To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your recent editorial on Economics 1 suggests that "there is a need for some further changes by the department." There are many who would agree, but the nature of the changes should be further discussed.

Probably the most pressing need is for the Economics Department to bring Ec 1 out of the sociology field and more into the theoretical field. The course, in the Official Register of the University, purports to be designed "to serve the needs of those students who plan no further work in Economics." However, it could be argued that a course which deals little in theory and history and which emphasizes social efficiency in economics--that which works (in the opinion of instructors in the course)--has no right to call itself a basic course.

"Apologia for the New Deal"

To be frank, Ec 1 seems to be controlled and guided by Keynesian economists and New Dealers (some of whom have served as advisers to President Roosevelt and Truman) who appear to be unable or disinclined to detach themself as scholars from the controversial political and social issues which involved those two politicians. Consequently, most lectures and some sections in the course often degenerate into a simple apologia for the New Deal.

When lecturers and instructors lambast "big business," the "Republican Old Guard," the Secretary of the Treasury, a balanced budget, the gold standard, Government economy, inheritance laws, and private ownership of certain means of transportation and media of communication, many students undoubtedly wonder why they are in the course. Certainly many Government concentrators wonder why they are required to take the course. When one of the lecturers declares that "this course will give you the answers to those questions" (concerning the proper role of Government), one wonders whether any course at Harvard is designed to "give answers." Rather, he thinks, isn't a course supposed to inspire us to ask more questions? But in Ec 1 students are given no basis for comparison; they are exposed to no other frame of reference but that one pushed by the instructors, who almost all hold the same point of view. How then will we be able to ask the right questions? To some students it is a real imposition to be subjected to such a narrow, one-sided approach.

The fact is that virtually no non-Keynesian economics, that is, "classical" or "laissez-faire" economics, finds its way into the course, except in derogatory terms. In Samuelson's "Economics," basic reading for Ec 1, Ludwig von Mises and Friedrich A. Hayek are relegated to two brief footnotes each (Yes indeed, who are they?). Wilhelm Roepke isn't even mentioned. In one of the sections, Henry Hazlitt was denounced as representative of the most "reactionary" economic views today, fortunately limited only to a "fringe" group. There is practically no analysis this year of Adam Smith, Spencer, Alfred Marshall, W.G. Sumner or Bastiat. This situation is deplorable as the course is recommended to non-Economics concentrators and is required of all Government majors. Also, many freshmen and sophomores, with no previous knowledge of economics. are encouraged to take the course.

New Blood

If the course is to be thus recommended and required, its policy-makers would seem to have a clear responsibility to clean out as much of the sociopolitical bias as possible. If, as the chairman of the Economics Department says, one cannot separate social theory from economics, then they ought to try to infuse new blood into the Department--more lecturers and instructors less emotionally committed to the New Deal and the partisan polemics of the Depression. Above all, the Department might draw up an alternative reading list for the course, whereby students may refer to certain different sources if they wish. This experiment might be worth making; it could help to indicate that there is no attempt to create a captive audience for any particular viewpoint, but rather, that any valid persuasion is left truly free in the free marketplace of ideas.

Certain direction may, of course, be given to Ec 1, but this should not detract from other possible directions which might be taken if the information were provided and unprejudiced analysis undertaken. Let the Harvard Man never be a stereotype, but always a quality. William Cuthbert Brady '57