Categories
Columbia Suggested Reading

Columbia. Topics and readings to prepare for oral exam in economic theory, 1961

 

The only surprises in the following list of relevant readings for the Columbia University oral examinees in economic theory are (i) the number of introductory or intermediate level items and (ii) the overwhelming identification of economic theory with microeconomics, indeed, only 1/5 of the topics have to do with income theory (i.e. macroeconomics). Monetary economics is found under distribution theory.

________________________________

[Handwritten note at top of page:] 1961

Preparation for the Oral Examination in Economic Theory:
A Communication from the Faculty to the Candidates

The following list of topics and relevant readings are recommended to the attention of students preparing for the oral examination in economic theory. The readings are in no sense “required” since, in most cases, they are merely a small sampling of a voluminous literature that contains many other works of comparable or superior merit. The readings listed below, however, are a good place to begin; and when the student has no previous acquaintance with the literature relevant to a topic, he is advised to begin with a book or article marked [.

TOPICS AND RELEVANT READINGS

Preface: Methodology in Economics

Boulding, The Skills of the Economist (1958)

Friedman, Essays in Positive Economics (1953)

[Knight, “The Limitations of Scientific Method in Economics,” in The Ethics of Competition (1935)

Papandreou, Economics as a Science (1958)

[Robbins, The Nature and Significance of Economic Science (2d ed., 1946)

Schoeffler, The Failures of Economics (1955)

Part I: The Theory of Demand

  1. Consumer Behavior

Hicks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946) Part I

[Little, A Critique of Welfare Economics (2d ed., 1957)

Robertson, Utility and All That (1952)

Vickery, “Measuring Marginal Utility by Reactions to Risk,” in 13 Econometrica 3/9 (1945)

  1. The Industry Demand Curve

Bailey, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” in 62 J. Pol. Econ. 255 (1954)

[Friedman, “The Marshallian Demand Curve,” in 57 J. Pol. Econ. 463 (1949)

Schultz, Henry, Statistical Studies in the Theory of Demand (1938)

Working, “What Do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show,” in 41 Q. J. Econ. 212 (1927); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Yeager, “Methodenstreit over Demand Curves,” in 68 J. Pol. Econ. (1960)

  1. The Firm Demand Curve

Stigler, “The Kinked Demand Curve and Rigid Prices,” in 55 J. Pol. Econ. 432 (1947)

Sweezy, Paul, “Demand Under Conditions of Oligopoly,” in 47 J. Pol. Econ. 568 (1939); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Part II: The Theory of Production

  1. Industry Cost Curves

Ellis and Fellner, “External Economies and Diseconomies,” 33 Am. Econ. Rev. 493 (1943); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in PriceTheory

[Knight, ”Some Fallacies in the Interpretation of Social Cost,” in The Ethics of Competition (1935); also in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Scitovsky, “Two Concepts of External Economies,” 62 J. Pol. Econ. 143 (1954)

Schwartzman, “The Methodology of the Theory of Returns to Scale,” 10 Oxford Economic Papers 98 (1958)

  1. Cost Curves in the Firm

Clark, J.M., Studies in the Economics of Overhead Costs (1923)

Dean, Joel, Statistical Determination of Costs (1936)

Eiteman and Guthrie, “The Shape of the Average Cost Curve,” 42 Am. Econ. Rev. 832 (1952)

Staehle, “The Measurement of Statistical Cost Functions,” 32 Am. Econ. Rev. 321 (1942); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

[Viner, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves,” 3 Zeitschrift für Nationalökonomie 23 (1932); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

  1. Capitalization

Fisher, Irving, The Nature of Capita1 and Income (1927)

[Samuelson, Economics (3d ed. 1955) Appendix to Ch. 29

  1. Activity Analysis

[Baumol, W. J., “Activity Analysis in One Lesson,” 68 Am. Econ. Rev. 837 (1958)

Dorfman, Samuelson and Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis (1958)

Makower, Activity Analysis (1957)

Spivey, Linear Programming (1960)

  1. Input-Output Analysis

Cameron, “The Construction of the Leontief System,” 19 Rev. Econ. Stud. 19 (1951)

Dorfman, Samuelson, and Solow, Linear Programming and Economic Analysis (1958)

[Leontief, The Structure of the American Economy, 1919-1939 (2d ed. 1951)

Input-Output Analysis (National Bureau, 1955)

Part III: The Theory of Markets

  1. Competition, Pure, Perfect and Workable

Clark, J. M., “Toward a Concept of Workable Competition, Am. Econ. Rev. (1940; reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Social Control

Fetter, “The Economic Law of Market Areas,” 38 Q. J. Econ. 520 (1924); reprinted in The Masquerade of Monopoly

Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1922)

[Stigler, “Perfect Competition, Historically Contemplated,” 65 J. Pol.Econ. l (1957)

  1. Monopoly

Greenhut and Pfouts, “The Pricing Policies of a Spatial Monopolist,” 9 Metroeconomics 153

[Patinkin, “Multiple-Plant Firms Cartels, and Imperfect Competition,” 61 Q. J. Econ. 173 (1947)

Robinson, Joan, Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933). Books IV, V and VI

  1. Oligopoly

Baumol, Business Behavior, Value and Growth (1959), Part I

Fellner, Competition Among the Few (1949)

Hotelling, “Stability in Competition,” 39 Econ. J. 41 (1929); reprinted in A.E.A. Readings in Price Theory

Lerner and Singer, “Some Notes on Duopoly and Spatial Competition,” 45 J. Pol. Econ. 145 (1937)

[Modigliani, “New Developments on the Oligopoly Front,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 215 (1958)

Stigler, “A Theory of Delivered Price Systems,” 39 Am. Econ. Rev. 1143 (1949)

  1. Game Theory

[Luce and Raiffa, Games and Decisions (1957)

Shubik, Strategy and Market Structure (l959)

[Stone, J. R. N., ”The Theory of Games,” 58 Econ. J. 184 (1948)

  1. Monopolistic and/or Imperfect Competition

Chamberlin, E., The Theory of Monopolistic Competition (7th ed. 1955)

Dewey, ”Imperfect Competition No Bar to Efficient Production,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 24 (1958)

[Robinson, Joan, The Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933)

Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy (2d ed. 1947) Chapters 7 and 8

Smithies, “Equilibrium in Monopolistic Competition,” Q. J. Econ. (November, 1940)

 

Part IV: The Theory of Distribution

  1. Capital and Interest: Without Money

Böhm-Bawerk, The Positive Theory of Capital, (1888)

Fisher, Irving, The Nature of Capital and Income (1927)

[Knight, “Diminishing Returns from Investment,” 52 J. Pol. Econ. 26 (1944)

Knight, “’Capital, Time, and the Interest Rate,” Economica 257 (1934)

  1. Capital and Interest: With Money

[Hart, Money, Debt and Economic Activity (2d ed. 1953)

Htcks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946) Parts III and IV

Metzler, “Wealth, Saving, and the Rate of Interest,” 59 J. Pol. Econ. 93 (1951)

Patinkin, Money, Interest, and Prices (1956)

Wicksell, Interest and Prices (English ed. 1936)

  1. Land as Capital

Robinson, Economics of Imperfect Competition (1933) Ch. 8

Worcester, ”A Reconsideration of Rent Theory,” 36 Am. Econ. Rev. 258 (1946)

  1. Distribution According to Marginal Productivity

[Samuelson, Principles of Economics (3d ed. 1955) Appendix to Chapter 27

Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (1946) Ch. 12

[Stonier and Hague, A Textbook of Economic Theory (1953) Ch. 16

  1. Labor and Wages

Conrad and Meyer, “The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 95 (1958)

Douglas, Paul, The Theory of Wages (1934)

[Dunlop, John, Wage Determination Under Trade Unions (1944)

Lampman, “Recent Changes in Income Inequality Reconsidered,” 64 Am. Econ. Rev. 251 (1954)

Lester, R.A., “Marginalism and Labor Markets,” 37 Am. Econ. Rev. 135 (1947); with rejoinders by Machlup and Stigler

Mincer, J. “Investment in Human Capital and Personal Income Distribution,” 66 J. Pol. Econ. 281 (1958)

  1. Profit and Uncertainty

Davis, R. M., “The Current State of Profit Theory,” 62 Am. Econ. Rev. 245 (1952)

Hart, A.G., Anticipations Uncertainty and Dynamic Planning (1940)

[Knight, Risk, Uncertainty, and Profit (1922)

Shackle, Expectation in Economics (1949)

Weston, “The Profit Concept and Theory: A Restatement,” 62 J. Pol. Econ. 152 (1954)

  1. The Problem of Optimum Efficiency

Beckwith, B.P., Economic Theory of a Socialist Economy (1949)

Lerner, The Economics of Control (1944)

Pigou, Economics of Welfare (4th ed. 1932)

[Reder, The Theory of Welfare Economics (1947)

Vickery, “Some Objections to Marginal Cost Pricing,” 56 J. Pol. Econ. 218 (1948)

Vickery, “Utility, Strategy and Social Decision Rules,” 74 Q. J. Econ. 507 (1960)

  1. General Equilibrium

Hicks, Value and Capital (2d ed. 1946)

[Stigler, Production and Distribution Theories (1946) Ch. 9

[Stigler, Theory of Price (1952) Ch. 16

Walras, Elements of Political Economy ( 1874)

 

Part V: The Theory of National Income

  1. Income Theory Before Keynes

Bellamy, Edward, “Parable of the Water Tanks,” in Equality (1897)

Foster, W. T. and Catchings, The Road to Plenty (1928)

[Haberler, Prosperity and Depression (2d ed. 1939)

Hobson, J. A., The Problem of the Unemployed (1896)

Mitchell, W. C., Business Cycles: The Problem and Its Setting (1927)

Robinson, Joan, An Essav on Marxian Economics (1947)

  1. The General Theory and its Reception

[Keynes, The General Theory of Interest, Employment and Money (1935)

[Klein, The Keynesian Revolution (1947)

Pigou, Keynes’ General Theory (1950)

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes (1953)

Harris, ed., The New Economics (1949)

Terborgh, The Bogey of Economic Maturity (1945)

  1. Recent Developments in Income Theory

Christ, C., “Aggregative Econometric Models” 46 Am. Econ. Rev. 385 (1956)

[Friedman and Becker, “A Statistical Illusion in Judging Keynesian Models,” 65 J. Pol. Econ. 64 (1957)

Klein and Goldberger, An Econometric Model of the United States,

1929-1952 (1955)

Weintraub, A General Theory of the Price Level, Output, Income Distribution and Economic Growth (1959)

  1. Some Problems of Economic Growth

Brems, Output, Employment, Capita1, and Economic Growth (1959)

[Domar, Essays in the Theory of Economic Growth (1957)

Harrod, Toward a Dynamic Economics (1948)

Smithies, “Economic Fluctuations and Growth,” 25 Econometrica 1 (1957)

 

USEFUL TEXTBOOKS AND GENERAL COMMENTARIES ON ECONOMIC THEORY

Allen, R.G.D., Mathematical Economics

Bain, Pricing, Distribution, and Employment

Baumol, Economic Dynamics

Boulding, Economic Analysis

Chamberlain, A General Theory of Economic Process

Fellner, Modern Economic Analysis

Hansen, A Guide to Keynes

Henderson and Quandt, Microeconomic Theory

Leftwich, The Price System and Resource Allocation

Machlup, Models of Sellers’ Competition

Makower, Activity Analysis

Klein, The Keynesian Revolution

McKenna, Aggregate Economic Analysis

McKenna, Intermediate Economic Theory

Robinson, Introduction to the Theory of Employment

Samuelson, Principles of Economics

Scitovsky, Welfare and Competition

Stigler, The Theory of Price

Stonier and Hague, A Textbook of Economic Theory

Robertson, D.H., Lectures on Economic Principles

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 1, Folder “Eco. Dept.—Qualifying Examination Committee”.

Image Source: August Rodin’s Le Penseur at Columbia University. InSapphoWeTrust from Los Angeles, California, USA, CC BY-SA 2.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economist Market Economists

Columbia. Early Industrial Organization. Career of Arthur Robert Burns, husband of Eveline M. Burns

In the previous post we encountered social security pioneer Eveline Mabel Burns née Richardson at the point in her career when the Columbia University economics department signaled a definitive end to any hopes for promotion from the rank of lecturer to a tenure track assistant professorship in economics for her with them. In this post we follow the parallel case of her economist husband, Arthur Robert Burns (and no, not the Arthur F. Burns of Burns-Mitchell fame!), who cleared the promotion to assistant professor hurdle at Columbia relatively easily, but was stuck at that rank for nine years, in spite of repeated proposals by the department to promote him sooner.

The heart of this post can be found in the exchange between the  Arthur Robert Burns and then economics department head R. M. Haig in November 1941. Biographical and career backstories for Arthur R. Burns through 1945 can be found in excerpts posted below from budgetary proposals submitted by the economics department over the years. Burns was seen as a pillar of Columbia University’s Industrial Organization field at that time and remained at Columbia through his retirement (ca. 1965) while his wife took up a professorship in Social Work.

____________________________

From: Seligman’s 1929-30 budget recommendation to President Butler (December 1, 1928)

“During [Clara Eliot’s] absence [from Barnard College)  Mr. A. R. Burns has been acting as substitute. In our judgment he has been a valuable addition to the staff, and we recommend that he be reappointed as instructor. In Miss Eliot’s absence the course in statistics has been reduced from two semesters to one. There is a distinct demand for an additional course, though it would be on a different basis from formerly, and our proposal is that Miss Eliot be appointed solely to give two three-point courses in statistics, conducting a statistical laboratory as part of this work. This would relieve Mr. Burns from the course in statistics, and enable him to offer a new course of a somewhat more theoretical character than any now given at Barnard, on “the price-system and the organization of society”, a course which would distinctly help to round out the present offerings in Economics”.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Biographical and professional background through 1930-31
of Arthur R. Burns

…Arthur R. Burns was born in London, in 1895. He served in the army from September, 1914, to April, 1917, when he was discharged as no longer fit because of wounds. He entered the London School of Economics at once, took his B.Sc. degree with honors in 1920, taught economics in King’s College for women (University of London) for four years, and took his doctor’s degree in 1926. The award of Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowships brought Dr. Burns and his wife to this country, where they traveled somewhat widely for two years, studied competitive conditions in industries characterized by large business units, and where they were induced to stay by Columbia.

Dr. Burns has now been a lecturer in economics at Barnard College for three years. Members of our department have thus had an opportunity to become well acquainted with his quality. We think that he is by native ability, temperament and training an investigator, and that, given such opportunities as the graduate department affords, he will make significant contributions to economic science. His publications include several technical papers and two books: Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times, 1926, (a learned treatise on the origin and early history of coinage and monetary practices), and The Economic World, 1927 (written in collaboration with Mrs. Burns).

Source: Letter outlining plans for the future development of the economics department by Wesley C. Mitchell to President Butler. January 16, 1931. In Columbia University Archives. Central Files 1890-, Box 667, Folder 34 “Mitchell, Wesley Clair, 10/1930 – 6/1931”. Carbon copy also in Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budgets, 1915-1934 (a few minor gaps)”.

____________________________

Department recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
already in 1937-38
[Note: actual promotion only occurred Apr. 3, 1944]

[…] I would make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1937-1938]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1937-1938”.

____________________________

Department again recommends promotion to Associate Professorship
[Note: Burns was given the salary increase this time]

[…] I would respectfully make the following budgetary recommendations for the coming academic year [1938-1939]:

(1) That the salary of Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be advanced from $3,600 to $4,000. In the opinion of his colleagues Mr. Burns is an indispensable member of our group whose scholarly competence and accomplishments entitle him to recognition far beyond that yet accorded him by the University. At the earliest possible moment he should be advanced to an Associate Professorship.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1938-1939”.

____________________________

Department then begins unsuccessfully to push for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 28, 1938]

[…] I respectfully recommend budgetary changes for the coming academic year 1939-1940, involving increase of compensation to the following members of the staff:

[…]

3. Arthur R. Burns from $4,000 to $4,500;

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has established himself as an authority in his chosen field, and it is the desire of his colleagues that he be advanced to a full professorship as rapidly as university resources will allow. His tenure has already been long, and his advancement slow. It is our thought that he be given current recognition and enccouragement, with hope of promotion to rank commesurate with his repute among economists.”

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, “Economics Budget 1938-1939”. [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Requesting unpaid leave for a Twentieth Century Fund project

March 1, 1939

Nicholas Murray Butler, LL.D.
President of Columbia University

Dear President Butler:

Professor Arthur R. Burns has been invited to take the directorship of a study of the public utility industry, under the auspices of the Twentieth Century Fund. We of the Department think it wise that he do this and recommend that he be granted leave of absence without pay for the academic year 1939-40. I shall be prepared before long to make recommendation of some outstanding person to serve as a partial substitute for Professor Burns during the coming academic year with a stipend which will absorb approximately three-fifths of Professor Burns’ current compensation.

Very sincerely yours,

Executive Officer
Department of Economics

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940”.

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary with a promotion to Full Professorship
[Nov. 18, 1939]

[…] I respectfully make the following recommendations affecting the budget of 1940-41:

[…]

6. That Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns be granted added compensation of $500 [i.e. from $4,000 to $4,500].

[…]

[Assistant] Professor Arthur R. Burns has served a long apprenticeship with subordinate rank in the Department. At the moment, either from the standpoint of scholarly attainment or from that of efficiency in graduate instruction he suffers not at all by comparison with the best endowed and most effective of his colleagues. Because of his merits and of the importance of the field he covers, he should be advanced rapidly to full professorial status.

[…]

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1939-1940” [note: incorrectly filed!]

____________________________

Department repeats its recommendation for an increase in salary reducing  promotion to Associate Professorship
[October 27, 1941]

MEMORANDUM
Department of Economics
October 27, 1941

[…]

Arthur R. Burns. Proposed: Advancement–assistant professor to associate professor.
Present salary $4,500
Proposed salary. $5,000

[…]

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

Arthur R. Burns demands promotion to the rank of professor

3206, Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

November 1st 1941.

Dear Professor Haig,

As I shall not be in New York this year to talk about the departmental plans for next year I must write. It seems to me that the question of my status in the department now calls for definitive action. Doubtless the unsettled times will be advanced as a reason for postponing promotion. At the outset, therefore, I wish to emphasise that I should regard any such attitude as entirely unfair. If the University is to go through hard times (as well it may) its misfortunes should be shared equitably among all the members of the faculty. To be frank, I feel that I have already been asked to bear an altogether unreasonable share of such financial stringencies as the University may have suffered. There have been many occasions in the past thirteen years on which I have been told that my promotion has been recommended (and more in which I have been told that it would have been recommended) but that no action has been taken for general financial reasons. I fully expect to bear my share of the burden of contemporary events but I feel that the time has come for my position to be given special consideration irrespective of those events, no matter how serious.

Various reasons have been given to me during my thirteen years of service to the University for its failure to promote me. But I think I am justified in believing that there has been less than the usual amount of criticism of my scholarship or my teaching capacity. The number of my students who have progressed in the outside world (sometimes already beyond my own rank and salary) indicates that I have been reasonably effective. Furthermore, I think that you will find that in recent years there has been an increasing number of graduate students coming to Columbia to work with me.

I now ask you, therefore, to have my academic status reviewed, whether or not the University wishes on principle again to avoid promotions. And after this long delay promotion only to an associate professorship will not, in my opinion, be compatible with my professional reputation and status. For six or seven years now my recognition outside the University has been widely at variance with my academic rank. My salary as Director of Research for the Twentieth Century Fund was $10,000 per annum. I have recently been invited to join the Anti Trust Division of the Department of Justice at a salary of $8,000 per annum. I am now the Supervisor of Civilian Allocation in the Office of Production Management. I suggest that this evidence justifies promotion to a full professorship. If economies are necessary, I am ready, as I have said, to accept them on the same basis as my colleagues.

I have written to you with complete frankness because I have been keenly disappointed with the disposal of suggestions for my promotion and I am anxious that you shall be clearly informed as to my feelings. I gather that for a number of years now there has been no serious objection but also no vigorous effort in my behalf. I now feel that if after all these long delays Columbia is unwilling to take special action to recognize my professional status I had better know before I am much older. I am now forty six years of age and if I must seek academic recognition elsewhere I must obviously begin to take the necessary steps without delay. I would of course prefer to stay with Columbia. I think you will agree that these long years of patient waiting are evidence of my loyalty but I think you will also agree that I cannot continue much longer to accept the present wide discrepancy between my status inside and outside the University.

Very sincerely yours,

[signed]

Arthur R. Burns

Professor Robert Murray Haig,
Chairman,
Department of Economics,
Fayerweather Hall,
Columbia University,
NEW YORK CITY

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department responds to Burns’ demands:
Associate professorship when your rejoin the faculty

November 22, 1941

Professor Arthur R. Burns
3206 Que Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Professor Burns:

Last night our group met at dinner to consider the budget. This afforded an opportunity to comply with your request that your academic status be reviewed. I wish you could have listened to the discussion that took place. It was highly friendly and appreciative in tone, but at the same time it was pervaded by a deep sense of responsibility for the ultimate objectives for which we are striving. I am sure that it would have impressed you, as it did me, with the essential soundness of the policy of placing heavy dependence upon the deliberate, critical judgment of one’s colleagues in considering questions of promotion.

Your letter of November 1st, which I read to the brethren in full, arrived at a time peculiarly unfavorable for the consideration of finalities and ultimatums. Moreover, I regret to have to report some of the statements and implications of that letter were not altogether fortunate in the reactions they inspired. Let me elaborate on this last statement first.

(1) You state that you gather that in the past there has been “no vigorous effort” in your behalf. I can speak with full knowledge only regarding last year. If the implication is that your failure to secure more adequate recognition is ascribable to lack of vigor on the part of your colleagues as a group, or of the chairman of the Department in particular, I wish to state that I know it to be untrue with respect to last year and have reason to believe it to be untrue of several previous years. As a matter of fact, last year as the program moved forward from the Faculty Committee on Instruction, the recommendation for your promotion was placed at the very top above all others in the Faculty of Political Science. Until the very end, when the Trustees at their March meeting ruthlessly scuttled the program, I had high hopes that the effort would be successful. The only budgetary changes last year in this entire Department of 32 members were a) a $300 increase for which the College authorities had obligated themselves to secure for Barger and b) the temporary allocation of $600 to Wald for one year only from a sabbatical “windfall”.

(2) The citation of the salaries and fees you have been able to command in the government service and in the service of private research organizations as evidence that “justifies promotion to a full professorship” does not greatly impress your colleagues. We rejoice in the recognition and rewards that have come to you in return for your efforts while on leave of absence from your post at Columbia. Certainly the work of the Department has been carried on under a distinct handicap when your courses haven manned by part-time substitutes and we should like to believe that the sacrifices involved had borne rich fruits in professional and material rewards to you personally as well as to the general cause of science. However, you will readily agree, I take it, that our promotion and salary policy cannot be based on the principle you seem to suggest, viz., that the University must be prepared to match, dollar for dollar, the potential earning power of the staff on outside jobs. The rate of compensation for such outside work is, to my certain knowledge, likely to run over four or five times the rate of University compensation. Indeed, I can think of many of our colleagues who, on the basis of such a principle, could cite evidence even more convincing than your own.

(3) In the next place your letter seems to imply an understanding of the nature of the University connection that is not in complete harmony with our own. While it may be the policy elsewhere that mere length of service by a person who joins the staff at an early age, even though that service be reasonably effective and untouched by unfavorable criticism, carries assurance of promotion to the highest rank, this is definitely not the policy at Columbia University. Theoretically, at least, the University retains complete freedom of action to withhold advancement subject to a continuing critical appraisal of the individual’s value to the institution, against the background of changing circumstances, among which the University’s ability to supply funds must be listed near the top. Everyone is continually on trial to the very end of his career. This is evidenced in the practice regarding early retirement, the working of which I have recently had an opportunity to observe. Assurance regarding stability of tenure at a given level is a different point and mere humanitarian considerations are given generous weight. However, fundamentally the University connection is to be regarded as an opportunity (an opportunity, incidentally, of which you, in the opinion of your colleagues have, on the whole, made very good use) and promotion and early retirement are certainly affected and, in many cases at least, determined by the manner in which a member of the staff rises to that opportunity. Moreover, when such heavy dependence is placed upon the continuing critical appraisal by one’s colleagues, each man must have regard for his responsibility for the long-run interests of the department and of science. If, as the years roll along, the department is to contain a reasonably large percentage of intellects of the highest order, the critical appraisal must be a continuing process and sufficient freedom of action must be retained in promotion and salary policy to enable the group to make reasonably effective its collective judgment as to what is best for the department in the light of the individual’s developing record and the fluctuations of the resources available for supplying opportunities. I hope that you will forgive me for laboring this point but it is important that you understand what I am certain is the sentiment of the group of which you are a valued member, viz., that no matter on what basis of rank you may return to us, say, for example, as an associate professor, further recognition in rank or salary will be dependent upon decisions reached in harmony with the general policies outlined above.

I now revert to my earlier statement that your letter arrived at a peculiarly unfavorable time.

(1) On November 13th a letter was received from the President of the University indicating that Draconian economies were indicated for this year’s budget. Our own enrolment in the graduate department of economics has shrunk this year about 25 per cent and this shrinkage is on top of last year’s substantial shrinkage. Even in advance of the preparation of the formal budget letters, the department chairmen were summoned before a special committee at the behest of the trustees and urged by the elimination of courses and other means to contract the normal budget to smaller proportions. Consequently only in emergency cases where the interests of the University are considered to be vitally affected, will serious consideration be given to recommendations involving an increased expenditure.

(2) With the retirement of McCrea, the question of the future of the School of Business has been thrown open for discussion. Under the new Dean a radical revision of policy is being formulated, including as one item the transfer of the School to a strictly graduate level. The intimate interrelationships of staff and curriculum between our department and the school are being reexamined. Plans are still in a state of flux but your particular field of interest is involved. So highly dynamic is the situation that the budget letters of both the Department and the School are to be considered tentative documents, subject to modification as decisions of policy are taken during the weeks that lie ahead.

(3) The situation is further complicated by the fact that within our Department itself we have reached the stage, which arises every decade or so, when long-time plans require consideration. Not only are we faced with an important retirement problem, but we are also asked to have regard for the situation that will result if the present trend toward lower enrolments continues. To deal with this situation, a special committee has been set up in the department, headed by Professor Mitchell, to formulate plans for the future. A series of meetings is being held at which the present and probable future importance of the various subjects falling within the scope of the departments are being discussed and questions of staff and curriculum are being intensively studied. Here also important decisions are in the making but definite conclusions have not yet been reached.

I am writing at such length in order that you may understand clearly and fully the background against which we were called upon to consider your letter and the reasons underlying the action that was taken in your case.

The recommendation that I am instructed by our colleagues to include in the budget letter is that I renew the recommendation made last year that you be promoted to the rank of associate professor at a salary of $5,000. I realize that this will be a disappointment to you. You have stated that you consider this degree of recognition, if we are successful in securing it for you, would not be compatible with your professional reputation and status. I infer from your letter that you consider it so inadequate that you are not prepared to accept it. However, you do not make yourself unequivocally clear on this point. If your mind is definitely made up, it will simplify the procedure if you will inform me of the fact at once. On the other hand, there is no disposition to press you for an early answer in case you are not as far along toward a decision as your letter would seem to imply.

In considering the problem of your probable future with us, as compared with the various flattering alternatives open to you, I feel that I should make the following statements:

(1) I have no assurance that the recommendation will be adopted. It will carry the vigorous support of the department and of the Chairman. I have already raised the question informally before the Committee on Instruction of the Faculty and am happy to be able to report that this committee is warmly friendly to your cause. Frankly, however, I am not as optimistic as I was last year at this time regarding the outlook for a favorable outcome when the trustees finally take action.

(2) I should report that, in view of all the circumstances, including the state of ferment that exists at the moment regarding future plans for the department, your colleagues would not be willing to urge your appointment to a full professorship immediately, even if they were convinced that such a recommendation would stand a chance of acceptance by the trustees. You are highly regarded and much appreciated. Your colleagues regret the harsh circumstances that have made it impossible to give you more recognition than you have already received. They consider you an excellent gamble for the long future. They consider the fields of your special interest important. However, it is hoped and believed that you have not yet reached a full development of your potentialities. When faced with the question as to whether they are convinced that, on the record to date, you are reasonably certain to be generally regarded, during the next twenty years, as one of the dozen or so most distinguished economists in active service, there is a general disposition to reply “not yet proven beyond a reasonable doubt”. Although they have no illusions about the difficulty of carrying out this policy with success, they have decided to take the position that they will henceforth recommend for a full professorship no one who does not meet such a test. They prefer to have you return with the clear understanding all around that the final issue, the question of the full professorship, shall not be decided in your case until more evidence is in. They take this position with the best of will and with a considerable degree of confidence that the final decision will be favorable. In connection with this, they feel that the important work upon which you are now engaged should contribute substantially to your “capital account” and should have a highly favorable effect upon your future record as a scholar and teacher.

You paid me the compliment of writing me a candid and forthright letter. In return I have attempted to lay before you with complete frankness all the considerations I know of that bear upon the question you have to consider.

Finally, I should like to say, speaking both in a personal capacity and as the chairman of the department, that I hope you will find it possible to send me word that you desire to continue as a member of our group under these conditions. We have an interesting and important task before us. I believe that you have a rôle to play in its accomplishment. If, unhappily for us, your decision takes you away from us, we shall sincerely regret the termination of our close association with you. To a remarkable degree you have earned for yourself not only the respect but the affection of your colleagues at Columbia.

Faithfully yours,

R.M. HAIG

P.S. At your early convenience will you be good enough to send me a note of any items that should be added to your academic record for use in my budget letter.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection. Box 2: “Faculty”,  Folder: “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

From: Economics Department’s Proposed Budget for 1946-1947
November 30, 1945
[Burns recommended for professorship]

[…]

We recommend that Arthur Robert Burns, now an associate professor at a salary of $5,000, be promoted to a professorship at $7,500. Professor Burns, who has been connected with the University since 1928, was appointed an assistant professor in 1935, an associate professor in 1944. He has returned this year to his academic work, after a six-year leave of absence devoted to research and to important governmental service. His war-time activities have included service as Chief Economic Adviser and deputy Director of the Office of Civilian Supply, Deputy Administrator of the Foreign Economic Administration, and a mission to Europe in 1945 as a member of the American Group of the Allied Control Commission, advising on economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.
Professor Burns is carrying one of the fundamental graduate courses on Industrial Organization. He has agreed to offer one of the courses that will be central in the curriculum of the School of International Affairs–a course on “Types of Economic Organization”. His close acquaintance with the organization of the economies of the United States, Britain, and Germany, and his scholarly background in the field are of great value in this development of systematic academic work on comparative economic systems. Burn’s scholarly reputation is high. His study of The Decline of Competition, which is accepted as a standard in the field, is one of the major products of the Columbia Council on Research in the Social Sciences. He has served the country in recent years in administrative and advisory posts of high responsibility. We believe that he should have the rank of full professor.

[…]

Annex C

ARTHUR ROBERT BURNS

Academic Record

1918. Gladstone Memorial Prize, London School of Economics, London.
1920. B.Sc. (Economics) degree with First Class Honors, University of London.
1926. Ph.D. degree, University of London.
1926-28. Laura Spelman Rockefeller Memorial Fellowship.

Teaching

1922-26. University of London.
1928-31. Lecturer in Economics, Barnard College, Columbia University.
1931-35. Lecturer in Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1935-44. Assistant Professor of Economics, Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.
1939. Special Lecturer, Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania.
Leaves of absence without salary for 1940-41 through 1944-45.
1944-45. Promoted to Associate Professor of Economics
Returned to Columbia University for 1945-46.

Published Work

“Indian Currency Reform.” Economica, about 1925.
“The Effect of Funding the Floating Debt,” Economica, about 1933.
Money and Monetary Policy in Early Times.” London: Kegan Paul & Co., 1927. About 650 pp.
The Economic World.” London, University of London Press, 1928. [sic: co-authorship of wife Eveline M. Burns was not included in the citation].
“The Quantitative Study of Recent Economic Changes in the United States.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 31: 491-546, April, 1930.
“Population Pressure in Great Britain.” Eugenics, 3: 211-20, June, 1930.
“The First Phase of the National Industrial Recovery Act 1933”. Political Science Quarterly,  49:161, June, 1934.
“The Consumer under the National Industrial Recovery Act.” Management Review, 23:195, July 1934.
The Decline of Competition. New York, McGraw Hill, 1936. 619 pp.
[not listed: “The Process of Industrial Concentration” 47 Q.J.E. 277 (1933)]
“The Anti-Trust Laws and the Regulation of Price Competition.” Law and Contemporary Problems, June, 1937.
“The Organization of Industry and the Theory of Prices.” Journal of Political Economy, XLV: 662-80, October, 1937.
“Concentration of Production,” Harvard Business Review, Spring Issue, 1943.
“Surplus Government Property and Foreign Policy”, Foreign Affairs, April, 1945.

Unpublished Studies

1935-38. Investigation of the pricing of cement with special reference to the basing point system (in collaboration with Professor J. M. Clark).
1939. Report on the pricing of sulphur.
1938-39. Study of distribution costs and retail prices.
1939-41. Director of Research, Twentieth Century Fund study of “Relations between Government and Electric Light and Power Industry.” Has been completed and is now in hands of the Twentieth Century Fund.

Other Work

1935. Alternate member. President’s Committee to report on the experience of the National Recovery Administration.
1938-39. Chairman, Sub-Committee of Price Conference on Distribution Costs and REtail Prices.
1939-41. Member of Board of Editors, American Economic Review.
1941. Supervisor of Civilian Supply and Requirements, Office of Production Management.
1942. Chief Economic Adviser, Office of Civilian Supply, War Production Board.
1942 (July-August). Member of mission to London to study British methods of concentration of industry.
1943. Deputy Director, Office of Civilian Supply.
1943. Director of Planning and Research, Office of Civilian Requirement
1943, December to March, 1945. Special assistant to Administrator, Deputy Administrator to the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945-continuing. Consultant to Enemy Branch of the Foreign Economic Administration.
1945, Summer. In Europe with the American Group of the Allied Control Commission to advise on the economic and industrial disarmament of Germany.

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Department of Economics Budget ’46-47 and related matters”.

___________________________

Obituary: “Arthur Robert Burns dies at 85; economics teacher at Columbia“, New York Times, January 22, 1981.

Image: Arthur Robert Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Barnard Columbia Economists Gender

Columbia. Eveline M. Burns parts ways with the economics department. 1941-1942

This post is the first of two-parts dealing with a married economics couple who taught at the Columbia economics department during the second quarter of the twentieth century, Eveline Mabel Burns and Arthur Robert Burns. [Warning: not Arthur F. Burns!] Both of the Burns felt themselves relatively undervalued by their Columbia colleagues, but the case for Eveline Burns is particularly clear. She was the weaker spouse but in hindsight the stronger economist of the two. This post presents the end-game correspondence for Eveline Burns with respect to the Columbia economics department. She was quite remarkable, someone who  can be credited as being the midwife for the birth of the U.S. Social Security System (to use a gendered metaphor for a gendered case). The post closes with a list of her publications and her c.v. that is conclusive (ex post) documentation of just how wrong the Columbia economics department got it in the early 1940s. Brava, Eveline Burns!

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Meet your glass ceiling

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

December 9, 1940

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
2121 Virginia Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

My dear Dr. Burns:

As you may have heard, Professor McCrea is retiring at the end of the current academic year and the chairmanship of our Department has been passed along to me. After extensive conferences to ascertain the sentiment of our colleagues, I have prepared my first budget letter. In fairness to you as well as to the Department, I feel that I should report to you in very definite terms the attitude of your colleagues toward your future as a member of the staff.

I understand that you are well aware that in previous years opposition has developed to the proposal to advance you from your present position as Lecturer to that of Assistant Professor, an advancement which would carry with it, of course, some intimation of an intention to promote you later to still higher rank and to a permanent career in the Department. I regret to say that in the course of the budget discussions this year it has become apparent that this opposition has not diminished. It is indeed now so substantial that clearly it will be necessary for you to plan your future on the assumption that there is no possibility of advancement to professorial rank or to permanent status in the Faculty of Political Science.

Since I share the admiration that your colleagues in the Department feel for your many admirable qualities and your many impressive achievements, it is not an easy thing to send this message, which, in spite of previous notice, will doubtless cause you pain and disappointment. The plain fact is, however, that even your most enthusiastic friends agree that viewing the situation in all its aspects, you should not be encouraged to believe that your connection can be made more permanent, or that your rank can be advanced. This conclusion has been reached after extended consideration and will not, I feel certain, be modified by further discussion or debate.

In the budget letter you are being recommended for an appointment for the academic year 1941-42 as Lecturer at a stipend of $3,000.

Faithfully yours,

ROBERT M. HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Eveline Burns was not amused

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Resources Planning Board
Washington, D.C.

January 21, 1941

Professor Robert M. Haig
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, N.Y.

My dear Professor Haig:

I have now had an opportunity of reading with more care your letter of December 9th which you handed to me yesterday and I find it is of a nature which obviously calls for a formal acknowledgment from me. Will you therefore please accept this letter as such? Since no reasons are given for the decision you have conveyed to me there is clearly no comment that I can make, ever were any comment appropriate.

I understood you to say that it would be unnecessary for me formally to give you in writing my reasons for being unwilling to accept a full time appointment as lecturer at a stipend of $3,000, and that you would explore the possibilities of a part time arrangement.

There is, however, one phrase in your letter to which I must take exception for the purposes of the record. In the last paragraph but one of your letter you use the words “in spite of previous notice.” I should like to state formally that to the best of my knowledge no such clear statement of the intentions of the faculty has ever been given to me. On the contrary, on each occasion when I have sought a clarification of the situation from the Dean or, at his suggestion, from other members of the faculty, I have always been given to understand that the individual approached was personally sympathetic to my cause and anxious to see my position regularized but that it would take time for this result to be achieved because of certain admitted difficulties which it was hoped would ultimately be removed.

At varying times I have been informed that there were difficulties because of: (a) my sex, (b) the fact that my husband was also on the staff, (c) the personal objections of an individual faculty member; or that it was undesirable to make a formal recommendation at the time because: (a) a recommendation was being made in favor of my husband and it would be unwise to make recommendations for both husband and wife simultaneously, or (b) that there were staff members, junior to myself, whose economic situations were more pressing than mine, or (c) that it would be advisable to wait until my book on British Unemployment Relief was published, or (d) that there was a general shortage of funds in the university.

In these circumstances I feel that it was not unreasonable for me to draw the conclusion, especially in view of the evident validity of the last consideration cited, that the problem was one of “when”, rather than “whether”, my position would be regularized.

The only occasion on which I was given any indication that this might not be the correct interpretation was in December 1938 when Professor McCrea informed me that while the Department was anxious to expand the work in Social Security, there was some disposition on the part of certain members with whom he had talked to feel that they would like to bring in some outside person to head up the work. I immediately offered my resignation to the Dean, on the ground that for me to continue at Columbia University under such circumstances would not be consistent with my standing in my field and the fact that I had for so long been teaching this subject. Moreover, I pointed out that such a decision implied the negation of any hopes of promotion that I might have formed.

At the request of the Dean, I withdrew my resignation until he could call a meeting of the faculty to discuss the question of my future in the University and at his request I furnished him with a list of my professional activities and publications and the names of outstanding experts in my field from whom he could obtain an opinion as to my standing. That meeting was held in January or February of 1939 and I subsequently received a letter from the Dean (which I do not have with me in Washington) informing me that the decision had been “favorable to my cause” or words to that effect. In those circumstances I felt, wrongly as it now appears, that I was justified in not proceeding with my resignation.

I wish to make it very clear that I am calling attention to these facts solely for the purposes of the record. Even had your letter not emphasized the finality of the judgment, I feel that if my colleagues were prepared to reach such a decision after my thirteen years of service without giving me any reasons therefor, it is unrealistic to expect that their attitude would be changed by any reminder of the facts that I have reported. Nor have I any desire to claim, on the grounds of obligation, expressed or implied, a recognition which the faculty is unwilling for other reasons to give me.

May I say how very sincerely I appreciate your frankness and friendliness yesterday in performing a task which I know could not have been a pleasant one for you. I cannot but feel that had my other colleagues displayed an equal candor and courage during the last seven or eight years, the problem of planning my professional and personal life would have been greatly simplified.

Yours very sincerely,

Eveline M. Burns

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Terms of ex-dearment

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

February 15, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
2121 Virginia Avenue N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Eve Burns:

This is to report to you that on behalf of the Department I have today sent to the Provost of the University a recommendation that you be appointed Lecturer for the academic year 1941-1942, on a part-time basis, at a stipend of $2,500. This, I understand, conforms to your wishes. This appointment contemplates that you will offer one course and will be available for dissertation, essay, and general Departmental work within the area of your special field. It is understood that the arrangement is for a single year, with no commitment by either of us for the period beyond June, 1942.

I have placed your letter of January 21st in the University file.

I had thought of the New York School of Social Work, but I am told that, for the present at least, there is no opening there that would be attractive to you. There is, however, an opening at Hunter College (which may involve the chairmanship of the Department at $6,000 or more) and I have suggested you name to them.

Faithfully yours,

[unsigned, presumably Robert M. Haig]

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Eveline Burns to Department
Roger that.

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

 

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
National Resources Planning Board
Washington, D.C.

February 27, 1941

Dr. Robert M. Haig
Faculty of Political Science
Columbia University
New York, N.Y.

Dear Mr. Haig:

I wish to thank you for your letter of February 15th stating that you have sent forward a recommendation for my appointment as Lecturer for the academic year 1941-42 on a part-time basis at a stipend of $2,500. I have also noted your statement that the arrangement is for a single year with no commitment for the period beyond June 1942.

Sincerely yours,

Eveline M. Burns

Director of Research, Committee on
Long Range Work and Relief Policies

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (appreares to have been dictated) no signature, no printed letterhead):

November 22, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Que [sic] Street, N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Doctor Burns:

Last January, after you had expressed your unwillingness to accept reappointment as full-time lecturer at $3,000, the part-time arrangement presently in force was made with the understanding that it involved no commitment beyond June, 1942.

In accordance with a decision reached at a conference of members of the department last night, I have included in the budget letter a recommendation that no provision be made for the continuance of your connection with the department beyond the end of the current academic year.

As I send you this communication I am certain that I speak for all of the members of the department in expressing regret for the circumstances which have prevented the realization of some of our hopes and in expressing appreciation of the contribution you have made to our joint product during the period of your association with Columbia.

With renewed assurances of my personal esteem, I am

Faithfully yours,

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 2  Folders “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
Repeat: you quit, you were not fired

December 22, 1941

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Q Street N.W.,
Washington D.C.

My dear Dr. Burns:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of December 10th.

My understanding of the course of events in your case, based on the written record and upon my recollection of our conversation on January 20th, 1941, is this:

            1) You demanded promotion and expressed an unwillingness to return to us as a full time lecturer at $3,000;

            2) You were then told, both orally and in writing, that there was no possibility of advancement to professorial rank or to permanent status in the Faculty of Political Science;

            3) Thereupon you suggested a special arrangement for 1941-2, stated, both orally and in writing, to be temporary in character, and to involve no commitment on either side beyond June 30, 1942.

            It would seem to be correct to describe what happened as a voluntary withdrawal by you from your position as lecturer because of your dissatisfaction with that status and your unwillingness to continue in it in the face of the University’s inability to promise advancement. It would seem to be incorrect to describe it as a “dismissal”. We decline to regard it as such in our discussions with you and certainly shall not describe it as such in any communications with outsiders who may have an interest in you.

Since, according to my understanding, you were not dismissed, but withdrew, I cannot supply you with the reason for your “dismissal”. You insisted upon promotion. Your colleagues regretfully decided that it was not possible to encourage you to expect promotion to professorial rank and a permanent career in the department.

With respect to the confidential character of the statements at the decisive meeting, I should like to make it clear that, while we agreed not to report each others’ remarks at the meeting, there was no agreement that would preclude any individual who felt so inclined from giving you his own opinion of your qualities in such detail as he might desire.

Yours truly,

ROBERT MURRAY HAIG

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 2  Folders “Faculty Appointments”.

____________________________

Department to Eveline Burns
We said: you weren’t fired, you quit

Appears to be a carbon copy of a typed copy of the original (no signature, no printed letterhead):

January 6, 1942

Dr. Eveline M. Burns,
3206 Q Street N.W.,
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Burns:

I beg to acknowledge your letter of December 30th, 1941. [Not found in my files]

I am sorry that my recollection of what occurred at our oral interview on January 20th, 1941 does not substantiate in all particulars the statements you make in this letter. My recollection of what occurred is set forth in my letter of December 22d, 1941.

Yours truly,

ROBERT M. HAIG.

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folder “Economics Budget, 1940-1941”.

____________________________

Salary Structure of Economics Staff at Columbia and Barnard
1941-42

DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
The Budget as Adopted for 1941-42

Office or Item

Incumbent

1941-1942
ActualAppropriations

McVickar Professor Political Economy Robert M. Haig $9,000.
Professor of Political Economy Leo Wolman $9,000.
Professor of Economic History V. G. Simkhovitch $9,000.
Professor Wesley C. Mitchell $9,000.
Professor John Maurice Clark $9,000.
Professor James Waterhouse Angell $7,500
Professor Carter Goodrich $7,500
Professor Harold Hotelling $7,500
Professor Horace Taylor $6,500
Assistant Professor Arthur R. Burns $4,500.
Assistant Professor Robert L. Carey $3,600.
Assistant Professor Boris M. Stanfield $3,600.
Assistant Professor Joseph Dorfman $3,600.
Honorary Associate Richard T. Ely ($1,000.)
Instructor Hubert F. Havlik $3,000.
Instructor C. Lowell Harriss $2,400.
($300.)
Instructor Walt W. Rostow $2,400.
Instructor Courtney C. Brown $2,700.
Instructor Harold Barger $3,000.
Instructor Donald W. O’Connell ($2,400.)
Lecturer Carl T. Schmidt $3,000.
Lecturer (Winter Session) Robert Valeur ($1,500.)
Lecturer Eveline M. Burns $2,500.
Lecturer Louis M. Hacker $3,000.
Lecturer Michael T. Florinsky $2,700.
Lecturer Abraham Wald $2,400.
($600.)
Visiting Lecturer Arthur F. Burns ($2,000.)**
Departmental appropriation $800.
Assistance $1,200.
$118,400.

** Chargeable to salary of Prof. Mitchell, absent on leave.

BARNARD COLLEGE:
Economics Budget for 1941-42

Associate Professor Elizabeth F. Baker $5,000.
Assistant Professor Raymond J. Saulnier $3,600.
Instructor Donald B. Marsh $2,400.
Instructor Mirra Komarovsky $2,700.
Lecturer Clara Eliot $2,700.
Assistant in Economics and Social Science Mary M. van Brunt $1,000
$17,400.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries Manuscript Collections. Department of Economics Collection, Box 3 “Budget, 1915-1946/1947”, Folders “Economics Budget, 1940-1941” and “Budget Material from July 1941-June 1942”.

____________________________

But don’t cry for Eveline M. Burns
She did very well for herself.

A Festschrift was published in honour of Professor Burns in 1969 under the title: Social Security in International Perspective: Essays in Honor of Eveline M. Burns, Ed. Shirley Jenkins, New York and London, Columbia University Press.

____________________________

Eveline M. Burns’ Publications:

“The French Minimum Wage Act of 1915” in Economica, III, 1923;

“The Economics of Family Endowment” in Economica, V, 1925;

Wages and the State: A Comparative Study of the Problems of State Wage Regulations, London, P. S. King and Son, 1926;

The Economic World: A Survey (with A. R. Burns), London, Oxford University Press, 1927;

“Achievements of the British Pension System” in Old-Age Security: Proceedings of the Second National Conference, New York, American Association of Old-Age Security, 1929;

“Planning and Unemployment” in Socialist Planning and a Socialist Program, Ed. H. W. Laidler, New York, Falcon Press, 1932;

“Misconceptions of European Unemployment Insurance” in Social Security in the United States: 1933, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1933;

“Lessons from British and German Experience” in Social Security in the United States: 1934, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1934;

“Can Social Insurance Provide Social Security?” in Social Security in the United States: 1935, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1935;

“The Lessons of German Experience with Unemployment Relief” in Lectures on Current Economic Problems, Washington, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Graduate School, 1936;

“Basic Principles in Old-Age Security” in Social Security in the United States: 1936, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1936;

Memorandum on “Wall Street Journal” Articles, Washington, Bureau of Research and Statistics (Memorandum No. 3), 1936

Towards Social Security: An Explanation of the Social Security Act and a Survey of the Larger Issues, London, Whittlesey House, and New York, McGraw-Hill, 1936;

“Social Realities versus Technical Obfuscations” in Social Security in the United States: 1937, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1937;

The Arguments for and against the Old-Age Reserve, Washington, Social Security Board, 1938;

“Some Fundamental Consideration in Social Security” in Social Security in the United States: 1940, New York, American Association for Social Security, 1940;

British Unemployment Programs 1920-38 (Report prepared for the Committee on Social Security), Washington, Social Science Research Council, 1941;

Security, Work and Relief Policies (Report of the Committee on Long-Range Work and Relief Policies to the National Resources Planning Board: Eveline M. Burns, Director of Research), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1942;

“Building for Economic Security—Six Foundation Stones” in The Third Freedom: Freedom from Want, Ed. H. W. Laidler, New York, League for Industrial Democracy, 1943;

“Equal Access to Health” and “Equal Access to Economic Security” in National Resources Development Report for 1943 (Part I), Washington, U.S. Government Printing Office, 1943;

Discussion and Study Outline on Social Security, Washington, National Planning Association (Planning Pamphlets No. 33), 1944;

“Social Security” in Economic Reconstruction, Ed. S. E. Harris, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1945;

“Economic Factors in Family Life” in The Family in the Democratic Society, New York, Columbia University Press, 1949;

“How Much Social Welfare Can America Afford?” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1949, Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New York, Columbia University Press, 1950;

“Social Insurance in Evolution” in Readings in Labor Economics, Ed. F. S. Doody, Cambridge (Mass.), Addison Wesley Press, 1950;

The American Social Security System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 2nd edition, 1951;

The Social Security Act Amendments of 1950: An Appendix to The American Social Security System, Boston, Houghton Mifflin, 1951;

“An Expanded Role for Social Work” in Social Work Education in the United States, Ed. E. V. Hollis and A. L. Taylor, New York, Columbia University Press, 1951;

“Fifteen Years under the Social Security Act: An Evaluation” in Current Issues in Social Security, Ed. L. MacDonald, New York University, Institute of Labor Relations and Social Security, 1951;

“The Doctoral Program: Progress and Problems” in Social Work Education in the Post-Master’s Program. No. 1: Guiding Principles, New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1953;

Comments on the Chamber of Commerce Social Security Proposals, Chicago, American Public Welfare Association, 1953;

Private and Social Insurance and the Problem of Social Security, Ottawa, Canadian Welfare Council, 1953;

“Significant Contemporary Issues in the Expansion and Consolidation of Government Social Security Programs” in Economic Security for Americans: An Appraisal of the Progress made from 1900 to 1953, New York, Columbia University Graduate School of Business, 1954;

“The Role of Government in Social Welfare” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1954, Proceedings of the National Conference of Social Work, New York, Columbia University Press, 1954;

“The Financing of Social Welfare” in New Directions in Social Work, New York, Harper, 1954;

America’s Role in International Social Welfare (Editor), New York, Columbia University Press, 1955;

Social Security and Public Policy, New York, McGraw-Hill, 1956;

“Welfare Assistance” in A Report to the Governor of the State of New York and the Mayor of the City of New York, by the New York City Fiscal Relations Committee, New York, The Committee, 1956;

Papers and Proceedings of the Conference on Social Policy and Social Work Education, Arden House, April 1957 (Editor), New York, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University, 1957;

“Social Policy and the Social Work Curriculum” in Objectives of the Social Work Curriculum of the Future, by W. W. Boehm, New York, Council on Social Work Education, 1959;

“The Government’s Role in Child and Family Welfare” in The Nation’s Children, Vol. III: Problems and Prospects, Ed. Eli Ginsberg, New York, Columbia University Press, 1960;

“A Salute to Twenty-Five Years of Social Security” in Social Security: Programs, Problems and Policies, Ed. W. Haber and W. J. Cohen, Homewood (Illinois), R. D. Irwin, 1960;

“Issues in Social Security Financing” in Social Security in the United States: Lectures Presented by the Chancellor’s Committee on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the Social Security Act, Berkeley, University of California, Institute of Industrial Relations, 1961;

A Research Program for the Social Security Administration, Washington, U.S. Government Printer, 1961;

“Introduction” in Federal Grants and Public Assistance: A Comparative Study of Policies and Programmes in U.S.A and India, by Saiyid Zafar Hasan, Allahabad, Kitab Mahal, 1963;

“The Functions of Private and of Social Insurance” in Studi sulle assicurazione raccolti in occasione del cinquanterario dell’Istituto Nazionale della Assicurazioni, Ed. A. Giuffre, Milan, 1963;

“The Determinants of Policy” in In Aid of the Unemployed, Ed. J. M. Becker, Baltimore, The Johns Hopkins Press, 1965;

“Social Security in America: The Two Systems—Public and Private” in Labor in a Changing America, Ed. W. Haber, New York, Basic Books, 1966;

“Income Maintenance Policies and Early Retirement” in Technology, Manpower, and Retirement Policy, Ed. J. M. Kreps, Cleveland, World Publishing Co., 1966;

“The Challenge and the Potential of the Future” in Comprehensive Health Services for New York City (Report of the Mayor’s Commission on the Delivery of Personal Health Services), New York, The Commission, 1967;

“Foreword” in Poor Law to Poverty Program, by Samuel Mencher, University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967;

“The Future Course of Public Welfare” in Position Papers and Major Related Data for the Governor’s Conference, Albany (New York), New York State Board of Social Welfare, 1967;

Social Policy and the Health Services: The Choices Ahead, New York, American Public Health Association, 1967;

“Productivity and the Theory of Wages” in London Essays in Economics, Ed. T. E. Gregory and H. Dalton, London, G. Routledge, 1927; republished, Freeport (New York), Books for Libraries Press, 1967;

Children’s Allowances and the Economic Welfare of Children (Editor and Contributor), New York, Citizen’s Committee for Children, 1968;

“Needed Changes in Welfare Programs” in Urban Planning and Social Policy, New York, Basic Books, 1968;

“Social Security in Evolution—Towards What?” in Unions, Management and the Public, New York, Harcourt, Brace and World, 3rdedition, 1968;

“A Commentary on Gunnar Myrdal’s Essay on the Social Sciences and their Impact on Society” in Social Theory and Social Invention, Ed. H. D. Stein, Cleveland, Press of Case Western Reserve University, 1968;

“Welfare Reform and Income Security Policies” in The Social Welfare Forum, 1970, Proceedings of the National Conference on Social Welfare, New York, Columbia University Press, 1970;

“Health Care System” in Encyclopedia of Social Work, New York, National Association of Social Workers, 1971

____________________________

Eveline Mabel Burns
C.V.

Vital information:

Born: Eveline Mabel Richardson on March 16, 1900 in Norwood, London.

Married: Arthur Robert Burns (b. December 2, 1895; d. January 20 1981) of London, 1922.

U.S. Citizenship: 1937.

Died: September 2, 1985 in Newton, Pennsylvania.

Education:

B.Sc. (Econ.), Ph.D. (London), Honorary D.H.L. (Western College; Adelphi; Columbia), Honorary LL.D. (Western Reserve University). Professor Emeritus, Columbia University, since 1967; and Consultant Economist, Community Service Society, New York, since 1971.

Streatham Secondary School, 1913-16; London School of Economics and Political Science, 1916-20; London County Council Tuition Scholarship; B.Sc. (Econ.), 1st Class Honors in Economics, 1920; Ph.D., 1926; Adam Smith Medal for outstanding thesis of the year, 1926.

Positions Held

(1)  Normal Full-time Positions

Title of Position. Name of Institution/Organization. Years of Tenure. Compensation

Junior Administrative Officer. Ministry of Labor, London, England. 1917-21. £ 250

Assistant Lecturer, London School of Economics, University of London. 1921-28 (On Leave 1926-8). £ 350

Lecturer, Graduate Department of Economics, Columbia University. 1928-42 (on leave 1940-2). $ 3000-3500

Chief, Economic Security and Health Section, National Resources Planning Board, Washington, D. C. 1940-3. $ 7500

Professor of Social Work and Chairman and Administrative Officer, Doctoral Committee, New York School of Social Work, Columbia University. 1946 to [retired 1967] $ 9500

(2)  Special Assignments

London School of Economics. Asst, Editor, Economica, 1922-6.

University of London Social Security Committee. Senior Staff Officer, 1937-9. $6500

Social Science Research Council

National Planning Association, Washington, D. C. Consultant on Social Security, 1943-4. $7000

(3)  Visiting Professorships

Anna Howard Shaw Lecturer, Bryn Mawr College, 1944
Visiting Professor, Bryn Mawr College, 1945-6
Visiting Professor, Princeton University, 1951

I have also given short courses or individual lectures at the following institutions:

Department of Economics, University of Chicago
Smith College School for Social Work
Littauer Graduate School of Public Administration, Harvard Univ.
School of Applied Social Sciences, University of Pittsburgh
School of Applied Sciences, Western Reserve University

For several years I have conducted the Advanced Seminar arranged by the Social Security Administration for its senior staff, and have given brief seminars for foreign social security experts brought to this country by the Mutual Security Agency

(4)  Consultantships

Consultant, Committee on Economic Security, Washington, 1934-5
Principal Consulting Economist, Social Security Board, 1936-40
Consultant, Social Security Administration, 1948 to date

I have also served as consultant on specific issues to the:

United States Treasury
The Federal Reserve Board
The Works Progress Administration
The New York State Department of Labor

OTHER DISTINCTIONS

Adam Smith Medal for outstanding thesis of the year, 1926
Laura Spelman Rockefeller Fellowship, 1926-8
Guggenheim Fellowship, 1954-5
Florina Lasker Award (“for outstanding contributions in the field of Social Security”), 1960
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Western College, 1962
Honorary LLD, Western Reserve University, 1963
Honorary Fellow, London School of Economics, 1963
Bronfman Lecturer, American Public Health Assn., 1966
Ittelson Medal (“for contributions to Social planning”), 1968
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Adelphi University, 1968
Woman of Achievement Award, American Assn. of University Women, 1968
Honorary Doctorate in Humane Letters, Columbia University, 1969

POSITIONS OF CIVIC OR NATIONAL RESPONSIBILITY, MEMBERSHIP OF LEARNED SOCIETIES, ETC.

Member American Economic Association (Member of Executive Ctte, 1951-3  and Vice-President, 1953-4)
National Conference on Social Welfare (Secretary, 1955, First-Vice President, 1956 and President, 1957-58)
American Public Health Association (Vice-President, 1969-70)
Vice-President and President, Consumers’ League of New York, 1935-8
Member and Chairman of various committees, Federal Advisory Council on Employment Security, 1952-70
Member, Legislative Policy Committee, American Public Welfare Assn., 1956-68
Member, Steering Committee, White House Conference on Children, 1959-60
Member, Federal Advisory Committee on Area Redevelopment, Subsequently the National Committee on Regional Economic Development, 1961-69
Member, Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Hobby’s Advisory Committee on Coverage Extension of the Social Security Act, 1953-4
American Delegate to International Conference on Social Welfare, 1958, and member of Steering Ctte and Vice-Chairman of Commission I
Chairman, Social Security Administration Advisory Committee on Long Range Research, 1961-5
Member, President Johnson’s Task Force on Income Security Policy, 1964
Member of Sub-Committee on Social Policy for Health Care and member of its Executive Committee, N. Y. Academy of Medicine 1964 to date
Member, Mayor Lindsay’s Commission on Delivery of Health Service in New York City, 1967-8
Member, National Council, American Assn. of University Professors 1961-4

Original Source: Eveline Burns Papers. Box 1. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, Social Welfare History Archives. Minneapolis, MN.

Transcribed and posted on line: Davidann, J. & Klassen, D. (2002). Eveline Mabel Richardson Burns (1900-1985) — Social economist, author, educator and contributor to the development of the Social Security Act of 1935. Social Welfare History Project.

Image: Eveline Mabel Burns.  Detail from a departmental photo dated “early 1930’s” in Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections, Columbiana. Department of Economics Collection, Box 9, Folder “Photos”.

Categories
Chicago Columbia Economist Market Economists

Chicago. Harry Johnson opposes major appointment to be offered to Gary Becker, 1964

From the perspective of today it is rather difficult to imagine that the idea of bringing favorite son Gary Becker back to the University of Chicago from Columbia could have faced any, much less, serious resistance from within the economics department. But as the following letters from Zvi Griliches’ papers in the Harvard archives show, Harry Johnson’s displeasure with this prospect was a force taken most seriously by several of his colleagues, at least in the Spring of 1964. Perhaps more was at play than Johnson’s principle objection to a Becker hire:

“…his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him.”

Johnson offered another interesting claim with regard to 1964 Chicago faculty expectations for a Ph.D. thesis:

I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (‘the quality and length of a good journal article’)…

Perhaps the birth of the concept of a job-market-paper?

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

May 20, 1964

To: Al Harberger, Zvi Griliches

From: Al Rees

Re: Gary Becker

The question of an appointment for Gary will be discussed at a Department Meeting on June 4. I enclose a copy of a confidential memo from Harry in which he opposes the appointment. Harry will be in Italy on June 4 and cannot present his views in person. I would very much like to have your reaction before the meeting.

You should also know that appointments are being offered this week to Jimmy Savage and to Hans Theil, both at high salaries and both joint with the School of Business. There seems to be a very high probability that both will be accepted.

I am somewhat concerned about the number of tenure posts the Administration will let us have; in particular, I do not want to do anything that might “freeze out” Larry Sjaastad, for whom I have very high hopes.

Another consideration is the effect on Harry of making a senior appointment that he opposes. He seems to feel somehow outnumbered and is still actively considering a move to London.

Gregg has already put to you the case for Gary; in any case you know his stengths too well to need to be reminded of them.

[signed] Al

_____________________

 UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO

Date May 19, 1964

CONFIDENTIAL

To: A. Rees
From: H.G. Johnson
In re: [Economics] Department Meeting, June 4th

As I will not be at the departmental meeting on June 4th, I am taking the unusual course of putting on paper my views about certain matters due for discussion, on which I would have spoken.

I. A. (1) The thesis prospectus seminar on Choudhri was dissatisfied with the prospectus; it considered making him prepare a new prospectus, but decided instead to make him get agreement from the three members of his Committee on a new draft. Earl Hamilton was in favor of another prospectus seminar, but was overruled. I have had second thoughts, and believe that the matter should be reconsidered, for the following reasons:

(a) next year’s money workshop will be in different hands than this year’s; I am worried that, in the rush to get students past their prospectus seminar, we will land next year’s workshop with a batch of poorly thought out prospectuses that will have to be patched up with great labor.

(b) Choudhri has an excellent record; he should be able to do much better, and we should make him do better–if we let him get by with low-quality work, we are doing his future career a disservice.

(c) I have noticed among some of the graduate students the notion that the Ph.D. thesis is to be completed with the minimum of intellectual input and a few single-equation regressions. This is contrary to the intention of the Ph.D. regulations (“the quality and length of a good journal article’), bad for student morale, and inimical to good teaching. An example in this case would be salutary, and it would do Choudhri himsèlf little harm and probably some good.

I. A. (1) I would like to recommend strongly that we go after R. A. Mundell for the Ford Fellowship for 1965-66. Mundell is one of the most original and elegant moentary theorists going: he has contributed to the theory of economic policy under fixed and floating exchange rates, and started off the analysis of optimum currency areas, and he has made a number of contributions to the price theory of money and of inflation. He is also a first-class international trade and general value theorist, and a man who is always ready for an intelligent argument. Apart from our mathematical economists, we have no-one here with Mundell’s interest in pure monetary and value theory; and we have no-one with his practical experience at the IMF. I should add that I have suggested Mundell partly because I have talked with him, and he would like to spend 1965-66 in this area.

I. B. (2) Just as strongly, I feel that the department should not pursue the proposal to offer a tenure appointment to Gary Becker. I have a high respect for Becker’s theoretical abilities; but as his accomplishments consist mainly in doing more competently what various members of the department already do, and have been doing for a long time, and not in doing well what the department does not do and ought to be doing if it expects to attract good students and maintain its leadership among the graduate schools of the continent, I think that it would be a grave error of strategy in the development of the department to go after him. 

In addition, I would point out that Becker is probably the most distinguished graduate this department had had in recent years, and that going after him would be a repetition of the cannibalization-of-the-young policy that in my judgment has seriously weakened this department in the past decade or so. Unless we get our good graduates established in good departments in other Universities, we are going to have to live with the present image of the Chicago School in the profession at large, and we are not going to have representatives in other good universities steering good students towards us. If we persistently try to bring our own best back, we will defeat ourselves in the long run in two ways: we will not get the students; and we will not get the top-quality men we should get either, because we are bound to miss out on some of our own, and the fact that a new non-Chicagoan will necessarily be one of a minority outgroup will make the place unattractive to such men.

I am also fairly sure that Becker would not come, because he is intelligent enough to know that he should not come and begause he is well entrenched at Columbia, where a number of senior men are due to be replaced and will be replaced by men of his own

_____________________

THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO
CHICAGO 37 • ILLINOIS
DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS

June 15, 1964

Professor Zvi Griliches

The Maurice Falk Institute for
Economic Research in Israel
17, Keren Hayesod Street
Jerusalem, Israel

Dear Zvi:

I have your letter of June 7.

At the Department Meeting a week ago last Friday, we took no action on Richard Moorsteen other than agreeing to invite him to come to Chicago for a visit next fall. We agreed to invite Bob Mundell to join our faculty for the year 1965-66 on the Ford Foundation Professorship.

The Department took no action on my proposal to offer a major appointment to Gary Becker. It is likely that the question will come up again next fall and you will be here then to state your own point of view.

It is quite clear now that Theil is not going to give us his decision until after his return to the Netherlands. At the moment I am fairly optimistic that when he makes his decision, it will be favorable. Theil has been offered a quite good package, I think, and I judge from conversations with him that he feels he also has a good package.

Furthermore, Judy got the impression that Laura Theil would be favorable to coming here.

You ask in the postscript to your letter whether I got a raise. I presume that what was in your mind was the question: Will I get a raise if the chairmanship is offered to me and I accept it?

I can’t answer your  question for sure since the chairmanship has not been offered to me. Indeed, I have taken steps at this end to try to insure that it won’t be offered to me. If it is offered to me, it is very unlikely I will accept it. Indeed, I can’t imagine that the terms on which it would be offered would be sufficiently attractive to induce me to accept.

Sincerely,

[signed] Gregg

H.G. Lewis

HGL/agm

Source: Harvard University Archives, Papers of Zvi Griliches, Box 129, Folder „Correspondence, 1960-1969“.

Image Sources: Harry Johnson (Archives of two giants of economics donated to the U Chicago Library. U Chicago News, October 25, 2018); Gary Becker (University of Chicago Booth School Nobel Laureate Page for Gary Becker).

Categories
Columbia

Columbia. Personal Narrative of the Columbia Crisis. A.G. Hart, May 1968

 

This contemporary eye-witness report of the events of April/May 1968 by Columbia University economics Professor Albert G. Hart can be found in the economics department records in the Columbia University archives. Added to this transcription of a rather faint mimeographed copy is a link to a convenient overview of those events assembled by the Columbia University Libraries.

Hart was clearly writing for his colleagues but also for us historians (he closes with the German text from Buxtehude’s “Du Frieden-Fürst, Herr Jesu Christ”, and not just a phrase but three full stanzas without translation. Learned showboat?). He also didn’t want his report to leak to academic adversaries, but I think with over a half-century between us and this document, we can now legitimately “declassify” Hart’s 26-page typed “Annotated Narrative of the Columbia University Crisis”.

______________________________

Who’s Who and What’s When
Columbia University, Apr/May 1968

Columbia University Libraries. Web exhibit: 1968 — Columbia in Crisis.

______________________________

ANNOTATED NARRATIVE OF THE COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY CRISIS
CONFIDENTIAL

From: A.G. HART
4 May 1968

To:

J.W. [James W.] ANGELL
H. [Harold] BARGER
A.R. BURNS [sic, A.R.B. was 73 at the time, A.F.B. was 64]
C. [Carter] GOODRICH
C.S. [Carl S.] SHOUP
W.S. [William S.] VICKREY

You will all obviously find yourselves in a position where you must explain to outsiders what has been happening to us at the University; and I hope you will feel impelled to offer us some counsel. Hence, you ought to be getting some word from us as to how things feel, with enough detail on the happenings to show where we get these feelings. It’s quite plain I won’t get around to writing all the indicated personal letters; hence this circular. Please don’t take it as a complete briefing (even in my intention, let alone in fact): I was well-placed to observe and saw a lot; but I was watching at any time only one segment of one ring of the 12-ring circus and was rarely calm.

The format of this paper is an annotated narrative rather than an analysis. Diagnosis[,] prognosis and prescription have to go on while we’re sick and I am much involved. But it would be pretentious to claim full understanding; and a sketch of a chronology is necessary in any case. Hence I use a chronological skeleton. While I think one can produce a much more coherent report by addressing it to somebody in particular I want to be in a position to show this to a moderate number of people outside its address list. Largely for this reason, I avoid name-dropping except where I am clear that the act or utterance in question was designedly public and that to put a name to it is illuminating about the general process at work.

Before I dive in, let me say that so far as my observation an intake of reliable gossip reach, none of the economists (senior faculty, junior faculty and students) seem to have done or said things that will prevent us from working together in harmony and mutual respect. Things that may yet take a serious turn for the worse; but I think the Department of Economics is coming through in good shape.

Opening episodes

Tuesday, 23 April. While most of us knew there was ferment among the students (and my wife was hearing almost daily from Negro co-workers in West Side Relocation that the Morningside Park gym was going to be a focus for riots), it was a surprise to most of [us] that the troubles erupted so suddenly and strongly. I arrived on the 5th floor of Kent for a 12-o’clock class just as the announced protest and counter-protest got under way in front of Low Library. Having put together my normal prefabricated notes I was moderately coherent about regional problems within Latin American countries. When I told a student who insisted on gawking out the window that I’d “lower the guillotine” to reduce the noise; he walked out; wasn’t ours after all; but just a fellow with a camera? We heard some cries of “Let’s go” and a lot of rushing about. (The surge was first toward Low then towards Hamilton. Eyewitnesses tell me, what I could have seen from our window but missed that when the demonstrators crossed flower beds, they managed to avoid trampling the tulips, which were best-ever).

By early afternoon, we all knew that Hamilton was occupied. But while it was a curious sensation to walk past Hamilton — especially after rumors spread that Harlem had been invited in — the rest of the campus was more or less normal. The monetary seminar met in Haskell with only moderate signs of distraction; office hours were normal. Tuesday evening I read dissertations.

Wednesday, 24 April. Wednesday also had an air of quasi-normality; though one learned that the blacks in Hamilton had evicted the other occupants who in turn had “liberated” much of Low Library.* From the faculty standpoint, it was refreshing that the College Faculty met and passed some resolutions.1 Above all it called for cessation of work at the site of the Morningside Park gym project and for an announcement that work would not be resumed unless building there was accepted on behalf of the community by some group of community leaders.2

____________

*Spectator, which seems suddenly to have jumped from adolescent to adult approaches, reported this most interestingly—though with some confusion between hours AM and PM. The rumor that blacks imported by the “Afro-American students” from Harlem[?] as “representatives” of various organizations were taking charge with guns, was apparently traceable to what the ineffable Mr. [Mark] Rudd told his constituents inside Hamilton.

1 The Faculty of Political Science had met on Friday the 19th, with the weakest attendance I have ever witnessed—about 20, which I am told was a shade higher than the 1967 meeting when I was in Frankfurt. Robert Merton remarked near the end of this meeting that we had managed to sit an hour and a half without discussing anything that wasn’t merely procedural, and told us we’d simply have to find ways to revivify faculty meetings by having an agenda with real substantive content that would command participation.

2 I find I am unclear as to what stand was taken on “University participation in IDA [Institute for Defense Analyses]”: of course, I have no seat in the College Faculty, and I find I haven’t either brought the relevant papers to Connecticut for this breather Nor stored my mind with any clear memory of what I may have been told by the brethren who were at the meeting.
The IDA issue is of course typical on the interplay between the SDS [Students for a Democratic Society] agitation and Kirk’s reactions. They chose to ignore (though never quite denying) the fact that the Trustees had voted withdrawal, and to concentrate on the fact that Kirk and one trustee remained as directors.
As one of the economics graduate students closest to the strike leadership said at the department gathering last night (May 3), the strike couldn’t lose while it had Kirk to oppose it! Why didn’t he have the wit to withdraw as director so as to make the University’s withdrawal unambiguous?

____________

Closing of Fayerweather

Thursday, 25 April. On Thursday morning I arrived at Fayerweather to find that there was a picket line circulating in front of the south door, and a solid mass of cheerful-looking youngsters sitting on the steps inside.Various classes (including Wellisz’s Development) had been held normally at 9 o’clock, but Wellisz, having left, was locked out.

____________

3 Yes, the grey-haired and unidentified professor the back of whose head (stuck into Fayerweather door at an interrogative angle) got into the Daily News, Times, and other spots was AGH. I was looking to see whether anybody on the steps looked to me like a student I’d ever seen before; none did. Paul Lazarsfeld, who came up with me (wanting to go to his office) also looked and recognized nobody; though other sociologists told me some of their students were on those steps.

____________

            While Lazersfeld and I were at the door, people inside closed and locked it. Then there was thinning out of students inside. Presently there was a lot of talking and moving around, and inside the door appeared Eileen Christianson (at top of the steps also Eva Kiessling); Eileen was fumbling with a key in the lock. My impression was that she wanted out and was being kept in; so when in the confusion the door opened, I stuck my foot in it. None of us from outside tried to push in. It turned out that what was up was a protest-within-the-protest. Eileen objected to having her work (on behalf of students) interfered with; and if the lads said “strike”, she’d have them know that she’d worked six years for a trade union, knew what a proper strike was, and saw this “strike” was out of order! Things were getting hotter; messenger from Hamilton wanted to know if Fayerweather wanted some of them to come over: TV men on the steps were trying to tape the excitement, and I was afraid (though I didn’t actually touch anybody) that there might be pictures that looked as if faculty were hitting students. So I urged Eileen to adjourn upstairs; she and Eva later left by a 300-floor window (room 302 if that’s the seminar-room under the examination room) that later became the portal for an enormous traffic.

I met my 12:00 class in Kent, and we talked largely about affinities between this trouble and those in Latin American universities. One of the Argentinos had remarked to me outside Fayerweather that while they had strikes, LA students couldn’t have tolerated a strike that hadn’t been voted by a proper student-body meeting. I asked the students in Kent (about 2/3 of normal attendance) whether they’d had any notice of a meeting at which they could consider a strike, and not one had had such notice or heard of a meeting he could go to.

So far as I can remember it, Thursday afternoon was when arm-bands began to blossom, and there began to be people at the gates (only those at the ends of College Walk were left open) calling for a look at University identification.

Thursday afternoon and evening I still felt able to get ahead a bit with my current research project and with dissertations. It didn’t seem unplausible that one would wake up Friday and find everything had blown over. There was still blasting to be heard from the gym site, but one expected to hear that the University was backing off.

Faculty mobilization

Friday morning, 26 April. So far as I was concerned, my last more-or-less-normal act before plunging into the crisis as full-time occupation was to pick up some computer printout early Friday morning. By this time, one was getting reports of very awkward “confrontations” involving faculty. There had been some sort of hassle in front of Fayerweather and another around Low. I had the impulse (which evidently was rather common among the brethren) that we should be trying to get the faculties convoked. My notion was to get the 20 signatures on a paper addressed to Sigmund Diamond as chairman of the Committee on Instruction which (according to a conversation between Low and Fayerweather with Diamond and Dean Frankel on Thursday sometime) would be necessary to convoke Political Science according to the members’-demand procedure. My first thought was to circulate on campus with a clip-board; but my wife persuaded me that might help stir things up. Wellisz and I concocted a paper calling for a meeting with primary emphasis on trying to define in advance a distinction between modes of police action we must reject and modes we might accept in case of a decision to clear the by-now-five occupied buildings. Wellisz (though late for a meeting in Harlem) let me into the International Affairs building, which was the likeliest place to find any number of members of our Faculty that could be spoken to quietly. I came out a couple of hours later with several signatures (nearer 10 than 20) and with advice not to push a call till we’d heard from the Advisory Committee of the Faculties. (In the end the Advisory Committee never met, or at least did nothing I’ve heard of).

Friday early afternoon, 26 April. During Friday afternoon, the word was passed that an informal meeting was to be held late in the afternoon at the Faculty Club, consisting of available members of the three Committees on Instruction of the Graduate Faculties, augmented by such ex-department-chairmen types as me. Meanwhile, I dropped into Philosophy Hall, which bore a sign (one of the few conspicuous touches of humor in this dead-pan affair) “liberated by the faculty”, and where somebody-or-other at the door insisted on seeing faculty identification. I had been warned that a group of light-weights had been holding a marathon meeting in 301 Philosophy, urging all sorts of foolishness, and needed to be squelched by some senior faculty. So pending the beginning of the Faculty Club meeting, I thought I’d better visit 301 Philosophy just long enough to find a chink in their discussion into which I could insert a dignified protest. Where did these characters get the idea they could claim to speak for the faculty at large, or even could assert they were sensible enough to deserve a hearing? I sat about two minutes before I noticed that maybe I didn’t want to protest; within an hour I found that I very much respected the way they were working and might want to wear the white arm-band, which turned out to denote ad-hoc-faculty-group-as-peace-force.4

____________

4 As to becoming a member, I found I had already become one by showing faculty identification to enter Philosophy Hall and then entering room 301; if I chose, I could become a non-member by walking out at any moment without fuss, and could become a member again by walking in again. Once in a while I heard it said that to be a real member you had to put your name to a paper that committed you not to meet classes till certain “student” demands were met. But nobody either presented me with such a paper, claimed that non-signers were non-voters, or called upon me to take or authorize any action that conflicted with my quite-different principles.
By the time I came in, it was plain that the role of the ad hoc group was above all mediation. They had quite a team of mediators (among them Peter Kenen), who were rarely visible except in rapid passage — and who had to take horrible abuse from the SDS people and carry messages which they knew were not being properly transmitted to rank-and-file in the buildings.
It turned out that the group of faculty had also intervened to block an attempt of the “majority coalition” (jacket-and-tie types students, with a considerable admixture of athletes) to enter Fayerweather and dislodge the occupants, of whom (though I didn’t believe it when first told so by faculty who had been in and out the window, there were some 400. Furthermore, the group had resisted an attempt to move into Low a number of plain-clothes policemen. I think both of these were Thursday-night events, though my timing could be off here.
The white-arm-banded faculty by the time I came in were (1) manning the gates and checking University credentials for entrance; (2) circulating on campus to “cool” disturbances; and (I think so soon) manning the “ledge” around the foot of Low Library, to prevent entry through windows of people aiming to join the SDS occupants. (Exit—sorry, “egress” — was ok, with rainchecks for ingress to designated couriers escorted by mediators or members of the ad hoc group’s steering committee. Result: rapid accretion of improvised law, leading into the “Hedge-Ledge Treaty”.)

____________

Friday late afternoon, 26 April. The Friday afternoon meeting of the augmented Committees on Instruction was a heartening expression of sweet reason—but a little hard to remember in detail. For once, nobody said anything silly or inflammatory; but we did rather wonder whether we were saying anything applicable. The main outcome was a decision that the Committees should convene a joint session of the three graduate faculties.

Friday evening, so far as I can remember, went into a plenary session of the ad hoc group. Every now and then ther’d be an interruption because more people were needed at the gate, or there was need of white armbands to tone down some incipient mob scene. Early (that is, 1 AM) to bed for me.

Saturday, 27 April. Saturday was a day of prolonged meetings of the ad hoc group, with walks to talk to students. My memory is rather vague on details. Late in the day, Alan Westin (admirable chairman of the group) put it that the resources of mediation were about played out and we should move toward having a settlement-proposal. I went to dinner at the Clifford’s (Jimmy didn’t make it, being absorbed in the meeting); conversations with Kenneth Boulding, who stressed among other things seasonal aspects of disturbances.

Beginnings of formalization

Sunday morning, 28 April. Sunday opened with an 8 AM meeting of the ad hoc group, which voted some very good resolutions cooked up by the steering committee. The gymnasium-clause, especially, was a masterpiece—holding open the idea of building in the park only if agreed to by civic and community leaders picked by Mayor Lindsay. The Group held out against a commitment to amnesty for those occupying the buildings, and called for activation of a proposed tri-partite body (faculty 5, students 5, administration 2) with a named roster of members that had been negotiated (I gather largely by Peter Kenen, whose name is on it) with the strikers and Low Library.5

____________

5 Before I came in, a three-man committee with Lionel Trilling as draftsman had been proposed by the ad hoc group and empowered to draft a scheme for such a body by the administration — the first step toward a process of negotiation via agreement on a slate of people to take something in hand.

____________

            The proposal to convoke the three Graduate Faculties had expanded during Saturday into one to call the “General Faculty”—an amalgam of all faculties within the Corporation (no Barnard, and no TC [Teachers’ College]) on the Heights (no medical, no Social Work). Western Union for once got some business: invitations by telegram. This met in Law School A-B. Trilling read the almost-final report on the judicial tripartite body; Westin got to explain the ad hocgroup’s resolutions, which he did not call on the General Faculty to adopt. We voted I can’t quite remember what (including some corrective to the Trustees’ goof in characterizing the Friday suspension of blasting at the gym site as a matter of “courtesy” toward the Mayor, nothing more), and avoiding any commitment to general amnesty.

Sunday afternoon, 28 April. The afternoon so far as I can remember it, was spent outdoors. The “majority coalition” decided to move in around the occupied side of Low Library (west) and set up a food-and-ingress blockade by occupying en masse the ground between the faculty’s ledge and the surrounding hedge. (Walks outside remained as a no-man’s land). SDS tried various run-the gauntlet tricks, and we had a thick white-arm-band line on the ledge, with confused mimeographed instructions (hedge-ledge treaty) which set up something like a game of capture-the flag. Incredibly picturesque colored children swarmed, with handfuls of our tulips.

Sunday night, 28 April. In the evening, there were the usual meetings. A bad night was forecast. At midnight we diverted a small fraction of the meeting to guard duty. Having donned a white armband for the first time in the afternoon, I had a spell of gate duty and then about two went on the ledge. Very quiet. There was a pleasant encampment of “coalition” people inside the hedge, and the College Walk a camp of SDS people, with candles, guitars, etc.—very serene and rather a beautiful sight. About four a bagpiper started to skirl between the two; but somebody whispered to him and he collapsed. Fuss over flag-raising at dawn, with the “coalition” very firm on singing Star Spangled Banner. The 4AM relief of faculty didn’t turn up, which made the night rather wearing as our numbers thinned out to an extent which we were told had proved dangerous the previous night; but no adverse consequences. About 7, new white armbands began to build up, and the night-guard went off to sleep.

Monday morning, 29 April. Monday the ad hoc group convened about 10AM, and Westin announced the day would be devoted to trying to get a real rallying of sentiment to our terms of settlement. Kirk had put out a statement (printed by the Times in a box with the ad hoc group statement[)] that represented substantial concessions. We voted for a terms of-settlement package with a useful sequence: If Kirk would make recommendation to the Trustees to meet the gymnasium proposition and activate the judicial body, we would then demand that the building-occupiers come out and submit to academic due process (no amnesty, but indications of “uniform punishment”). If the strikers refused this, we would cease to “interpose” and let the Administration have a free hand to clear the buildings. Kirk came through rather promptly with a response which many of us saw as “yes but”—with a readily-negotiable but. The SDS strikers, on their side, sent us at 6 PM a complete refusal to accept these terms.

Monday evening, 29 April. When the ad hoc group reconvened in the evening, it was plain that the steering committee was rattled. Westin was able to read a long list of telegrams (Javits, the AAUP, etc.) commending our terms. But there was a whole series of disastrously bad proposals. Before Westin and the Steering Committee were on deck, there was a proposal to evacuate our ledge because of physical danger to our people there. We took a recess, looked, and came back convinced this was nonsense—though a few eggs had hit our brethren, and one large-size fruit-juice can had scored a near miss. Next the Steering Committee moved a statement that treated as substantially identical the Administration’s yes-but answer and the SDS’s resounding no. (Westin’s slogan had been “bitter pills for everybody”; as I see it, the bitter bill [sic] for us in the ad hoc group was that we had to take yes-but as yes, or else negotiate the but). This not meeting acceptance, they moved t[o] invoke arbitration to be set up by Governor Rockefeller. But it proved that they’d no evidence that arbitration would be accepted, any more than mediation, by SDS.

Monday midnight, 29 April. Adjournment rather after midnight, with no program formulated, put a lot of our people on the ledge. For my part, I had shifted myself to the 4 AM list, reckoning that with so many of our people ready to drop from exhaustion, actual arrivals of 4 AM relief men were essential so that we’d at least have a presence as observers (lacking any basis for real effectiveness) in case the “blowup” came at the most probable hour of the night.

First steps toward unwinding

Tuesday morning, 30 April. My alarm didn’t sound at 4 AM: I hadn’t pulled out the can-ring peg. (Is this what happened to the 4 AM reliefs the previous nights?) But my wife, who never wakes at such hours, had set her internal timer and poked me when the alarm-clock said 4:05. (It was 10 minutes slow). So I got to the Amsterdam gate about 4:25. The police, who had been around in force almost all the time since Thursday mid-day6, were thinned out and more in motion; nobody checking credentials at the gate. The noisy Harlem demonstration that had been at the corner at 1 AM had vanished.

____________

6The Amsterdam-Morningside block of 116th was throughout a mass of parked police cars (including horse-vans, paddy-wagons sometimes, and on the last days ordinary city buses that had brought in large batches of police). There were always a good many police on foot on the block, who would talk pretty freely. Even the mounted police weren’t totally frozen: I regretted lacking a camera when I saw a small colored boy in a red sweater petting a very placid horse with a rider up.
The police apparently held all the “100-level” tunnel network from Thursday onward, but eventually entered almost all occupied buildings by campus-level doors. When I began to circulate on the 100-level of Low, I found a small reserve on the benches near the “Security entrance”. While on the gate, I passed lots of plain-clothes police that flashed badges. One of the objectionable features of the “blowup” was that plain-clothes men took a hand without putting on visible badges.

____________

            Yes, the “blowup” had happened while I slept. The word was that mounted police had swept away the outdoor demonstrators. The Administration had given 30 minutes notice that the buildings would be cleared on bull-horns. At Hamilton (which had been the point we were afraid might lead to major trouble), there was token resistance; police went in without clubs, and occupiers came out in some order. In front of Fayerweather, a number of white-armband-types linked arms and got clubbed; police at the 54th St. station told a companion of mine that “if they link arms you have to use clubs”.There was a considerable fracas at each of the buildings with fairly solid masses of “radical” occupants (Low, Mathematics) and also at Fayerweather (into which most of the “moderates” had been displaced).

____________

7The TPF (“tactical police force”) had been around all week, and felt frustrated. A partly-rational explanation could be that they were aware that they were being kept away from other danger-points in the city and were losing sleep—hence were losing effectiveness in alternative uses. It occurs to me, too, that it may have been painful to be kept away from their taxi-driving and other “moonlighting” jobs, even though getting overtime pay.
The police group that took Hamilton must have been specially selected and indoctrinated. Most of the faculty feel that if an acceptable mode of police action was feasible there, it would have been so in the other buildings. There is no doubt, however, that the other groups were less disciplined than Hamilton. (Damage in Hamilton was limited to furniture used to barricade the doors. This may also have been true in Fayerweather before the police started smashing glass panes in doors to see who was inside. But in Mathematics and above all in the presidential suite in Low, there was damage on a large scale of strictly malicious character). The police also did not and perhaps could not have a huge superiority of numbers at points of contact: Fayerweather contained at the blowup some 300+/- 50 strikers, mostly on the 200 and 300 floors. I still regret that I wasn’t able to persuade faculty groups to consider in advance the difference between weaponless police action which would pull-and-carry and armed action which would club-and-push. We have no reports of guns being used; handcuffs were used as brass knuckles—an angle I hadn’t thought of at all.

____________

            At the corner of 116 and Amsterdam, I found a few white arm-band people who like me were just turning out, and a couple who had been on campus. The word was that we’d go to somebody’s apartment on 116th and see what we could find out by phone. I dashed home to use my own phone, alerted my wife, and called up her brother (Bethuel Webster), who coached me a bit as to how arrestees could be advised. (Only family and attorneys have a recognized right to see them; family can designate attorneys.) As I turned the corner back onto 116th, I met a young-faculty type I didn’t know, in shock with a broken head, and with a middle-aged woman; they said they wanted a phone, and I referred them to my wife, who tells me she took them in. The previous knot of faculty being invisible and not in the designated apartment, I went through an unguarded gate to Philosophy for instructions, and found 301 was a dressing-station, with no ad hoc leadership in evidence. So I took it upon myself to visit police stations. Some students at 114th and Amsterdam, who had a car, ferried me around. We found at West 100 St. that all arrestees were blacks from Hamilton, and that somebody had taken our role. At West 54th Street we found also only Hamiltonians, and the police gave us a list. At West 68th Street things were more confused: they had about 25 arrestees in stock, and refused a list. I asked if any were faculty, and the produced “one somewhat older”, who turned out to be Dankwart Rustow. The police refused to give me a list, and refused to let me hand a clip-board around; but they conveniently failed to notice when Rustow opened the door of the room they were using and handed me a slip the arrestees had all signed. This was at 6:30; Rustow said not to call his wife till 8 o’clock, as she expected to hear nothing from him sooner. Following advice from a student reporter from WKCR (which throughout has done a first-rate job of reporting) I got WKCR to come and fetch the list from 7th-floor Philosophy.

Tuesday mid-day, 30 April. It developed that the General Faculties had been called for 4 PM, and the ad hoc group had called itself for 10, 10:30 maybe? This ad hoc group gathering shifted to Earl Hall because 301 Philosophy was disrupted, then to MacMillan because Earl Hall was too small. It was finally called to order at noon. Westin proceeded to lay out a resolution the Steering Committee had framed, in a state of shock, before 10 o’clock; it opened with a resounding vote of lack of confidence in Kirk and Truman and ended with a call to “respect” the new student strike that was already visibly shaping up. A “medical report” was called for, and proved to be such an incendiary utterance that Westin had to insist the doctor give us a few facts and sit down.8 The tone of most utterances was rather frantic; a move to adopt the revolution “by acclamation”, rejected by Westin, proved hard to head off. After about an hour, Westin (after whispered consultations) announced that the Steering Committee was amending its resolution to say that so far as the strike was concerned, the ad hoc group would reconsider its position after 48 hours. From my standpoint, this was crucial: I’d still have had to vote “no”, but if the amended resolution had carried, I would not have felt I had to drop out of an organization which, taking a wrong stand, guaranteed to reconsider. After a further hour, Westin announced that in the light of the discussion the Steering Committee was convinced that it could quickly frame a much better resolution; he withdrew the resolution and called for a recess. A motion to recess proved to draw shouts pro and con. Westin was about to call a vote when somebody (I can’t remember who) objected that what with the attendance being double that of any previous meeting and with the lack of screening of identification as we shifted from Earl Hall, we could be sure that many present were not faculty and that many were so unfamiliar with our operations that they couldn’t fully gauge the situation. He suggested that those who had attended no previous meeting of the ad hoc group should abstain from voting on the recess. Angry shouts opposed him. So Westin said that with or without a recess, he withdrew the resolution and called on the Steering Committee to move with him to a place where they could work. The moment he left, one of the more responsible survivors proclaimed that the meeting had adjourned, and the great bulk of those present left.

____________

8One clearcut scandal was that although the Administration saw violence happening and knew a “blowup” was imminent, it took no steps to set up emergency medical facilities on campus. The natural consequence was that there was a volunteer group linked to the strikers. One of the Communist stereotypes of the 1930’s (cf. various works of Howard Fast) was the noble doctor who worked inside rebel lines till the damned reactionaries played on his nobility to get him in their hands. Was it really necessary for the Administration to let this hackneyed scenario be reused on our campus?

____________

            As I was leaving too, the preceptor on my left urged me to stay a minute. One of the more obstreperous members of the ad hoc group was saying very proper things—that “those who remained in the room”, as a non-meeting, might want to hear a statement on the new student strike by the Executive Vice-President of the Student Council. This lad then popped up, and with great propriety made a strictly explanatory statement (laced with hopes of faculty support), making it clear that this was a new strike to express revulsion against violence, not a continuation of the old strike, with a strike committee for the present composed of elected leaders from student organizations that had not participated in nor approved occupation of buildings, and with its statement of objectives yet to be formulated. Then the Student Council lad introduced a young African (seems to straddle faculty and student status, like many of the juniors), who had made a disturbance in the previous meeting. He started by an apology for the disturbance, went on to other remarks which I disliked but which in substance seemed admirable in spirit—and then rashly pronounced the word “motion”. Then he swallowed his tongue, evidently sensing that one can’t put motions to a non-meeting. But at least twenty voices cried “Yes: motion”. He started to unreel a form of words about “the faculty members present at this meeting”, and almost instantaneously a large proportion of us were on foot headed for the exit. (I had the sensation of leading a walkout from my well-chosen heckler’s position, second row on the aisle; but if I was leading it, come to think of it, why were there a hundred people ahead of me on the way to the exit?) According to one of the few New York Times stories that seems to check in detail—another evidence that the room contained unqualified people—about 125 people remained, claimed that the meeting had not adjourned and they were the ad hoc group, and passed “unanimously” the original Westin resolution. Since the story said also that there had been 600 present when Westin took the Steering Committee, [but] my feeling is that it isn’t necessary to repudiate this rump, but the figures will speak.

Second meeting of the General Faculty

The General Faculty meeting was transferred to the Chapel. It convened almost on schedule, with an almost full house. I missed the opening because I was in the porch taking a hand in leading to vacant places in the balcony 20 junior faculty who had somehow sifted themselves out to act as observers on behalf of the juniors in the ad hocgroup.9 The moment Ralph Halford came out to tell us the meeting had accepted the 20 observers, I helped pilot them to the north balcony.

____________

9Kirk had transformed a suggestion from the junior group that they participated in the first General Faculty meeting into a proposal in invite twenty by telegrams like those sent to senior faculty. But an accident (call to people framing the list of 20 to help “cool” a fracas outside Low) prevented completing the list, and the telegrams never went.
Kirk opened the first meeting with a request for unanimous consent to admit one junior representative as observer, which was done. It seemed to me that if tokenism was the order of the day, one wasn’t the optimum permanent level for it; so I got the question taken to Truman and he suggested 20, to be picked by some procedure the juniors were to find themselves.____________

 

Tuesday afternoon, 30 April. After a brief statement of his own and somewhat more from Truman, chiefly about the police action, Kirk introduced Hofstatter [sic, Richard Hofstadter], who presented a list of resolutions (half a dozen well-worded points, on one sheet of paper that had been handed to everybody) concocted by a stable of most estimable middle-of-the-road types including Hofstatter[sic], himself, Daniel Bell, and I think Trilling. The main content was a move toward constitutional reform (constitutional convention for the University; preparatory commission to organize the convention; demands upon the Trustees that they take a constructive part in reorganization). The first line of the resolutions referred to the “necessity” of the policy action and the last point to continued leadership by Kirk and Truman, so that this motion was vote-of-confidence sandwich, with lots of rather appetizing stuffings.

A number of prestigious professors were primed (as at the first General Faculty meeting) to support these resolutions, stressing the “no-recriminations” aspect of the first point, and the go-ahead character of the rest. But presently up rose Marvin Harris and moved as an additional resolution the original Westin proposal to the morning session, pointing out that its author would probably oppose it. This resolution too had a lot of sound where-do-we-go-from-here stuff in the middle; but since it opened by repudiating Kirk and Truman and ended by endorsing a strike, it was a vote-of-no-confidence sandwich. Kirk ruled from the chair that there was no use treating this as an additional resolution, but it had to be seen as a substitute. Since its main content seemed to be lack of confidence in him, he felt he should not continue to preside, and called upon Dean Warren to take over as presiding officer. By some miracle, previously non-existent chairs appeared just below the steps, and he and Truman stepped down into them.

Westin did get up to say that he opposed the motion of his drafting as an utterance from the General Faculty. From that point, discussion ran downhill as to content and got more and more shrill. Every speaker was being oh-so-parliamentary and trying to speak to the substitute proposal without reference to the original. Some sort of confused vote was taken on something which required a show of hands and a very slow count, and indicated that on any more substantive vote we were likely to split with at least a third dissenting. At this point up stepped Maurice Rosenberg and introduced a most valuable element of confusion by putting up a third set of resolutions as an amendment to displace the second (substitute). This was much less a statement of principle and more an action; its key clause was to set up the executive committee of the Faculty, to be composed of professors “such as” a specified list of ten (partly ad hoc group types like Westin and Bell, partly strong figures not identified with the group), to coopt two junior faculty; and another clause called upon the Trustees to cooperate with our Executive Committee in restructuring the University.

While Rosenberg’s proposal was received with a sense of relief, discussion again ran downhill. At this point, I somehow got it through my head how Rosenberg had laid the threads out so that one could give a tug at the right place and they would unsnarl. I came downstairs and planted myself by a pillar just behind the properly-seated people, whence it wasn’t too hard to watch Warren’s eye; he recognized me as a long shot, not knowing at all who it was. (Kirk, who must regard me as a bungler, winced when he saw me appear—as if it wasn’t bad enough to hear all the previous nonsense). I began by introducing myself as an economist, and pointed out that economists felt that in logic you could talk sense about a substitute only in explicit comparison with what it was supposed to be a substitute for. Hence it would not be out of order to deal not with one of the proposals before us, but with all three. To start with the second, its chief effect would clearly be to paralyze us; whether or not we fully approved of the leadership we had, we would be in a disastrous situation if the first order of business for the Trustees was to replace it. This was “proposal to use all available steam to blow the whistle”. The third proposal had the supreme merit that it would actually put well-chosen people to work on reconstruction. The very substantial merits of the first set of resolutions10 could best be realized by putting an Executive Committee to work.

____________

10 I hope I referred also to the constructive middle parts of the second resolution, but can’t remember how I said it if I did.

____________

            At this point (though I hadn’t intended it when I rose), I realized that for the moment people were breathing more calmly, and that I should try to wind up the debate. So I said that in a moment I was going to move the question, but first wanted to say a word about our attitude toward the strike, I referred to the “very commendable weasel-word ‘respect’” used in the resolution. No doubt this word could be used in a technical sense; but we should take it in a much deeper sense. Whatever else the strike was, we must see it as an outburst of grief over what had happened to the University. Even though we might regard the form of outburst as uncouth, if we couldn’t show “respect” for the grief it expressed, who were we? Once we started putting more meaning into “respect”, must we not also say that we respected the view of some of our colleagues that if there was a students’ strike of this type, they must take some steps of participation? Reciprocally, must we not respect the view of some of our colleagues who hold that in the academic world there must always be some better vehicle for a protest, and that even in these conditions, they must refuse anything that might seem like participation? Mustn’t we also respect the need of many students to complete their work this semester, and to get completion properly attested on a University transcript? In sum, mustn’t we as a University find a way to move ahead in a climate of mutual respect? With that, I moved the question.

Dean Warren, in view of the previous fuss, called for a show of hands. “Voice!” called a number of people. All right, no harm in trying a voice vote first. In favor of the motion to call the question and terminate debate? Lots of aye. Opposed? Silence! Before he could call for the substantive vote, up rose some youngish man I didn’t know, with a question to the proposer of the motion. Would Professor Rosenberg agree that the motion would be clearer if he expunged the words “such as” in front of the roster of names for the Executive Committee. And yes, he would. (The fox! It looks as if he put those words in just to have something to concede. The effect was that instead of voting a rather ambiguous request to somebody—Kirk?—to name us a committee of a certain type, suddenly we were engaged in electing a committee on our own initiative, with no middlemen!) On the substantive question of Rosenberg’s amendment, Warren again called for hands. Again shouts of “voice”; again he tried it. Lots of aye; distinct but faint, a definite minority of no. No challenge when Warren said the ayes had it.

Then came a motion to adjourn. A count of hands did prove necessary this time. (I sprinted upstairs, to be able to certify that our junior-staff observers didn’t vote.) The count was 250[?] to adjourn versus 250 not to. Just what the vote meant, Lord knows. Some hoped still to roll up a substantial vote against Kirk and Truman on some motion or other. The Architecture folks had some proposition that never reached the floor. Maybe a good many were worried because of something I quite failed to register: that Warren had goofed; and after getting proposition three voted to displace proposition two as a substitute for proposition one, had failed to get a vote on proposition three against proposition one. A technically-fatal-but-practically-trifling error in procedure. Everybody knew that in fact we’d elected a new executive; and as people went out, a few of the Executive Committee were sorting the rest out of the crowd for an instant beginning on the new phase of activity.

Over the hump—perhaps

Tuesday evening, 30 April. Once again, prompt steps were taken to legitimatize what might have been challenged. The Trustees held a dinner meeting and afterwards sat till 2 AM with the Executive Committee. The statement from the Trustees that resulted was to my taste most satisfactory. As a position, it serves only ad interim; but it shows that the Trustees have engaged themselves in a process that if well guided can put us a sound footing. To begin with, the Trustees recognized the Executive Committee as a responsible body acting on behalf of the faculty. They recognized the tripartite judicial body, which under Rosenberg’s resolution was at last put to work. They appointed their own committee to look into reform of the “basic structure” of the University, and instructed that committee both to consult with our Executive Committee and more broadly to consult with faculty and students. On the gym, they proposed to “consult and negotiate” with a body of community leaders. Maybe they thought this was only a token concession; but of course they’ll find that to “negotiate” you have to be on terms with an opposite number that isn’t just your stooge; doubtless the Mayor will find himself on the spot with a need to select the “community” people.

A useful point of the Rosenberg resolution was to call for a “day of reflection” on the Wednesday. So far as I was concerned, the most urgent business was a dissertation-defense, for a candidate who is very ill and had been patched together by the doctors for this week only, between two spells of hospitalization. We had taken the precaution of arranging for him to come by taxi to my flat at 54 Morningside. One of the scheduled examiners was Terence Hopkins of Sociology, who was visibly so exhausted that it was doubtful he knew the day of the week; so I had hedged by inviting a historian ([Bailey W.] Diffie) who lives at 54 Morningside. We opened the defense (following the precedent set by Peter Kenen when we held an examination in subjects at my flat on—I think—Friday the 26th) by asking the candidate to waive objections to irregularities of procedure. Fortunately we were able to pass the dissertation in the first column—as was true also of the Kim dissertation on Thursday the 2nd and Sobestyen dissertation on Friday the 3rd.11

____________

11 We held three defenses and two examinations in subjects—Aspra and Deestlov[?]—at the flat between 25thApril and 3rd May. Newsprint-pad-and-wax-pencil proves in many ways much better than a blackboard! Several other flats in the neighbourhood have been in use, and on the whole examinations for the doctorate have gone as scheduled—though I hear rumors of one case where a colleague refused to examine because of the strike.

____________

Wednesday afternoon, 1 May. After lunch, the thing to do was join the conversation-bees on the campus. Most of us were looking for students we knew; once we started talking to them, others latched on.12 I found myself telling them that if they thought about the “Kirk must go” slogan, then so nearly the sole focus of the strike agitation, they would find that what their position really called for was “Kirk must go—but not yet!” My basic argument was that we couldn’t afford to let the Trustees get bogged down in the problem of a replacement, and that within a few months we’d have a much better Board to make selections.13

____________

12 But I didn’t succeed in spotting the SDS type who on Sunday had told me intensely that “to block food going into Low is murder, of course!” To choose the right moment to laugh has been tricky. One is reminded of what a Canadian colleague said about “Social Credit”: “You have to remember, it’s only a stop from the sublime to the ridiculous, and sometimes the line gets shifted a little.”

13 Advice by telephone from my sagacious son: a further argument for delay, still stronger, is that any immediate replacement must be made by the Trustees; while very likely the University-reform program should include selection of a President by the faculty, subject to Trustee ratification. This will obviously take time to organize.
SDS seems to be trying to avoid getting Kirk’s resignation on the list of the strike objectives. One can easily think up possible motives that don’t include getting sound leadership by sound procedures.

____________

Several students thought this idea (together with some comments on “respect” along the lines I’d presented before) should get circulation; and an undergraduate I’ve known for some 15 years showed me the way to the WKCR studios. They gave me a 5-minute interview, and later read off a page of typescript I left with them; besides, I got a chance to tell a couple of their staff how much my acquaintances were praising their handling of the crisis.

Wednesday evening, 1 May. In the evening, we held the usual musical open house (with Dean Morse [Columbia economics PhD 1965] as pianist) at my flat. Much of our time was spent on a Buxtehude motet. Bitte um Frieden. It’s musically first-rate, happens to fit the odd combination of people who came, and certainly has a most suitable subject.14

____________

14 While it’s most genuinely religious music, it’s an odd twist that the text tells the second person of the Trinity his business (“Remember your office!….Expedite the business.”) for all the world in the tone the Faculty tends to use in the new turn of events toward the Trustees.

____________

Thursday, 2 May. The situation on Thursday was much like that on Wednesday, except that there was a certain devolution of authority. The University Council, which on the whole has stayed tactfully out of sight, had to be consulted on the obvious necessity of doing something about the University Calendar and could think of nothing better than to toss it to departments and schools. A gathering of department chairmen (to which Peter Kenen sent Donald Dewey as his deputy) could offer no guidance either on the calendar or on how to handle classes in face of the amorphous strike movement.

Thursday evening (or was it afternoon), 2 May. Peter Kenen called a meeting of economics faculty and graduate students on Thursday, which was very heavily attended. I can’t remember that we did much but clear the air; but a number of suggestions were canvassed that crystallized next day.

Friday evening, 3 May. A more decisive meeting of the same composition was held on Friday evening. The students (apparent ringleaders Reischauer and Roosevelt) proposed a resolution in favor of getting on with our education, and then came up with a suggestion that if the strike was on, we should set up classes (“all classes” was amended by deleting “all”) in places off campus. Several of the faculty indicated it might be a matter of principle for them to appear, at stated hours and stated rooms, if the University was officially open. I drew attention to the fact that faculty as well as students had taken the line that we objected to having our education interrupted. For my part, I’d suffered rather heavily in some dimensions by the interruption; but in other dimensions, my education had been greatly accelerated. In particular, I’d come to agree with one of the young faculty who told me, “On the ledge, we learn to bend.” I felt we’d do well to bend by taking a stand that wouldn’t create avoidable points of conflict—without putting in the wrong any colleagues who felt bound to hold “regular” classes. We must remember that any signals we might send out by stating high principles were quite likely to be incompatible with the receiving apparatus of the people we thought we were signalling to. For my part, I proposed to hold classes at 54 Morningside drive if campus space was picketed—hoping that any classes held on campus would not meet with disturbances. If disturbances did happen, I’d be strongly inclined to move back to campus classrooms rather than leave colleagues isolated. Alexander Erlich said he felt bound provisionally to hold no classes—but must refuse to endorse beyond (say) Monday morning a strike that was so amorphous, and would have to reevaluate it as it developed.15

____________

15 If we were so hard up for information about the strike, it was partly because our graduate students largely stood outside it. Reischauer had been conspicuous among the green-armband-wearers, who registered disapproval both of forcible seizure of buildings and of violence to clear them; and one gathers this was rather typical of our students. The strike committee had invited any student organization with more than seventy students willing to sign a strike paper to send in one representative per 70 students signing; but our students did not include enough strikers to be represented. I learned however on the Monday (past the closing date of this narrative) that signatures by economics students had mounted enough to send a member.

____________

            There appeared to be an almost-universal sense that we needed a student-faculty committee on departmental problems. Peter Kenen suggested that he would name a faculty group of 5, and urged the students to elect 5. For those who straddled faculty and student status, he suggested that they sit with the students or faculty in the committee-selection process as they thought they could be most useful. The committee roster turned out as follows:

 

Faculty

Students
D. [Donald J.] Dewey

A. Gandolfi

A. [Alexander] Erlich C. Gersti [Gerstl?]
A. [Albert G.] Hart (to preside) D. [David] Gold
C. Jordan R. Reischauer
P. [Peter B.] Kennen (ex officio)

A. [Anwar] Shaikh

R. [Robert B.] Zevin

The spread of opinions, ages, and backgrounds is very interesting.

This committee must face a number of sticky questions. I don’t want to particularize till things have shaken down somewhat. Problems will be accentuated by the fact that one platoon of senior staff ([Donald J.] Dewey, [Kevin J.] Lancaster, [Stanislaw] Wellisz) will be going on leave just as another ([Harold] Barger, [Arthur F. (more likely) or Arthur R.] Burns, [Carl S.] Shoup, [William S.] Vickrey) comes back from leave. But we will get benefits of continuity from the work on junior-staff selection that brought us as the assistant professors giving main-stream[?] graduate courses the team of [Roger E.] Alcaly, [Roger C.] Lawrence, [Raymond] Lubitz and [Robert B.] Zevin. We seem to have about the sanest set of graduate students in the University, and by good luck those with political flair also seem to have a more-than-superficial view of what’s happening. We are still very much at the mercy of events; but I remain optimistic.

______________________________

Text (from Jacob Ebert’s hymn, Du Friede-Fürst) of Buxtehude’s cantata Bitte um Frieden:

[Correct text from the Internationale Dieterich Buxtehude Gesellschaft website:]

  1. Du Frieden-Fürst, Herr Jesu Christ,
    wahr Mensch und wahrer Gott,
    Ein starker Nothelffer du bist,
    Im Leben und im Tod,
    Drum wir allein im Namen dein
    Zu deinem Vater schreien.
  2. Recht große Noth uns stößet an
    Von Krieg und Ungemach,
    Daraus uns niemand helfen kan,
    Denn du, drum führ die Sach,
    Dein Vater bit, daß er ja nicht
    Im Zorn mit uns wol fahren.
  3. Gedenk, Herr, jetzt und an dein Ampt
    Daß du ein Fried-Fürst bist,
    Und hilff uns gnädig allesamt
    Jetzt und zu dieser Frist,
    Laß uns hin-fort, Laß uns hin-fort,
    Dein göttlich Wort
    Im Fried, im Fried, im Fried
    Noch Länger schallen. Amen.

 

Source: Columbia University Libraries, Manuscript Collections. Columbia University Department of Economics Collection. Box 10, Carl Shoup Materials. Folder,” Columbia University—General”.

Image Source:  Columbia University Record, vol. 23, no. 5 (Oct. 3, 1997).

Categories
Columbia Economists Germany Yale

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. alumnus Henry Crosby Emery, 1896

 

Time to meet another economics Ph.D. alumnus.  Henry Crosby Emery was awarded his doctorate from Columbia University in 1896. His dissertation was on the economics of speculation. Professor at Yale, chairman of the U.S. Tariff Board, professor at Wesleyan among other stations, including being a witness to the Russian Revolution. He died relatively young in 1924 at age 51.

________________________

EMERY, Henry Crosby (view from 1900)

Harvard A.M 1893 — Columbia, Ph.D. 1896.

Born in Ellsworth, Me., 1872; graduated Bowdoin, 1892; Harvard A.M., 1893; Columbia, Ph.D., 1896; Instructor in Political Economy, Bowdoin, 1894-96, and Professor, 1897-1900; succeeded Pres. Hadley in Chair of Political Economy at Yale, August 1, 1900.

Henry Crosby Emery, Ph.D., Political Economist, was born in Ellsworth, Maine, December 21, 1872. His father, the Hon. L. A. Emery, is Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of that state. Henry C. Emery was graduated at Bowdoin College in 1892, took a post-graduate course at Harvard in the following year, where he received the degree of Master of Arts in 1893, and pursued his studies further at Columbia, being made a Doctor of Philosophy by that University in 1896. From 1894 to 1896 Mr. Emery taught at Bowdoin as Instructor in Political Economy and was advanced to a Professorship there in 1897, upon his return from Germany, where he had gone to complete his studies in that branch at the University of Berlin. Professor Emery has attained and holds a place among the political economists of this country of unusual distinction for one of his years. His contributions to economic literature, published in periodicals devoted to that science, have attracted wide attention, especially those dealing with modern methods of speculative business. His studies have been largely directed to this specialty, his Doctor’s thesis covering in detail the subject of stock and produce speculation on the exchanges in this country, and at the Convention of the American Economic Association at Ithaca in 1899 the subject of his address was The Place of the Speculator in Distribution. The election of Professor Arthur T. Hadley to be President of Yale making a vacancy in the Professorship of Political Economy in that University, Professor Emery was appointed to that Chair to assume its duties August 1, 1900.

Source: Universities and their sons; history, influence and characteristics of American universities, with biographical sketches and portraits of alumni and recipients of honorary degrees, Joshua L. Chamberlain, ed. Vol. 5 (Boston: R. Herndon Company, 1900), pp. 47-48.

________________________

Henry Crosby Emery, an obituary

DR. EMERY DIES OF PNEUMONIA AT SEA

Had Held Chairs At Yale and Wesleyan Before Taking China Post

Dr. Henry Crosby Emery whose body was buried at sea following death aboard ship while en route to America, according to wireless dispatches from Peking, was well known In Connecticut, having held the chair of political economy at Yale, and at one time was professor of economics and social science at Wesleyan. He also served as acting mayor of Middletown for two years. Pneumonia was the cause of his death which occurred while he was traveling from Kobe to Tientsin. His wife was with him when he died. Dr. Emery was formerly a member of the Peking Branch of the Asia Banking Corporation of New York and once served as chairman of the United States tariff board.

Professor at Yale.

New Haven, Feb. 7. — Death of Dr. Henry Crosby Emery, while on the way to San Francisco from Shanghai, China, caused regret at Yale where he was well known, having been for nine years professor of political economy at the university. Prof. Emery came to Yale from Bowdoin College in 1899, having held the chair of political economy at that institution from which he graduated in 1882. In 1909 he left Yale to accept the chairmanship of the United States tariff board, to which position he was appointed by President Taft.

Taught at Wesleyan.

In 1913 Dr. Emery was appointed professor of economics and social science at Wesleyan University to succeed Willard C. Fisher, who resigned after holding the post for many years and was serving mayor of Middletown for two terms. Prof. Emery was a son of former Chief Justice L. A. Emery of the state of Maine. After leaving Wesleyan Prof. Emery sailed for Russia in 1916 to make a study of the commercial, industrial and financial conditions there for the Guaranty Trust Company in New York. While in Russia he married Miss Susanne Carey Allinson of Providence, R. I., who traveled to Russia alone for the wedding.

Imprisoned by Germans.

On his departure from Russia in 1918 Prof. Emery was taken prisoner by the Germans in the Aland Islands, a part of Finland. He was held in a barbed wire stockade for a time and later given his freedom in a small Pomeranian town. He was released and left Germany for America the fall of 1918.

Source: Hartford Courant, 8 February 1924, p. 22.

________________________

Links to Publications of Henry Crosby Emery

Legislation against Futures, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 10, No. 1 (Mar., 1895), pp. 62-86.

Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States. Published in Studies in History, Economics and Public Law, Columbia University, Vol. VII, No. 2 (1896).

The Results of the German Exchange Act of 1896, Political Science Quarterly (Vol. XIII, No. 2, 1898), pp. 286-319.

The Place of the Speculator in the Theory of Distribution, Publications of the American Economic Association, 3rd Series, Vol. 1, No. 1, Papers and Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting, Ithaca, N. Y., December 27-29, 1899 (Feb., 1900), pp. 103-122.

Futures in the Grain Market, The Economic Journal, Vol. 9, No. 33 (Mar., 1899), pp. 45-67.

The Tariff Board and its Work, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1910.

Speculation” in Every-Day Ethics, Addresses delivered in the Page Lecture Series, 1909, before the Senior Class of the Sheffield Scientific School, Yale University. New Haven: Yale University Press (1910), pp. 107-139.

Politician, Party and People, Addresses delivered in the Page Lecture Series, 1912, before the Senior Class of the Sheffield Scientific School, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1913.

Some Economic Aspects of War, Washington: Government Printing Office, 1914

________________________

Archival Papers of Henry Crosby Emery

Henry Crosby Emery Papers, Special Collections & Archives, Bowdoin College Library.

Biographical/Historical Note

Henry Crosby Emery (Bowdoin 1892) was born December 21, 1872, in Ellsworth, Me., the son of Lucilius Alonzo and Annie Stetson (Crosby) Emery. His father was chief justice of Maine, a member of the state senate, professor of medical jurisprudence at Medical School of Maine, and lecturer on Roman law at the University of Maine. An 1892 graduate of Bowdoin, the younger Emery also received his masters from Harvard (1893) and a doctorate from Columbia (1896).

An economist and professor at Bowdoin (1897-1900) and at Yale (1900-15), Emery was married in St. Petersburg, Russia (1917) to Suzanne C. Allinson, daughter of Francis G. Allinson of Providence, RI. The Emerys toured Russia (1917-18) to make a study of the industrial and financial conditions of that country, and while there, observed the outbreak of the Russian Revolution and fled the country, only to be taken prisoner by the Germans on their way to Sweden. The women of the party were allowed to go on, but the men were detained in Danzig and later in Berlin. With the collapse of the German monarchy Emery was released.

The Emerys also resided in China (1920-24), where he was manager of the Peking branch of the Asia Banking Corporation of New York. He died of pneumonia aboard the steamship “President Lincoln” between Shanghai and Japan (1924), on his way back to the United States from China, and was buried at sea.

Emery’s study of Speculation on the Stock and Produce Exchanges of the United States(1896), his Ph.D. dissertation at Columbia, was the authoritative analysis of the economics of exchanges.

Scope and Content

Letters (1917-1924), diaries (1917-1918), articles and speeches (1908-1924) written by Henry C. Emery and his wife, Suzanne, during their travels in China and Russia. Also included are photographs and clippings (1905-1985). Material from the collection was used in Ernest C. Helmreich’s article (Lewiston sun-journal, March 30, 1985) entitled, “A Maine couple’s account of the November, 1917 Russian Revolution.”

Henry Crosby Emery Papers at Yale

The papers center on two aspects of Emery’s activities: his teaching career at Yale and his service as chairman of the U.S. Tariff Board (1909-1913). Papers relating to the Board include correspondence, reports, statistics, and cloth samples collected in connection with the board’s investigation of the carpet, wool, and cotton manufacturing industries, ca.1911-1912. Principal correspondents are members of the board, among them Alvin H. Sanders, James B. Reynolds, L. M. Spier, N. I. Stone, R. B. Horrow, and Charles A. Veditz.

Image Source: Portrait of Henry Crosby Emery in The World’s Work, Vol. XIX, Number 1. November 1909, p. 12183.

Categories
AEA Amherst Columbia Economists Germany Johns Hopkins Smith

Columbia. Short biographical note on John Bates Clark at age 52

 

Today’s post adds to the virtual clipping file of relatively obscure biographical items for John Bates Clark. The turn of the century volumes edited by Joshua L. Chamberlain, Universities and Their Sons, serve as a who’s who with an academic twist and the source of this early-through-mid-career biography for the great John Bates Clark.

Pro-tip: At the bottom of this post you can click on the keyword “ClarkJB” to summon all the John Bates Clark related posts here at Economics in the Rear-view Mirror.

_________________________

Other Biographical postings for John Bates Clark

From the Smith College yearbook (1894)

Columbia University Memorial Minute (1938)

_________________________

CLARK, John Bates, 1847-

Born in Providence, R. I., 1857; studied at Brown for two years; Amherst for two years, graduating in 1872; studied abroad at Heidelberg University for one and a half years and at Zurich University one-half year; Professor of Political Economy and History, Carleton (Minnesota) College, 1877-81; Professor of History and Political Science at Smith College, 1882-93; Professor of Political Economy at Amherst, 1892-95; Lecturer on Political Economy, Johns Hopkins. 1892-94; Professor of Political Economy at Columbia since 1895.

JOHN BATES CLARK, Ph.D., LL.D., Professor of Political Economy at Columbia, was born in Providence, Rhode Island, January 26, 1847. His parents were John Hezekiah Clark, a well-known manufacturer of Providence, and Charlotte Stoddard Huntington, a granddaughter of General Jedediah Huntington of New London, Connecticut. He received his early education in the public schools of his native place. In 1865 he entered Brown, spending two years in study there, and later entered Amherst. During an interval of absence from this College he engaged in the manufacture of ploughs, and was one of the founders of the Monitor Plow Company, of Minneapolis, Minnesota. He retired from active business in 1871, and returned to Amherst, graduating in 1872. He then went abroad and studied for a year and a half at the University of Heidelberg, for a term at the University of Zurich, and for a short period in Paris. He returned to America in 1875 and, two years later, became Professor of Political Economy at Carleton College. He retained this position for four years, and then came to Massachusetts to take the Professorship of History and Political Science at Smith College. He was with Smith in this capacity for eleven years, until, in 1893, he was made Professor of Political Economy at Amherst College. From 1892 to 1894 he was also Lecturer on Political Economy at Johns Hopkins. He left Amherst in 1895 to take a Chair of Political Economy at Columbia, and has since been in charge of the department of Economic Theory of the University. In 1893 and also in 1894 he was elected President of the American Economic Association. Professor Clark has written a number of monographs and articles on economic subjects, and a book — The Philosophy of Wealth — which presents new theories. He also published in collaboration with Professor F. H. Giddings, The Modern Distributive Process, and is now about to publish a second work on Distribution [The Distribution of Wealth; A Theory of Wages, Interest and Profits (1899)]. He is a member of the Century and Barnard Clubs. Professor Clark married, September 28, 1875, Myra Almeda Smith of Minneapolis. They have four children, three girls and a boy.

Source: Universities and their sons; history, influence and characteristics of American universities, with biographical sketches and portraits of alumni and recipients of honorary degrees, Joshua L. Chamberlain, ed., Vol. II (Boston: R. Herndon Company, 1899), p. 423.

Image Source: Same.

 

Categories
Columbia Suggested Reading Syllabus

Columbia. Reading list for Economic Analysis (less advanced level). Hart and Wonnacott, 1959

 

Judging by the following syllabus, the entry level graduate course for economic theory at Columbia sixty years ago seems to have been pitched no higher than the level of an undergraduate intermediate economic theory of today.

The syllabus transcribed for this post comes from William Vickrey’s papers in the Columbia University Archives. We can see there was a deviation from the originally announced announcement with the addition of Paul Wonnacott (a recent Princeton PhD) to co-teach with the department chairman Albert G. Hart. It is not clear what is meant below that Vickrey teaches “a reverse section” to start in January 1960, though I suspect it meant that the sequence could either be taken with Hart [first semester (101) then second semester (102)] or the sequence could be taked lagged one semester with Vickrey [second semester (101) then first semester of the following year (102)].

I will be going back into my files to see if I can find Hart’s 102 syllabus for 1960.

_________________________

From Course Announcements 1959-60

Economics 101-102. Economic Analysis

Sec 1: Professor [Albert G.] Hart. (3) ThTh 11.
Sec 2: Professor [William] Vickrey. (3) TuTh 4:10.

May be taken only for E credit [“examination credit” where course requirements include a final examination or paper with a recorded letter grade (A,B,C,D or Pass).]. Students who have not completed Economics 101 are admitted to 102 only with the instructor’s permission.

Detailed analysis of the reactions of producing units (firms) and consuming units (households); determination through the market of resource allocation, outputs, prices, and incomes; capital and interest; theories of general equilibrium (Walrasian and Kenesian); introduction to “dynamics.”

Economics 105-106. Economic Analysis

Professor [Gary] Becker. (3) Tu Thu 11.

Prerequisite: the instructor’s permission. The course may be taken only for E credit.

Topics noted under Economics 101-102, treated at a more advanced level.

Source: The Graduate Faculties 1959-1960 in the Columbia University Bulletin, Series 59, Number 19 (May 9, 1959), p. 40.

_________________________

Reading list for Hart and Wonnacott

ECONOMICS 101
AUTUMN 1959

Meetings:

Regular: M.W., 11 AM: 710 Business
Third hour (Rooms to be arranged):

(1) Th. 10 AM
(2) Th. 1 PM

Instructors:

A.G. Hart, 503 Fayerweather
P. [Paul] Wonnacott, 513 Fayerweather

For “reverse section” starting January 1960: W. Vickrey

Textbooks:

  1. Each member of the course should own one of the following texts, and arrange loans back and forth with other students:

A. W. Stonier & D.C. Hague, Textbook of Economic Theory (2d ed., London, Longmans Green, 1957)
Chapters 1-8 are first-semester material.

G.J. Stigler, Theory of Price (Revised ed., New York, Macmillan, 1952)
Chapters 1-10 and 12 are first-semester material.

K.E. Boulding, Economic Analysis (3rd ed., New York, Harper, 1955)
Chapters 26-29 and 36 are first-semester material.

  1. An optional item is the mimeographed BASIC MATHEMATICS OF ECONOMIC QUANTITIES (Economics Department office, $1.00).
  2. In addition, each student’s working library should come to include some of the following:

J.M. Henderson and R.E. Quandt, Microeconomic Theory (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1958): mathematical.

J.R. Hicks, Value and Capital (Oxford: Clarendon Press; 2nd ed. 1946)

A. Marshall, Principles of Economics (8th ed., London: Macmillan, 1920)

G.J. Stigler & K.E. Boulding, Readings in Price Theory (Chicago: Irwin, 1952)

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

AGH/PW/8/27/59
[Economics] 101
Autumn 1959

INTRODUCTION

Sept. 28, 30. LOGIC OF SUPPLY-AND-DEMAND MODELS

Stonier & Hague, ch. 1-2 (pp. 9-33).

Stigler, ch. 1-2 (pp. 1-19).

E.J. Working, “What Do Statistical ‘Demand Curves’ Show?” in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 97-115.

ad lib. Henderson & Quandt, ch. 1 (pp. 1-5).

Oct. 2. Math short course: Quantitative concepts and their dimensions.

THE FIRM AND THE MARSHALLIAN INDUSTRY

Oct. 5, 7. SHORT-RUN AND LONG-RUN COST CURVES AND THE FIRM’S SUPPLY SCHEDULE

l           Stonier & Hague, ch. 5 (pp. 87-122).

Stigler, ch. 7-8 (pp. 111-146); note that discussion is intermingled with that of the next topic.

Boulding, ch. 27 (note references to preceding chapters which have not been discussed in this course).

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

J. Viner, “Cost Curves and Supply Curves” in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 198-232.

H. Staehle, “Measurement of Statistical Cost Functions” in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 264-79.

Oct. 9. Math short course: Charts, tables and functions.

Oct. 12, 14. THEORY OF PRODUCTION.

l           Stonier & Hague, ch. 10 (pp. 210-31).

Stigler, ch. 6 (pp. 96-110: completes production-cost-and-supply discussion).

Boulding, ch. 28 (pp. 585-604).

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Marshall, Book IV, ch. 13 (pp. 314-22).

H.S. Ellis & W. Fellner, “External Economies and Diseconomies” in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 242-63.

ad lib. Henderson & Quandt, ch. 3 (pp. 42-84).

Oct. 16. Math short course: Simple analytical networks.

Oct. 19, 21. COMPETITIVE EQUILIBRIUM.

l           Stonier & Hague, ch. 6-7 (pp. 123-61).

Stigler, ch. 9-10 (pp. 148-86).

Oct. 23. Math short course: Maxima and derivatives.

Oct. 26, 28. COMPETITIVE EQUILIBRIUM, continued.

Marshall, Book V, ch. 1-5 (pp. 323-80).

ad lib. Henderson & Quandt, ch. 4 (pp. 85-125).

Oct. 30. Math short course: Maxima and derivatives, continued.

Nov. 2,4. MONOPOLY.

l           Stonier & Hague, ch. 8 (pp. 162-81).

Stigler, ch. 12 (pp. 204-21).

Boulding, ch. 29 (pp. 605-27).

*  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *  *

Marshall, bk. V, ch. 14 (pp. 477-95).

Chamberlin, ch. 1-2 (pp. 3-29).

Robinson, ch. 3 (pp. 47-59: note references to preceding chapter on “the geometry”).

Robinson, ch. 15-16 (pp. 179-208).

ad lib. J.R. Hicks, “Theory of Monopoly” in Readings in Price Theory, pp. 361-83.

Nov. 6. Math short course: compound analytical networks.

Nov. 9, 11. HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LINKAGES OF MARKETS.

Marshall, Book V, ch. 6 (pp. 381-93).

Nov. 16. “MARGINALISM” AND THE FIRM.

R.L. Halland & C.J. Hitch, “Price Theory & Business Behavior” in T. Wilson (ed.) Oxford Studies in the Price Mechanism, pp. 107-38.

F. Machlup, “Marginal Analysis and Empirical Research”, American Economic Review, Sept. 1946 (pp. 521-54).

Nov. 18. Midterm hour exam.

THE HOUSEHOLD, AND MARKETS INVOLVING CONSUMERS.

Nov. 23, 25, 30. PREFERENCE AND UTILITY.

Stonier & Hague, ch. 2-4 (pp. 34-86).

Stigler, ch. 5 (pp. 68-93).

Boulding, ch. 32 (pp. 680-701), 36 (pp. 787-809).

Hicks, Value & Capital, ch. 1-2 (pp. 11-37).

Marshall, Book 3, ch. 1-5 (pp. 83-123).

ad lib. Henderson & Quandt, ch. 2 (pp. 6-41).

ad lib. S.W. Rousseas and A.G. Hart, “Experimental Verification of a Composite Indifference Map”, Journal of Political Economy, Aug. 1951 (pp. 288-318).

Dec. 2, 7, 9. INDIVIDUAL AND MARKET DEMAND FUNCTIONS.

Stigler, ch. 4 (pp. 42-66).

Hicks, Value & Capital, ch. 3 (pp. 42-52).

J.S. Duesenberry, Income, Saving and the Theory of Consumer Behavior, ch. 5 (pp. 69-92); ad lib. ch. 2 (pp. 6-16), 6 (pp. 93-110).

Dec. 16, 18. CONSUMER SURPLUS & INDEX NUMBERS.

Marshall, Book III, ch. 6 (pp. 124-37).

Hicks, Value & Capital, pp. 38-41.

Hicks, Revision of Demand Theory, pp. 95-106.

A.P. Lerner, “Note on the Theory of Price Index Numbers” in Essays in Economic Analysis (pp. 152-63).

Source: Columbia University Rare Book & Manuscript Library. William Vickrey Papers, Box 35. Folder 630, “Columbia/Economics 101 Course 1954-1959, n.d.”

Image Source: Alma Mater, Columbia University. Columbia College Today, Winter 2017-18.

 

Categories
Columbia Economists Gender Social Work Socialism

Columbia. Economics Ph.D. Alumna, Vera Shlakman, 1938

 

Vera Shlakman (1909-2017) was born in Montreal to an anarchist mother and social-democratic father, Jewish immigrants born in Vilna and Pinsk, respectively, who named their children after Eleanor Marx, Victor Hugo and the Russian revolutionary Vera Zasulich. “Whenever Emma Goldman and Rudolf Rocker came to Montreal to lecture they stayed with us.”

Vera and her siblings all studied at McGill University but then moved to New York to find jobs. Vera did her Ph.D. thesis work with the economic historian Carter Goodrich at Columbia University. Later at Smith College she worked together with, among other people, Dorothy Douglas (divorced from the economist and later U.S. Senator, Paul Douglas).

Vera Shlakman’s career as an economist was cut short in 1952 as a consequence of the Second Red Scare. She was later rehabilitated and actually received financial compensation for lost pension rights. Of no small interest are the recollections  of the eminent historian of economics, Mark Blaug, included below.

__________________________

Biographical information for Vera Shlakman

Heins, Marjorie. Priests of Our Democracy–The Supreme Court, Academic Freedom, and the Anti-Communist Purge. New York: New York University Press, 2013.

Kessler-Harris, Alice. “Vera Shlakman, Economic History of a Factory Town, A Study of Chicopee, Massachusetts (1935).” International Labor and Working-Class History, no. 69 (2006): 195-200.

Avrich, Paul. Interview with Lena Shlakman, January 23 and 24, 1974, in Anarchist Voices. A Oral History of Anarchism in America. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995. Pages 325-328.

Vera Shlakman’s New York Times obituary, “Vera Shlakman, Fired in Red Scare, Dies at 108” was published November 29, 2017.

__________________________

Timeline of Vera Shlakman

1909. Born July 15 in Montreal to Louis Shlakman (tailor and shirtwaist factory foreman) and Lena Hendler (glove stitching, shirtwaist factory worker).

1930. B.A. in economics from McGill University in Montreal.

1931. M.A. in economics from McGill University.

1931/32-1932/33. In residence graduate work at Columbia University. Some months employed as research assistant to Professor Arthur R. Burns.

1933/34-1934-35.  Research Fellow to the Council of Industrial Studies, Smith College.

1935. Publishes Economic History of a Factory Town: A Study of Chicopee, Massachusetts as volume 20, Nos. 1-4 (October, 1934-July, 1935)  of the Smith College Studies in History.

Pasted on the title page: “Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the Faculty of Political Science, Columbia University.”

1935-37. Instructor in the Department of Economics, Smith College.

1937-38. Instructor in the Department of Economics and Sociology at Sweet Briar College, Virginia.

1938. Ph.D. in economics awarded by Columbia University.

1938. Hired by Queens College as instructor.

1944-46. Reported to have been a member of the Communist Party. One of the reasons why the F.B.I. had placed her on a watch list. [Not aware of any record in which Shlakman had ever confirmed or denied such activity.]

1952. Assistant professor, but summoned as vice-president of the Teachers Union local for a public hearing of the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee. After taking the Fifth Amendment to avoid self-incrimination in response to questions regarding  Communist Party activity, she (along with several others) was dismissed from Queens College.

1953. Unemployed.

1954-58.  Employed as a secretary and bookkeeper with some intermittent teaching.

1959. Hired for an administrative position at Adelphi University.

1960. Teaching position in Social Work at Adelphi University, achieved rank of associate professor..

1966. Hired at the School of Social Work at Columbia University, Associate professor.

1967-68. Supreme Court of the United States declares the New York state laws under which Shlakman and others were dismissed as unconstitutional.

1978. Retired from Columbia University as professor emerita.

1980. Official apology received from City University of New York.

1982. Trustees of the City University announced a financial settlement for its dismissed faculty. Vera Shlakman received $114,599.

2017. Vera Shlakman died November 5 in Manhattan.

__________________________

AEA Listing 1938

Shlakman, Vera, Queen’s Col., Flushing, N.Y. (1938) a Queen’s Col., instr. b B:A:, 1930, M.A., 1931, McGill (Canada); Ph.D., 1938, Columbia. c Economic history of factory town: study of Chicopee, Mass. d American economic history; labor.

Source: American Economic Review, Vol. 28, No. 3, Supplement, Handbook, Who’s Who in the American Economic Association: 1938 (Sep., 1938). List of Members, p. 83.

__________________________

Testimony by the Historian of Economics, Mark Blaug

I doubt whether it would have taken me so many years to throw off the weight of Marxism if it had not been for an encounter in 1952 with the spectre of McCarthyism. McCarthy was riding high in 1952, the product of the anti-Communist hysteria that held America in its grip at the height of the Cold War. And it was a hysteria as the following story will show. I had graduated from Queens College of the City University of New York in 1950 and was in the midst of my preliminary year for the PhD at Columbia University when Arthur D. Gayer, the chairman of the economics department at Queens College, was killed in an automobile accident. The department looked around for someone to take over his courses in the middle of the semester and since I had worked for him as a research assistant, I was asked whether I would have a go. And so I suddenly found myself teaching a full load of courses in microeconomics, consumer economics and marketing, a subject I had never studied. I can remember being so nervous about my first lectures that I literally memorized them in their entirety the night before giving them.

I was just getting on top of all this teaching when the Un-American Activities Committee, chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy, arrived in New York city to investigate communism in the New York City college system. They called on three well-known professors to appear before them in order, no doubt, to ask them the familiar questions: “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?”. All three refused to cooperate with the committee, pleading the First and Fifth Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits witnesses from incriminating themselves. Despite the fact that all three were tenured professors, they were promptly and summarily dismissed by their employer, the City University of New York.
One of these three professors was Vera Shlakman, Professor of Labour Economics at Queens College, a former teacher of mine and, at that point in time, a colleague. She was the president of the Teachers’ Union, a left-wing professional union of college teachers in the New York City area, and was herself left-wing and, for all I knew, a fellow-traveler. But having been taught by her, I knew that she was scrupulously impartial and leaned over back wards not to indoctrinate her students. A number of students organized a petition to the President of Queens College demanding Vera Shlakman’s reinstatement but, by the by-laws of the college, student petitions could not be submitted to a higher authority without an endorsing signature of at least one faculty member. The students went right through the economics department, which then numbered 40 professors, associate professors, assistant professors, and lowly tutors like myself, without encountering one person willing to endorse the petition. At the end of the line, they came to me and because of my personal regard for Professor Shlakman, and because I could not bear the thought of being pusillanimous, I signed the petition. Within 24 hours, I received a curt note from President Thatcher of Queens College (odd that I should remember his name after 40 years!) informing me that, unless I resigned forthwith, I would be dismissed, and black-listed for future employment.
For a day or two, I contemplated a magnifi cent protest, a statement that would ring down the ages as a clarion call to individual freedom, that would be read and recited for years to come by American high school students?and then I quietly sent in my letter of resignation.

I was now at my wit’s end. I had planned to apply for a scholarship to begin working on my doctoral dissertation and had been relying on my teaching salary from Queens College to carry me through the application period. I was broke and depressed by the entire experience when suddenly the telephone rang to inform me that I had been offered a grant by the Social Science Research Council to enable me to go abroad to write my PhD thesis: clearly, there were people here and there behind the scenes lending assistance to victims of McCarthyism.

Source: Mark Blaug, Not Only an Economist—Autobiographical Reflections of a Historian of Economic Thought, The American Economist, Fall, 1994, Vol. 38, No. 2 (Fall, 1994), pp. 14-15.

__________________________

Oscar Shaftel Papers

The Oscar Shaftel Collection documents Professor Shaftel’s tenure as a professor at Queens College, including his dismissal and his efforts to reinstate his pension. The bulk of the collection is from 1948 to 1982 and includes correspondence, flyers, printed materials, and hearing transcripts. The collection provides evidence of Oscar Shaftel’s personal experience at Queens College, as well as student activism on campus in the late 1940s and early 1950s. More broadly, the collection provides documentation of the McCarthyism and its effect on the New York City education system.

This series includes correspondence from Queens College President John T. Theobald (1953); a copy of the transcript from Oscar Shaftel’s testimony before the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee; correspondence regarding Shaftel’s appeal of his termination by Queens College; testimony of former Queens College professor Vera Shlankman; court documents of former professors Dudley Straus and Francis Thompson (undated); and a letter written in support of Vera Shlankman and Oscar Shaftel from Queens College alumni.

__________________________

Image Source:  Faculty portrait of Vera Shlakman, Social Work. Alephi University (Garden City, New York), The Oracle 1965.

 

 

Categories
Brown Columbia Curriculum Harvard Pedagogy Teaching Undergraduate

Harvard. Argument for more political economy in a liberal education. President Eliot, 1884

Harvard course offerings in political economy were increased significantly in the 1883-84 academic year. This expansion was consistent with President Charles W. Eliot’s vision of a Harvard education fit for the twentieth century as seen in the following paragraphs from his 1884 commencement speech at Johns Hopkins University.

The state of instruction in political economy at Harvard ca. 1870 was mentioned in his book Harvard Memories, pp. 70-71.

_________________________

Excerpt from “What is a Liberal Education?”

Commencement speech at Johns Hopkins University
22. February 1884 by Charles W. Eliot

[…] Closely allied to the study of history is the study of the new science called political economy, or public economics. I say the new science, because Smith’s “Wealth of Nations” was not published until 1776; Malthus’s “Essay on the Principle of Population” appeared only in 1798; and Ricardo’s “Political Economy and Taxation,” in 1817. The subject is related to history, inasmuch as it gleans its most important facts by the study of the institutions and industrial and social conditions of the past; it is the science of wealth in so far as it deals with the methods by which private or national wealth is accumulated, protected, enjoyed, and distributed; and it is connected with ethics in that it deals with social theories and the moral effects of economic conditions. In some of its aspects it were better called the science of the health of nations; for its results show how nations might happily grow and live in conformity with physical and moral laws. It is by far the most complex and difficult of the sciences of which modern education has to take account, and therefore should not be introduced too early into the course of study for the degree of Bachelor of Arts; but when it is introduced, enough of it should be offered to the student to enable him to get more than a smattering.

When we consider how formidable are the industrial, social, and political problems with which the next generations must grapple, — when we observe how inequalities of condition increase, notwithstanding the general acceptance of theories of equality; how population irresistibly tends to huge agglomerations, in spite of demonstrations that such agglomerations are physically and morally unhealthy; how the universal thirst for the enjoyments of life grows hotter and hotter, and is not assuaged; how the relations of government to society become constantly more and more complicated, while the governing capacity of men does not seem to increase proportionally; and how free institutions commit to masses of men the determination of public policy in regard to economic problems of immense difficulty, such as the problems concerning tariffs, banking, currency, the domestic carrying trade, foreign commerce, and the incidence of taxes, — we can hardly fail to appreciate the importance of offering to large numbers of American students ample facilities for learning all that is known of economic science.

How does the ordinary provision made in our colleges for the study of political economy meet this need of students and of the community? That I may not understate this provision, I will describe the provisions made at Columbia College, an institution which is said to be the richest of our colleges, and at Brown University, one of the most substantial of the New England colleges. At Columbia, Juniors must attend two exercises a week in political economy for half the year, and Seniors may elect that subject for two hours a week throughout the year. At Brown, Juniors may elect political economy two hours a week for half the year, and Seniors have a like privilege. The provision of instruction in Greek at Brown is five and a half times as much as the provision in political economy, and seven elevenths of the Greek is required of all students, besides the Greek which was required at school; but none of the political economy is required. Columbia College makes a further provision of instruction in history, law, and political science for students who are able to devote either one or two years to these subjects after taking the degree of Bachelor of Arts, or who are willing to procure one year’s instruction in these subjects by accepting the degree of Bachelor of Philosophy instead of the degree of Bachelor of Arts — a very high price to pay for this one year’s privilege. If this is the state of things in two leading Eastern colleges with regard to instruction in political economy, what should we find to be the average provision in American colleges? We should find it poor in quality and insignificant in amount. In view of this comparative neglect of a subject all-important to our own generation and to those which are to follow, one is tempted to join in the impatient cry, Are our young men being educated for the work of the twentieth century or of the seventeenth? There can be no pretense that political economy is an easy subject, or that it affords no mental discipline. Indeed, it requires such exactness of statement, such accurate weighing of premises, and such closeness of reasoning, that many young men of twenty, who have been disciplined by the study of Greek, Latin, and mathematics for six or eight years, find that it tasks their utmost powers. Neither can it be justly called a material or utilitarian subject; for it is full of grave moral problems, and deals with many questions of public honor and duty.

Source: Charles W. Eliot, “What is a Liberal Education”, Commencement address read 22 February 1884 at Johns Hopkins University, reprinted in his Educational Reform, Essays and Addresses. New York: Century (1901), pp. 106-109.

Image Source: Harvard University Archives. Hollis Image Collection. President Charles W. Eliot.