation to your own field or to other subjects, have in any way influenced your treatment at Harvard? If so, what evidence have you to support this belief? Has a regard for your position or advancement at Harvard limited your freedom of opinion either within or outside of your own field?
Leontief: I do not think that my personal opinion (as distinct from my “personality” in general) has influenced my position in Harvard, nor did a regard for my position or advancement influence or limit the freedom of my opinion.
- Have you engaged in any “outside activities”? If so, what proportion of your time have they occupied? How have they been related to your scholarly activities? Do you believe that such outside activities have in any way influenced or jeopardized your appointment or promotion at Harvard? If so, what evidence can you offer in support of this belief?
Leontief: I have hardly ever been engaged in any “outside” activity.
- Has your salary been sufficient to meet your living expenses? Has it seemed to you appropriate and just? In answering this and the following question, state whether you are married or unmarried; and, if married, give the size of your family.
Leontief: I am married and have one child. Since the time of my marriage five years ago I have been able to put aside $600. My wife’s medical expenses connected with an automobile accident absorbed all these savings. This financial situation is not typical because unlike most of my colleagues I do not receive any supplementary income from instruction in Radcliffe College or in the Harvard Summer School.
- Have you found living conditions, housing, schooling, etc. satisfactory in Cambridge?
Leontief: I find the cost of living comparatively high, the public schools inadequate and private schools beyond the reach of my budget.
- Have you been delayed in completing your research by inability to finance publication or by the cost of securing requisite materials not available in Cambridge? What remedy do you suggest?
Leontief: My research work is supported by the Harvard Committee for Research in Social Sciences which has nearly without exception granted all my requests for financial assistance.
In answering the above questions, the Committee hopes that you will support and illustrate your comments by specific citations from your own experience, or that of others.
Very truly yours,
Ralph Barton Perry, Chairman
Professor of Philosophy
Elmer Peter Kohler
Professor of Chemistry
William Scott Feguson
Professor of History
Felix Frankfurter
Professor of Law
Edmund Morris Morgan
Professor of Law
Edwin Merrick Dodd, Jr.
Professor of Law
Arthur Meier Schlesinger
Professor of History
Harlow Shapley
Professor of Astronomy
Kenneth B. Murdock, Secretary
Professor of English
Source: Harvard University Archives. Papers of Wassily Leontief (HUG 4517.7). Box: Personal correspondence etc. Dates mainly from 1920’s and 1930’s. Folder: [W.L.-Personal]
Image Source: Wassily Leontief in Harvard Class Album 1934.
