University of Virginia Library

Economics Professor
Cites 'Petty Jealousy'
In Tullock Departure

By Rod MacDonald
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

"There are still many mysteries
concerning this thing," said
economics professor James Buchanan
yesterday, "but I feel certain
that petty, personal jealousy and
malice are the prime reasons behind
the breaking up of the economics
department at the University."

Mr. Buchanan, the latest of
the economics professors to be
leaving the University, told The
Cavalier Daily that "I lost confidence
in the University administration
when they failed to
promote Gordon Tullock for
three straight years— a gross injustice
to a great scholar. The
University has broken up an extremely
successful research team
for graduate students and demonstrated
its lack of confidence in
the economics department with
its failure to act."

The result of this loss of confidence,
Mr. Buchanan added, is
that his present plans are to leave
the University in September, although
"my resignation has not
yet been announced and will not
be until certain matters are
cleared up."

Asked whether the economics
department had tried to have
Mr. Tullock reinstated, Mr.
Buchanan said, "After the third
refusal, I tried to see Mr. Hereford
about it, but got nowhere.
When I began negotiating with
other schools, it was asked what
might be done to keep me here.
I answered get Tullock back.

"It is my understanding that
Mr. Nutter (chairman of the economics
department) called Mr.
Hereford, who said that when
Dean Harris resigned, efforts
would be made to regain Mr.
Tullock.

Other Factors

"Other factors are involved in
the dispute, however. I feel that
Dean Harris is the responsible
person— he appoints the promotion
committee and signs the
papers. It is he, not the government
department, who would be
susceptible to professional jealousy
over the successes of Mr.
Tullock and myself in the political
economics field. No doubt
this and ideological differences
entered into the Dean's decisions
—there are too many elements
to think otherwise.

"One question I have, however,
is this: why wasn't Mr. Harris
overruled by the administration?
His recommendations and
his work are subject to the approval
of both Mr. Hereford and
President Shannon. Here is where
the lack of confidence in our
department has been shown."

Asked about the ideological
differences and the administration's
attempts to "Harvardize"
the University, Mr. Buchanan
said, "The University is playing
out a string that began six years
ago. Under the Kennedy administration,
there became a
great difference between the libertarian,
conservative economists,
and the liberals then in the
Kennedy favor.

Playing Out String

"The University, in its efforts
to follow this process, seems to
be playing out a string that has
long since passed its peak. In
fact, we are very well accepted
at Harvard, and the work of Mr.
Tullock and myself is used as
a textbook there. What's playing
out here are the cliches of the
1950's and the Kennedy era."

During the controversy, many
charges have been made that the
economics professors have been
forced to leave by lack of confidence
and refusal to promote
them, and are not leaving by
choice.

'Hate To Leave'

"I certainly hate to leave," said
Mr. Buchanan. "There is no attraction
at any other school that
I find pressing, and I like it here
at the University very much.

"But because of the administration's
lack of confidence, its
persistence in breaking up the
economics department, its lack
of effort to help a very successful
research program, and the
other reasons, I feel I cannot
remain at the University and
could not return until the situation
were changed."

Supporting Letter

Mr. Buchanan's statements
were supported by a letter appearing
in the Charlottesville
Daily Progress written by Thomas
D. Willet, a former University
graduate student now at Harvard.
Mr. Willet said, "It is my sincere
hope that other members of the
University administration will be
more responsive than has been
Dean Harris, whose comment on
the original letter was that he
was sure the Rotunda would
stand up. I fear I detected a callous
note in his comment, one
highly inappropriate for a high
administrator for whom the future
quality of the University
should be of prime concern."