University of Virginia Library

LSU Professor, Former Virginia Student
Reviews Economics Department Issues

Letters To The Editor Day

I have refrained from commenting
on the present crisis in the
economics department because of a
heavy work load and because of
the presentation of effective arguments
by present and past students
of the department. Recent events
and, perhaps, my heightened personal
anger at these developments
have forced me to write this letter.
I would like to comment on the
following three facets of the problem:
efficiency, fact and principle.

First, from the view of efficiency,
is the excellent reputation of the
department in general and Professors.
Buchanan and Tullock in
particular. This reputation does
not seem to be a serious item of
dispute, so it is one which I will
not discuss. It should be pointed
out, however, that Professors
Buchanan and Tullock contributed
not only to the professional reputation
of the department and its
students, but that they immeasurably
aided the development of a
spirit of scholarly inquisitiveness
and mutual cooperation; two
qualities which, unfortunately, are
not to be found in many universities.
Virginia's economics department
is almost as well known for
these two qualities as it is for
its professional reputation. The
numerous articles and books which
have been co-authored by the
faculty and students readily attests
to this spirit of mutual aid.

Approximately two years ago,
while I was a graduate student,
rumors began circulating that
members of certain departments
of the University wanted to "liberalize"
the department of
economics. We began to place
greater value upon these rumors,
when, at regional and national
conventions, we heard that the
Dean of the Faculty was reported
to have stated that he was "...going
to liberalize that goddamn conservative
department of economics."
We were quite sceptical of such
hearsay "evidence" so we quietly
visited the offices of the Dean
of the Faculty, the Chancellor and
the President to inquire about the
foundation of such rumors and to
present to these administrators our
own concern about some of the
actual developments at that time.

Because of these developments,
we are now reluctant to advise our
students to enter Virginia's
graduate program in economics.
Our decisions are not based on a
desire for revenge or on an attempt
to pressure the administration;
we simply believe that, in
many cases, the best interests of
the advisee would not be served by
attending the University. Considering
that recent Virginia graduates
now teach in such universities as
Northwestern, Purdue, Iowa,
Ohio, VPI, Harvard, Georgia,
Chicago Circle, LSU and Dartmouth,
and that they have contacts
at many other universities,
this effect will not be negligible.
In other words, gentlemen, the
"word has gone out" that the value
of the economics department is
depreciating due to faulty administration,
and the expected adverse
speculation against the department
has begun. Consequently, from the
viewpoint of efficiency, the recent
developments, whatever may be
their cause, will impose a cost
not only on the particular faculty
members involved, other members
of the department, and the past,
present and future students but it
will damage the reputation of the
University-a University of which
we were all so justly proud.

The important question to which
we now must turn is: Why? Why
is a department, whose national
and international reputation has
been increasing annually, suddenly
confronted with such a questionable-though
we hope, not unsalvageable-future?
To answer this
question we must first seek the
answers to the two remaining questions.
The first is a question of
fact. What is the department of
economics? It is a collection of
mossback reactionaries, John
Birch conservatives, right wing
nuts; or more moderately, yet, it
appears, equally obnoxious to
some "liberals," a group of Chicago
school slaves. One who applies
such adjectives to an impersonal
noun is guilty of the fallacy of
misplaced concreteness, but if the
interpretation is that the large
majority of the faculty in the department
are Chicago school adherents,
anti-government economists,
etc. the statement cannot
be supported by empirical verification.

If there is a common element
which characterizes a considerable
number of the faculty, it is their
adherence to a rigorous, methodological
approach to economics. The
application of this methodology
has often conflicted with the so-called
Chicago school with which
critics are so fond of equating our
department, as if this were a guilt-by-association
equation with the
most sinister elements. The faculty
members most affected in this
case-Professors Buchanan, Tullock
and Whinston-are responsible
for developing a "Virginia
school" of externally theory
which, in brief, concludes that
government is necessary for the
provision of many goods and services
because of efficiency problems
in the free market. Is this
blind subscription to the "Chicago
school?"

Another point, as stated in a
March 22 letter by ten young professors
in the department, is that
there is a central body of economic
theory which is taught the same
in all reputable schools, whatever
may the characterized position of
the departments on the left-right
spectrum.

The last question which is one
of principle, is the most serious
and relevant one for the problem
at hand. Should the hostility of
political liberals or conservatists
be allowed to directly or indirectly
influence the well-known reputation
of another department? As
Both graduate student and instructor,
in the classroom and without,
at cocktail parties and campus
meetings I was confronted by
unknown students and faculty
members who, upon learning I
was in economics, accused me of
being a reactionary, a wall street
apologist, etc. etc. Since we
students in economics were confronted
with such charges many
times while we were in residence
at Mr. Jefferson's University, we
soon became accustomed to them:
in fact, we probably enjoyed the
same feelings that were
experienced by the Jesuits when
they stepped into the midst of a
group of pagan savages.

The basic problem is that most
of our colleagues in other departments
know almost nothing about
economics in general and even
less about our methodology in
particular. The Cavalier Daily in
answering the letter to the editor
of March 22 implicitly equated conservative
economics with the unorthodox
teaching of the department.
I have already suggested that
the department is not conservative
and those members with
whom you charge this would probably
prefer to be called classical
liberals, since this term is historically
and descriptively more accurate.
If it is unorthodox to base one's
ultimate assumptions and methodology
on the philosophies of
Locke, Jefferson, and Mill; it
is unorthodox to base one's
methodology on individual freedom
of choice within a constitutional
and democratic political
framework; if it is unorthodox
to demand that students approach
economics from a value-free analytical
viewpoint, permitting the individual
citizen to select those
values or ends he cherished most
dearly; if it is unorthodox to
analyze the costs as well as the
benefits of the free market and the
political market and to attempt to
determine how each market may
efficiently serve the wants of free
men; if it is unorthodox to suggest
that the policies of John
Maynard Keynes may be correct
while his analysis may not be; if
it is unorthodox to suggest that
the draft, minimum wage laws
and rent controls may not be the
most efficient ways to help the
poor, or that flexible exchange
rates might have avoided our current
balance of payments problems,
or that there are serious problems
in determining the true rate
of economic growth in the Soviet
Union; if these are the things which
the critics consider when they
charge the "department" with unorthodox
teachings, I agree that
our "department is unorthodox,
I consider myself fortunate to have
been the recipient of such teachings
and I challenge the critics to
seriously consider the assumptions
and implications of "orthodoxy."

The present situation in the
economics department is not the
fault of one man or the inevitable
consequence of faculty promotion
procedures, though consideration
should be given to both; rather,
the situation resulted from the expressed
hostility against the department
on the part of some
ignorant and conservative men who
fancy themselves liberals. The
blame can be laid directly on
those who, because of their values,
criticize the conclusions of analytical
model they neither understand
nor care to investigate. The blame
is on those who call the department
a "bunch of right-wing nuts"
but who refuse to enter debates
despite the persistent efforts of
students. The blame must rest on
those truly reactionary men who
would like to remake the economics
department and the University to
fit their particular preferences.

Although considerable damage
to the department has already
been caused, it is not unsalvageable,
for the present staff must
be encouraged to remain, and
competent personnel must be recruited.
The key to these accomplishments
might be the rehiring of
Professors Buchanan and Tullock,
which, after all, is not an impossibility.
The members of the
economics profession, especially
former economic students of Virginia,
are watching with ken interest
the developments at the University.
We trust that the present
gentlemen of Virginia, too, shall
keep a vigilant watch on all
developments affecting the atmosphere
of truth and honor at Mr.
Jefferson's "academical village"
and that his statement "....we are
not afraid to follow truth wherever
it may lead, nor to tolerate any
error as long as reason is left
free to combat it," will continue
to be descriptive of his University
in fact as well as in word.

David B. Johnson
Assistant Professor
Department of Economics
Louisiana State University

The Cavalier Daily wishes to apologize
to James Buchanan, Paul G. McIntire
Professor of Economics, for the
errors of fact which appeared in its
editors' note of March 22nd. It retracts
in full any implication that Mr. Buchanan
was responsible for any sort of
"purge" in his department.

At the same time, The Cavalier
Daily maintains that there was what
might be called a change of atmosphere
in the department of economics in the
late 1950's which is reflected in the department's
present national reputation
for "conservative" economic thought.
This change was one factor in the departure
of several young teachers for
other jobs.

In reply to charges that The Cavalier
Daily was guilty of "malicious use of
false information," we can only repeat
that anyone maliciously desiring to
damage Mr. Buchanan's reputation
would not have called him "a distinguished
political economist, who has
the loyalty of countless graduate
students who have worked under
him and who is largely responsible for
the ation of his prestigious department"
(see editorial, March 19). As
for the use of "false information," who
would be fool enough to think that an
editor would deliberately distort the
facts when anything he said would be
so easily open to rebuttal by any letter-writer
on his page? Although The Cavalier
Daily ed in its note of March
22nd, its motive was only to try to present
the other side of what until that
time had been a very unbalanced discussion.

One further clarification: Mr. Johnson,
who wrote the letter above, is
quite confused about The Cavalier
Daily's use of "unorthodox." We did
not this term to what the economics
department teaches but to
how some members of that department
theories other than
their own.-Ed.

Memorial Service

I would like to correct an unfortunate
error that has just come
to my attention. It was reported
that at last Tuesday's Student
Council meeting, at which I was
not present, the president remarked
that the recent memorial service
held in Cabell Hall for the late
Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King was
sponsored by the Graduate History
Club; and that the bulk of
the "credit" for the service was
mine. Neither statement is true.
The History Club had no connection
with the service; and,
furthermore, my role in assisting
with the plans for it was only a
minor one.

There are a number of individuals,
students, faculty, and administration
personnel, whose efforts
made the memorial service
possible. However, the nature of
the service makes it highly improper
that a list of "credits" be
attached to it. If we must speak
of credit at all, I would hope
that some might come to be reflected
upon the University community
for its honoring Dr. King,
not merely by memorial services,
but by concrete steps taken towards
those ideals for which he
lived and died.

In regard to this last point, I
would like to suggest that the other
groups within the University follow
the lead of Student Council
in enacting an absolute ban upon
any patronage of segregated establishments
in connection with
any University function. For example,
cannot the I.F.C. prohibit
such use of segregated facilities by
the fraternities? Likewise, is it
not possible that the administration
and faculty might in some way
initiate a similar policy? More
important is the question concerning
the paucity of Negro students
at the University.

Here it is imperative that the
University recognize its failure to
attract qualified black students,
and initiate necessary remedies.
Only when such steps are
taken will the memorial service
have the full meaning that those
involved in planning for it sought
to achieve.

A Murder Committed

During the last few days we
have all heard comments like
the following spoken by various
people, "Isn't it ironic that Dr.
King was killed instead of Stokley
Carmichael or Rap Brown" or "I
wish they had killed Carmichael
instead of King."

It seems these people are missing
the important meaning of
the assassination of Doctor King
or if they understand the importance
of the murder their attitude
is indicative of a very grave situation,
a situation which is likely
to be the ruin of the United
states. The point is precisely that
such a murder was committed,
whether it was Doctor King, Carmichael,
or Brown is irrelevant.
The United State was founded with
the ideas of justice and liberty
for all, which I realize sounds
rather corny to the modern intellectual,
are nonetheless ideals
we all desire to obtain. The political
assassination of Mr. King obviously
is not consistent with these
ideals.

The assassination is a symptom,
a symptom of a disease which
is decaying America and threats
to destroy it. This disease is the
moral deterioration of America
and it is as serious a threat to
the nation as cancer is to the
body. Americans have seen the
symptoms many times in recent
years. The slaying of Medgar
Evers, the assassination of a president,
women raped while people
calmly pass by murder and robbery
on our streets by the thousands
each day. It seems that we
would have heeded the warnings
and set about to cure the disease
but we haven't. Last week that
warning was felt again but instead
of a movement to correct
this decaying of our backbone,
we heard "I wish they had killed
Carmichael." So the disease continues
and there is going to be
more killings and rioting and
destruction for we haven't heeded
the warning yet and we may never.
Look about you and compare what
you envision this summer to be
with last summer and the summer
before that. Things are getting
worse and are going to get more
so and it's a waste and so contrary
to what we all want and
need.

Veiled Vitriol

A series of letters-at least one
of which, sadly, contained thinly-veiled
vitriol-appeared in the
April 10th issue of The Cavalier
Daily and emphatically condemned
the violent reactions occurring in
many of our cities following the
murder of Dr. Martin Luther King.
There cannot be much doubt that
the basic sentiments with regard
to this violence which were expressed
by the writers of those
letters are shared by a majority
of the University community. My
own response to these letters, however,
deals with their all-too-apparent
deficiencies.

For, where in these letters is expressed
the writers' condemnation
of a society in which men cannot
voice their opinions in public
without fear from violent attack
by night riders or hidden assassins?
Where is the righteous indignation
that men with the moral
character and public stature of Dr.
Martin Luther King and Medgar
Evers have been gunned down from
ambush with high-powered rifles
-weapons which can be obtained
by any individual who is old
enough to sign his name and has
the inclination to use them. Where,
indeed, is the indignation that not
even the President of the United
States is free from such attack?

Gentlemen, I share your disapproval
of violent response, but
let us now condemn the acts of
racist violence which generate this
response. Let us condemn the
atmosphere of bigotry and
collusion which allows and tacitly
approves of these terrible murders.
And let us work toward effective
legislation to control the distribution
of deadly weapons, so that
they might not so readily come into
the hands of violent men.