Two professors last night gave two divergent opinions on the role of the Wage Stabilization Board; one of the debaters--John T. Dunlop, professor of Economics--is a public member of the Board.

Speaking on the "Economic Aspects of the Steel Controversy" before 150 listeners that jammed Kirkland's Junior Common Room, Sumner H. Slichter, Lamont University Professor, claimed that the tripartite board had "responsibilities which do not mix--stabilization of wages and preventing work stoppages."

"You cannot get wage stabilization by the process of bargaining," he warned, calling for a body that would act more like an arbitration board. The W.S.B. is composed of representatives from labor, industry, and the public.

"Give and Take"

Dunlop replied that such a system of "give and take" between the board members was essential: "I know of no other way by which a tripartite board can operate."

Slichter said the Board's public members should give fair stabilization decisions "on their own" and not be deterred by the industry and management members.

"A tripartite board would disintegrate with separate decisions," Dunlop replied.

His "opponent" disagreed and stated, "I would be sorry to see it (tripartite board) fall, but if the alternative is one in which the public members have to do a lot of giving and not much taking, it is better to have a quasi-judicial board."

Claiming that the steel industry's 17 cents a year wage increase was about 70 percent too high, Slichter said the W.S.B. should "make recommendations on a stable basis," as shown by the cost of living rise, or accept a strike. "Give the public a chance to rally on wage stabilization," he added.

Slichter also criticized the Board for "departing from its usual position in computing the cost of living rise from January 15, 1951" when deciding on wage boosts. (For the steel strike the W.S.B. used December 1, 1950 as the base.) "If the June 15 date is not good enough for steel workers, who is it good enough for?" he asked.

Giving the textile mills as an example, Dunlop said that the Board had power (Regulation 8) to revert to a previous date--in the case of steel back to October 15, 1950