University of Virginia Library

Tullock Asks For Explanation

'Reasons Not Offered'
For Non-Promoting
Of Noted Economist

By Rod MacDonald
Cavalier Daily Staff Writer

Gordon Tullock

Refused Promotions

"I, too, would be interested in
the details of the refusals of my
promotion during the three years
in which it was refused," wrote
Gordon Tullock yesterday.

In a letter to The Cavalier
Daily, Mr. Tullock, one of the
economics professors who have
left the University, said, "I was
never given anything which would
be regarded as an explanation."

Three Refusals

Mr. Tullock was refused promotion
three times in a row, each
after a strong recommendation
by the economics department. As
a result, he resigned from the
University, and now teaches at
Rice University in Houston.

The text of the letter read as
follows:

"I, too, would be interested in
the details of the refusals of my
promotions during the three years
in which it was refused. I was
never given anything which
would be regarded as an explanation.
I cannot, in this case, say
that the University has trod on
my rights in refusing to give me
an explanation, since clearly they
do not have to.

Was Never Told

"But if they are now saying
that they told me and that they
cannot tell anyone else, the first
part of the statement is incorrect.
It may be, however, that they are
not saying this, but simply that
the reasons for my promotion
should be kept secret because in
their view they would reflect discredit
on me even though they
have not told me what the reasons
are.

"In any event, I appreciate
your concern; and I, myself, will
be very much interested in knowing
what the real reasons for the
University's decision not to
promote me were. I deduce that
that their reasons, whatever they
were, weighed heavily with the
University because not only was
I not promoted but my salary
was kept very low in the Associate
Professor level.

"I gather that you do not want
me to engage in simple speculation
as to the motives of the University
in my case, or for that
matter in the cases of Mr. Coase
and Mr. Whinston, or currently
Mr. Buchanan. I have been able
to keep abreast of the present dispute
by clippings which have been
mailed to me from various newspapers,
and it would seem to me
that all the possible explanations
I could offer have been offered
by various people at various
times.

No Evidence

"Needless to say, the explanation
that I am not competent is
one that does not attract me, and
I therefore tend to favor the other
explanations. It is true, however,
that I have no positive evidence
of any sort. No explanation has
ever been given to me by the
University."

Mr. Tullock is the central figure
in the present controversy in
the economics department. His
departure has spurred James
Buchanan, the only professor of
the above mentioned four still at
the University, into leaving next
fall.

Mr. Buchanan said earlier that
"The departure of Gordon Tullock
broke up one of the nation's
most successful research teams
for graduate students. In addition,
it has dissuaded many graduate
students and prospective teachers
from applying here."

Successful Book

Mr. Tullock and Mr. Buchanan
collaborated on a book entitled
"The Calculus of Consent,"
which is now in use as a textbook
at many schools, including Harvard
(see story, p. 2).

The reasons why Mr. Tullock
was not promoted remain unknown.
The Cavalier Daily, attempting
to ascertain these reasons,
asked Dean Harris why he
had not been promoted.

Mr. Harris answered that "My
answer is the same as before; if
Mr. Tullock wishes to know the
reasons for his refusal, he may
ask; I will not, however, give

these reasons to him through The
Cavalier Daily."

The only explanation offered
as yet for the refusal to promote
Mr. Tullock was that given by
Mr. Buchanan in The Cavalier
Daily two days ago: "I feel that
Dean Harris is the responsible
person—he appoints the promotions
committee and signs the
papers. It is he, not the government
department, who would be
susceptible to professional jealousy
over the successes of myself
and Mr. Tullock in the political
economics field.

"No doubt this and idealogical
differences entered into the Dean's
decision—there are too many elements
to think otherwise. I feel
certain that petty, personal jealousy
and malice are the prime
reasons."