University of Virginia Library

Professors Surprised Over Article

Your editorial "After the Battle"
in the March 19 issue of The
Cavalier Daily was both surprising
and depressing.

It was surprising to us that The
Cavalier Daily would object to
serving as a public forum in behalf
of our students. The students themselves,
after exhausting the few
possible avenues for dissent open
to them in our mini-version of a
multiversity, initiated the debate in
their own newspaper. For faculty
personally involved in this public
airing not to have expressed their
views would have meant not to
have taken our students' concerns
seriously. The loss of a scholar
with the international repute of
Professor Buchanan is and should
be a matter of legitimate concern
to our "academical village."

The depressing aspect of your
editorial was its wholly irresponsible
attitude toward the reporting
of hearsay and rumor. If
the editors have reports that when
Mr. Buchanan became chairman
in 1957 he "purged" the department
of some members because
they disagreed with his views, they
should provide the University community
with a bill of particulars
to support this scandalous charge.
To those of use who have worked
with Professor Buchanan, his
scholarly attitudes can best be
characterized by complete and utter
readiness to accept criticism however
destructive, asking only
whether it is right, and not from
whom it comes. We would hope
that you would not print uninformed
rumors in an editorial. If
the feeding of such gossip to the
public by The Cavalier Daily is
tolerated, then indeed it should
not be surprising if the Economics
Department felt a "vague
hostility" from other quarters.

Finally, your editorial mentions
the Economics Department's "predominating
philosophy of 'conservative"
economics." Does this
mean that when we lecture on the
elasticity of demand, it somehow
comes out differently at Virginia
than elsewhere? When the principle
of comparative advantage is
taught, do we teach it differently?
Are the demand and supply curves
of a 'conservative' economics department
shaped dissimilarly to
those of a 'liberal' department?
When we teach national income
accounting, do our T-accounts
balance in some totally unique
way. When the history of the
merger movements is analyzed,
are our statistics in disagreement
with those presented elsewhere? We
submit that they are not. Since
you imply other wise, we would
request that you elaborate.

It would be hopeless to try to
correct the many misimpressions
engendered by your editorial rehearsal
of recent events and issues.
But we felt we could not let
pass by default some of the more
flagrant ones.

W. F. Beazer
Associate Professor

W. L. Breit
Associate Professor

Anne Cobb
Visiting Assistant Professor

Alberto Di Pierro
Assistant Professor

Kenneth Elzinga
Assistant Professor

W. O. Freithaler
Assistant Professor

H. M. Hoctman
Assistant Professor

Ivan Johnson
Visiting Assistant Professor

Bennett T. McCallum
Assistant Professor

John H. Moore
Assistant Professor

We have no desire to spread
"uninformed rumors." Shortly after
Mr. Buchanan became chairman
of the department of economics,
six members of the department
left for other jobs—Messrs. James
R. Schlesinger, Raymond F. Mikesell,
George R. Hall, Lionel Weiss,
Robert E. Kuenne and Warren L.
Smith. Perhaps the most this
proves is that the department has
lost capable personnel before. It
is interesting to note, however,
that among the reasons for leaving
these gentlemen offered their
friends was the increasing dominance
of the "Chicago School" of
"conservative" economics. While
this may not have been a purge,
it certainly represented an inhospitality
on the department's part
toward unorthodox thought (even
though some of the six considered
themselves "conservative")

Your implication that "even if
the department is predominately
conservative, it makes no difference"
is misleading. Just because
"elasticity of demand" and "The accounts"
have a certain absolute
quality does not mean that a professor
can teach economics beyond
the most elementary level
without exhibiting some point of
view. At the University, this point
of view in most cases is "conservative";
the University has benefited
in some cases (we understand,
for example, that it is easy
for the department to place its
graduates since "conservative"
economists are a relative rarity in
the country today) and has been
harmed in others (how many excellent
teachers have avoided the
department because of its reputation?),
If there are members who
do not subscribe to the "Chicago
School" or some local variant of
it, we certainly should like to
hear from them.

—Ed.