The Harvard economics department’s rocky relationship with its visiting committee chairman in 1950 has been documented in earlier posts. The friction continued for at least a decade as can be seen from the not-so-gentle reminder from 1961. The business folks on the visiting committee still thought they had an obligation to lobby for more business-friendly instruction from “their” economics department. It is pretty clear that the economics department had a pair of deaf ears with respect to this ideological nagging. For those who can hear (and read), does this seem familiar?
_________________________
REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE
TO VISIT THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMICS
To the Board of Overseers of Harvard College:
It should be stated at the beginning that this report expresses the views of the Chairman of the Committee and does not reflect the unanimous opinion of every member of the Committee. The Committee meetings have not been well attended, and there have been divergent and often opposite views stated by those committee members who have been at the meetings.
The situation in the Economics Department has been the subject of controversy in the more distant past, but during the last decade the two more important points of criticism mentioned in the written reports of the Committee Chairmen were (a) the lack of balance in the viewpoints of the members of the Department, and (b) the need for senior members of the Department giving more attention to teaching the undergraduates. These reports were written by Clarence B. Randall, Chairman, in November 1950, and by Frederick C. Crawford, Chairman, in June 1956.
With regard to the lack of balance in the Department, it would seem appropriate to quote from these reports. The last paragraph of Mr. Randall’s 1950 report states: —
This problem of balance within the Department will not be solved by the ad hoc committees. There only the qualifications of the particular man are under consideration. It is not the function of such a committee to determine whether the man’s appointment will restore balance or add to the lack of balance. That delicate question can be solved only through leadership by the President, the Provost, and the Chairman. We have confidence that they share our concern and we hope that this statement of our apprehensions will be helpful to them.
The President (Mr. Conant) did study this matter and discussed it with the Chairman of the Department (Mr. Smithies). The latter agreed that the Department’s balance “could be improved if we had at least one member whose major interest was what we might call the economics of enterprise. We believe that this is a field of growing importance but it is one that has not been widely cultivated in economics departments. An additional member of the Department who could give an undergraduate course in the Economics of Enterprise and a graduate seminar on the same lines would contribute to a better balance of the Department.” To do this the President recommended to the Governing Boards (who approved) in January 1952 that a full Professor of Economics be named holding an appointment on three faculties — the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the School of Business Administration, and the School of Public Administration. The directive to the nominating committee was as follows: —
to submit one or more names of men of character, high scholarly distinction and first-rate teaching ability who have an understanding of business as it is actually operated. To that end, the man in question should have had contact as a scholarly investigator or consultant with the operations of industry and commerce; he should have an awareness of the positive role of business enterprise in a changing and developing economy. His teaching would be directed towards presenting to Harvard College students a realistic view of business management and its relation to the total economy.
Mr. Crawford’s 1956 report had this to say on the subject: —
Although considerable effort was expended in seeking a man qualified for this interesting post, the matter was later dropped. The present Committee believes that the best interest of the Department would be well served by the addition of a professor of “The Economics of Enterprise,” and strongly recommends that the proposal made in 1950 by the Department and the President be carried out.
* * *
Dynamic Economics: Important as were the reasons given in 1950 for the appointment of a professor of “The Economics of Enterprise” there are today other reasons of even greater importance:
-
- The United States is in a period of great economic expansion.
- Ever expanding frontiers of science offer endless opportunity.
- Increasing productivity brings constant economic change.
- An evolution is taking place in business management’s sense of responsibility.
* * *
A professor of “The Economics of Enterprise”: The Committee strongly recommends the appointment of a professor of “The Economics of Enterprise” for the positive reasons stated above.
This subject has been discussed several times with the Chairman of the Department and at Committee meetings, and has been mentioned in verbal reports of the Chairman of the Visiting Committee. In the opinion of the Visiting Committee Chairman it is important, because the economy of this country is based on business (speaking broadly) which has developed this nation into the most powerful in the world economically and with the highest over-all standard of living for individual citizens. This has been the result of business operating under the capitalistic, competitive, private enterprise, profit and loss system which has provided the incentives for individuals to take risks in the hope of rewards. It would seem proper and important that the role and contribution of business, of private capitalism and free enterprise, and of profits in our economy be set forth clearly, forcefully, and interestingly to students in economics at Harvard. This would be a balance to the views of those who favor an expansion of the so-called public sector of the economy and a continuation of the trends of recent decades towards more Federal Government intervention into the lives of individuals and into business activities.
The Chairman and several members of the Visiting Committee believe that a real effort should be made to find and appoint a Professor of Economics of Enterprise. It is only fair to say, however, that other Committee members feel that such a professor would tend to defeat his own purposes as he would be considered a propagandist; also, as the role of business enterprise in the economy is integral to any understanding of economics, the self-evident characteristics of its importance can be brought out more forcefully in a broad handling of the subject of economics rather than through the channels of special instruction.
Whatever the approach, there seems to be a real need to provide ways of more fully informing the Harvard undergraduate about the role of business in the economy. One way would be through adequate instruction in the Economics Department by a Professor of the Economics of Enterprise. Other suggestions have been made — (a) to have a course of lectures on various aspects of business given by several outstanding business men who have been teachers of or trained in economics, or to have such men give some lectures in Economics I, (b) to invite as visiting lecturers for a year from other universities professors of economics who have the viewpoint of a Professor of the Economics of Enterprises to give such a course or courses, (c) to utilize more fully professors from the Harvard Business School, and (d) to institute a program of talks by business men in the Houses.
The Visiting Committee Chairman believes that the Administration and the incoming Chairman of the Economics Department should give serious thought to this problem to find an early and suitable solution in which members of the Visiting Committee would endeavor to be helpful.
The need for improving the teaching of undergraduates by the Economics Department was mentioned in the 1950 and 1956 written reports of the Visiting Committee. Recognizing that the continuing decline in the number of Economics concentrators strongly suggested the need for reconsideration of the undergraduate program, an Economics Department Committee on Undergraduate Instruction made up of key senior and junior members carefully studied this matter. Pursuant to this study the Economics Department in 1960 adopted a revision of its courses and its teaching to improve undergraduate instruction, taking effect in the academic year 1960–61. The revisions were designed to orient undergraduate study around the student who does not plan a career in Economics, and to clearly differentiate undergraduate study from the graduate program. It is an endeavor to attract more undergraduates into the field of economics and to introduce more flexibility into the curriculum by using many more half courses and entering some new areas. It does not alter total course requirements for concentrators and it increases the amount of time which the senior staff devotes to undergraduate instruction. It would seem to the Visiting Committee Chairman that this revision is sound and intelligent in its principles. The hope is expressed that the Economics Department Committee on Undergraduate Instruction will continue to appraise this program in the light of actual practice and be prepared for further revisions based on experience.
DWIGHT P. ROBINSON, JR.
Chairman
June 15, 1961
Source: Duke University. David M. Rubenstein Rare Book & Manuscript Library. Economists’ Papers Archive. Edward H. Chamberlin Papers. Box 17, Folder “Economics Department 1960-62”.
Image Source: June 1, 1959 Time Magazine cover of Dwight P. Robinson, Jr.