Council Claims Teaching vs. Research Is Issue; Drops Walsh-Sweezy Dismissal

With swift and decisive action last night the Student council threw itself into the melee occasioned by the virtual firing of Alan R. Sweezy '29, and J. Raymond Walsh, instructors in Economics. It voted 14-2 top sustain a resolution that political bias had not influenced either the Economics Department nor the Administration in the failure to promote Sweezy and Walsh.

Voting with only one member, Thomas H. Bilodeau '37, absent, the Council approved the findings of several of its members who, under the leadership of John B. Bowditch '37, president, had consulted with all those directly concerned in the case. The conclusion was reached that, on political grounds, the uproar was unjustified.

After lengthy discussion, with Leavitt S. White '37 and Joseph Kennedy, Jr. '38 dissenting, the Council decided that no suggestion of a breach of academic freedom could be entertained but that the dismissal of Sweezy and Walsh does give rise to serious problems of interest to the undergraduate, problems which should be investigated an reported upon either this spring or next year.

The committee which will select men to look into these four questions consists of: John B. Bowditch '37, chairman, Robert L. Bishop '37, chairman, Robert L. Bishop '37, chairman, Robert L. Bishop '37, John L. Dampeer '38, Richard T. Davis '38, and Francis Keppel '38.

Resolution

"After a through investigation of the subject, it is the opinion of the Student Council that Drs. Sweezy and Walsh were not dismissed for their political beliefs or their affiliations with the labor movement. Of course the Council realizes that in a dynamic subject such as Economics it is difficult for one man to judge another without considering his fundamental social beliefs, but despite this factor, it seems that the senior members of the Economics Department and the Administration made their decision purely on the comparative ability of the two men.

Unfortunately there are only a limited number of higher-paid, life-appointment positions available in the Department; conversely the services of a larger number of younger men are required to carry the tutorial and instruction burden. It is the stated policy of the University not to let any younger man hold an position at Harvard for more than six or eight years or beyond the age of about 35 unless the man is definitely slated for a higher position, it being felt that it is unfair to the man to keep him here at a low salary when he might earn more at another university. If a man stays here up to the age of 40 or more, the University feels obliged to retain him for life, even at the risk of keeping out a better man.

In the present case the full and associate professor of the Department were obliged as happens periodically, to reduce the number of younger men in the Department. Drs. Sweezy and Walsh, as the eldest of the younger group, were judged to be less able than certain of their colleagues; therefore the Department recommended that they be even a three year concluding appointment. The practice of "conclud- ing" appointments in designed to give a man notice of the termination of his services and give him opportunity to obtain another position. The President, who has the power of approval or veto, automatically cut this to two years, as he has done in the all similar cases this year; formerly it has been customary to give a man only one year to look for a job. The Board of Overseers and the Corporation have both passed on the recommendation; either could have vetoed or changed it. Thus to the beat of the Council's knowledge, after talking to all men concerned, it seems that the decision was based on the comparative ability of the men; those responsible for the policy realized that this dismissal might cause a furor among the undergraduates and the press, but they did not change their policy on this account.

As to the abilities of Drs. Walsh and Sweezy, as compared to those of other instructors and tutors in the Department, the Council realizes that there is a sharp difference of opinion between those who made the decision and many students, other faculty members, and outsiders. The Council feels that this conflict cannot be avoided or eradicated.

However, the case of Drs. Sweezy and Walsh focuses attention on four main problems which are of vital importance in the administration of the University and on which there is considerable debate. They are:

(1) In judging a member of the faculty who is being considered for promotion or dismissal, is too much emphasis being placed on research and the publication of scholarly works as opposed to teaching ability?

(2) Should the trend to the social sciences which is so marked in the University be recognized and definite provision made for the enlargement of the Departments in this field, or, as President Conant believes, should this trend be discouraged and more emphasis put on other fields?

(3) Is the hiring and firing of faculty members at Harvard done so as to insure the highest caliber of man at the same time being as fair as possible to the men involved? Is the system fair to younger tutors and instructors? Should an automatic "up or out" policy be instituted? Are life appointments advisable in all cases?

(4) Is it possible to have departmental budgets flexible to allow for changes in the number of students taking courses and concentrating in any one field? This has been difficult in the past due to the limited funds available and the difficulty in cutting the appropriation of any department to give to another due to the number of life appointments.

* * *

Considering these factors, therefore BE IT RESOLVED that a committee of five, three Council members and two other undergraduates, be appointed to pick another committee of five, or more, present Juniors and Sophomores interested in this subject, to make a study of these four problems and submit a report to the Administration during the academic year 1937-38 or before.