Let's Get Radical

MARTIN S. FELDSTEIN '61, of all people, understands the importance of criticism. The former economic adviser to the President was lambasted by Administration officials last winter when he called Reagan's tax policies into question, but he stood his ground. You can't balance the budget without raising taxes, he insisted. It apparently wasn't Reagan's view.

So when Feldstein, returning to Harvard to oversee Social Analysis 10, "Principles of Economics," decided to abolish the more than decade-long tradition of radical sections in that course, students and faculty alike were understandably upset. Four hundred students--close to half the class' enrollment--signed petitions last week asking for the reinstatement of the sections, and organizers are still canvassing.

Ec 10, as the course is more widely known, is an introductory economics course, required by the department. More important, though, it's also a Core course--one reportedly taken by more than three-quarters of all undergraduates.

The Core curriculum, as set up by former Dean of the Faculty Henry A. Rosovsky, is intended to give undergraduates a broad, interdisciplinary education. At its best, it is designed to teach ways of thinking and not just knowledge. Limiting the ways in which students are taught to think about economics, as about any other discipline, runs counter to any traditional concept of a liberal arts education.

"We're trying to represent the views of the mainstream 95 percent of the economic profession," explains head section leaders Lawrence B. Lindsey. Yet for many students, Ec 10 is the only economics course they will ever take. How is it counterproductive to teach the other 5 percent, particularly in a year-long survey that covers everything from opportunity cost to international rates of exchange?

Feldstein's primary argument against having radical sections is his claim that students are "self-selecting" into ideologically-based classes, creating a damaging homogeneity in the sections.

We question this characterization of the radical sections, since the only attribute students in these sections seem to share is a heightened intellectual curiousity. What is more troubling, however, is Feldstein's effort to defeat the substantive mission of these sections with questions of procedure. Ec 10 would benefit from the inclusion of as many alternate economic views as time reasonably allows. Crucial, however, is some attention to radical or Marxist critique of the mainsteam, neo-classical model. Currently, this material is covered briefly in the coursewide program, but somewhat seriously only in the radical sections.

We heartily encourage Feldstein to make the material covered in the radical sections an integral part of the coursewide lectures, readings and sections. This would ensure that the radical economic perspective is included without any of the divisive side effects he so dislikes. Including several optional evening lectures at the end of the semester--the bone Feldstein has tentatively thrown out to those troubled by his decision--does not meet our definition of "integral." Barring such a commitment to teaching the radical material coursewide, however, it is essential that Feldstein at least retain the optional sections for those students who are eager to learn it.

And by all indications, there are many such students. Section leaders report that, in the last several years, demand for places in the radical sections has exceeded supply by more than 100 percent. This despite the fact that the sections carry an additional workloard since students read the Marxist critiques in addition to the regular coursewide assignments. And according to Assistant Professor of Economics and former head section leader for the course Jeffrey A. Wolcowitz, these students performed slightly above average on the coursewide exams.

CLEARLY, there are some faculty concerned with the abruptness and finality with which Feldstein's decision was made. Economics Department Chairman Jerry R. Green says the radical sections may be reinstated after the departmental review of the course, beginning this fall. A review of the 114-year-old course probably is, as Green suggests, long overdue.

But the department ought to have planned just such a study when Feldstein first indicated last spring that he would terminate the sections. Economics faculty charge that Feldstein was "unavailable" during the summer and that no one got a chance to voice a counter-opinion. In any event, the department should have taken more responsibility for what is, after all, the course with the highest enrollment in the College.