A Call for Reform

SOCIAL ANALYSIS 10. "Principles of Economics," has long been the most popular course at Harvard. But despite its popularity, this year the course has generated heated controversy that has led to the formation an ad hoc committee comprised of several of the course's section leaders. The committee recently made several recommendations for reorganizing the course to insure that its traditions of strong instruction and critical analysis continue unimpaired. We think their ideas are an appropriate and creative framework for administering a course noted for its large size and decentralized instruction.

The elimination of radical sections, which offered a Marxist critique of neo-classical economies in addition to teaching the standard course material, first prompted concern among section leaders last fall. The sections--which were over-subscribed by 100 percent last year--were extremely popular. Four hundreds students signed petitions last fall protesting their removal.

Even more disturbing than the termination of the radical sections was the way in which the decision to terminate them was made. In his first year of teaching Ec 10, Professor of Economics Martin S. Feldstein '61 decided to end the popular 10-year old sections without consulting the section leaders who do most of the actual touching in the course. While concerns for academic freedom usually support the right of professors to teach whatever they choose in their classes, the case in not so clear with Ec 10.

FELDSTEIN JUSTIFIED his move by claiming that introductory economics should concentrate on widely accepted mainstream views and that students should not be separated into ideologically specific groups. The professor's action appears to have been political, however, because he denied interested students the right to learn the radical critique along with the mainstream material. The presentation of alternative analytic frameworks in these sections not only gave students access to different economic viewpoints, but also helped them better understand mainstream neo-classical economics.

The professor's autocratic exercise of authority in eliminating the radical sections, and its implications for the freedom of section leaders to offer alternatives to traditional economic views, can only damage the quality of learning for students in the course. Section leaders do most of the teaching, all of the grading, and write their own question for most of the hourly exams in Ec 10. They are most aware of student needs and concerns, and their expertise in special fields of economics is one of the most important resources for students in the course.

The ad hoc committee of section leaders has made four suggestions. The first, and perhaps most important, is that the course should be governed by a committee of faculty members representing different viewpoints within the field of economics. This suggestion, while unorthodox, is uniquely suited to the problems of teaching Ec 10. It would contribute to the academic freedom of instructors and to the breadth and the depth of student's education in economics.

The other proposals call for a reorganization of the instruction manual given to all section leaders to reflect different approaches to central economic issues. It also calls for the reinstitution of the radical sections, and for the development of a variety of alternative sections offering supplementary material with different perspectives on neo-classical economics, such as libertarian or institutional economics.

THE PROPOSAL that Ec 10 be administrated by a committee rather than a single course head is an excellent solution to the course's unique problems. Unlike other Harvard classes, Ec 10's day-to-day operations are handled by a central office. Head section leader Lawrence B. Lindsey provides administrative support for the course's 40 sections and frequently meets with students. In contrast, course head Feldstein's only contact with students is through his ocassional course wide lectures--he will give six this semester.

A faculty committee would provide a resource for the development of alternative sections and the presentation of different perspectives on economics. Such a committee could better make choices regarding such important matters as textbooks and essential curricula, while leaving section leaders free to teach. Governance by committee and the Development of a variety of alternative sections will not eliminate the central role of mainstream economic theory in Ec 10. Rather, it will promote the most fundamental aspect of a liberal arts education--critical thinking.