Holcombe Says Government Department Handled Appointment Terminations in Democratic Manner

"Action of the Government Department in the cases of the terminating assistant professorships followed completely democratic lines," Arthur N. Holcombe, professor of Government and Chairman of the Department of Government, stated in an interview yesterday.

"The only difference between the department and the administration," he continued, "is in the matter of apportionment of permanent appointments. The department is seeking two additional ones."

Discussions Began in February

Outlining the procedure followed in the department, Professor Holcombe pointed out that discussions of who should be advanced had started as far back as February. "Without that it would have been unreasonable to expect the department to reach a conclusion in the two week period between the acceptance of the Committee of Eight Report, May 22, and the announcement of the conclusions on June 3," he stated.

The crux of the debate on procedure has been the question of whether the departments served as information-gathering groups for the administration or whether they made suggestions as a body. In some quarters it has been held that the decisions have emanated from above rather than from the department.

Action Had Department's Approval

In discussing the action in the government department, Professor Holcombe stated that in his belief by the time the recommendations were made all early objections to procedure had been smoothed out and every one in the department approved. From February on there were conferences about the permanent appointment that ultimately went to Payson Wild, now associate professor of Government.

The problem facing the department due to the President's order concerning the assistant professors was how to dispose of the six men holding that rank. It was considered necessary to find positions elsewhere for two men, which has been done, Professor Holcombe explained. One was promoted, two others kept on at the same rank, and one case left undecided.

"There was no evidence of any more than usual difference of opinion," he stated, "and in the final decision there was essential agreement. The department's recommendations were accepted by the Administration."