Controversy Within MIT

On March 3, 1947, a Visiting Committee appointed by the MIT Corporation held a meeting at which they discussed activities in Samuelson’s depart­ment.¹ It was chaired by Walter J.

In all respects, Samuelson’s career since he came here has been one of the most outstanding we have ever had. I think it is safe to say that he is already about as well known as most of the older economists in this country. He is regarded by many as the most promising young economist in this country. Among those on our own staff who would support him unqualifiedly and in preference to any other men are Harris, Hansen, Schumpeter and perhaps Leontief and Mason.⁴

However, Burbank went on to raise doubts by saying that opinion was divided over “a young man who has risen so rapidly and gone so far especially in contentious subjects.”

Some considered Samuelson the most outstanding economist of his gen­eration, others believed that he had not learned how to use his undoubted ability effectively, while a third group considered him extraordinarily profi­cient in the narrow field of mathematical economics but lacking the knowl­edge and capacity to work effectively outside that field.

Describing himself to Ralph Freeman as “a businessman who had spent thirty years in the field of applied economics,” Beadle had a particular inter­est in economics teaching.⁵ The previous year he had written to express the hope that MIT would avoid the problem of providing an “unbalanced” cov­erage of economics to students who took the subject for just one or two years.⁶ When he expressed a particular interest in the introductory course, Ralph Freeman explained that the course was centered on the problem of maintaining full employment, a radical departure from the traditional syl­labus, though one that was thought more meaningful and interesting for the students.⁷ The fact that Freeman had already explained that the department did not try to indoctrinate students, but to place them in a position where they could “adopt that philosophy and theory which they believe to be best,” suggests that even before the meeting questions had been raised about what the department was teaching.⁸ After the meeting, the committee attended the MIT Corporation luncheon, at which Samuelson’s text was discussed, and several members of the corporation expressed an interest in reviewing it.

Samuelson spoke with Beadle on MIT’s graduation day, June 13 1947, and, presumably having been told of the corporation’s interest in his text­book, appears to have said that he was happy for him to give the text a criti­cal review. Before reading the book himself, Beadle wrote to Ralph Freeman, recommending that he invite economists such as Wilford King (New York University) and Fred Fairchild (Yale) to review it.^a At the end of the month,

a. Fairchild was on record as opposing Hansen’s internationalist policies. See chapter 19 this volume.

he read the text carefully and in July, he wrote to Freeman about it.

Beadle was positive about some aspects of the book, writing “I want to compliment Professor Samuelson on having presented a wealth of interesting material in a lucid style which, I would expect, intrigues the interest of the students far more than the prosaic Taussig text used when I was an under­graduate.”¹⁰ However, he expressed the opinion that at times the attempt to enliven the presentation had resulted in flippancy, as when Samuelson wrote of railroad presidents having “a rather humdrum job.” Though Samuelson was trying to be objective, Beadle thought that he sometimes slipped up, as when he said that the federal government had an unlimited source of funds, and when he wrote that mistakes made by private investors could be avoided by “advanced centralized planning.” Beadle claimed the latter remark implied that federal employees were more infallible than ones on private payrolls. He was also disturbed by statements such as that the text could not treat “the problem of radically changing the economic system” as thoroughly as it deserved to be treated.

Saying that he was pleased that Samuelson had asked Freeman to edit his text, Beadle suggested that he had “a major editorial job” on his hands. If Samuelson were to approach his task “as objectively as a professor in an engi­neering school should approach a problem of this kind,” he was optimistic that the book would bring credit to both MIT and the author. Beadle clearly thought that anyone in an engineering school had a particular responsibility to be objective.^b

Another member of the Visiting Committee asked Nicholas Peterson, an economist at the First National Bank of Boston, to review the text.

b. Was this a perhaps implicit criticism of Harvard, with its greater emphasis on the humanities?

System,” as well as information on “advantages and disadvantages apparent in the American economy.”¹¹ Samuelson wrote in a “flip and cocky” style, and he gave the impression of “being somewhat immature in his thought as well as lacking in scholarly background on economic and political history.” Peterson attached a list of passages where the author's views came through even though he claimed to be offering factual analysis.^c

Beadle sent a copy of his letter to Freeman to MIT President Karl Compton and to three other members of the MIT Corporation. He drew upon what Burbank had written to Nelson, his colleague at DuPont, to pro­vide an assessment of Samuelson:

I have never met Professor Samuelson but it is my understanding that he has a brilliant record and is proficient to an extraordinary degree in the area of mathematical economics. While he is regarded by many as the most promising young economist in this country, others feel that he has not yet learned to apply effectively his undoubted ability, and some even believe that he lacks the knowledge and capacity to make himself effective outside the narrow area of mathematical economics. The fact that he is only thirty-two years old and took his Ph.D. only six years ago suggests to me that under adequate administrative supervi­sion the Institute may be able to bring him to maturity to the mutual advantage of the Institute and himself.¹²

One member of the Corporation and MIT alumnus, Ellis Brewster of the Plymouth Cordage Company, shared Beadle's view that Samuelson was not always objective and that he had a tendency to expect too much from govern­ment.¹³ Samuelson had taken a rather short-term view and paid too much attention to recent economic events, a fact that was easily explained by his being only thirty-two years old.

However, another recipient, Frank Chesterman, of the Bell Telephone Company and another alumnus member of the corporation, took a much harder line, implying that Samuelson was close to being a communist and possibly even a member of the Communist Party or some similar organi­zation. He was, he wrote, “astonished to find that a teacher at MIT shall enunciate some of the absurd thinking which is quoted in Walter's letter to you.”¹⁴ He continued,

It is perfectly obvious that the young man is socially-minded if not strictly communistic. It would be a terrible reflection on MIT if the

c. This list appears not to have been preserved in the archives. book in its present condition were published.... I question whether Samuelson is a member of some of the subversive societies we hear so much about because his line of reasoning and method of expressing his thought are those of that group.

Chesterman was less optimistic than Beadle and Brewster that Samuelson’s “false ideas” could be corrected, and he suggested that action should be taken so as “not to involve the Institute in the consequences of Samuelson’s publica­tion.” His tone was completely different from Beadle’s—it was threatening. Chesterman, who had not been a member of the Visiting Committee, and so was perhaps less familiar with the department, expressed his extreme unhap­piness at the thought that “Professor Freeman and Samuelson are apparently allowing the teaching of our young men to proceed in accordance with the data included in Samuelson’s book.”

Samuelson treated Beadle’s letter as providing constructive suggestions, and he replied, on July 31, in a conciliatory tone, thanking him for his very helpful comments.¹⁵ He explained that the manuscript had now gone to the publisher, but that it had been changed significantly and was “quite different” from the version Beadle had seen. He had taken care to indicate where opinions differed and where his material was controversial. The book was not intended primar­ily for use at MIT, and elsewhere it would not get an “inside track” and thus would face competition.

Samuelson also noted that he had modified the wording in almost all of the ten passages identified by Beadle as being suspect. Beadle replied on August 6 that he was sorry to hear that the manuscript had gone to press, because he doubted the rewriting had gone far enough to bring credit to Samuelson and MIT. The instances he quoted were no more than illustrative of problems that pervaded the text, and simply correcting these would make little difference. The fact that Samuelson had made such remarks at all sug­gested that the “general immature tone” was probably still there.¹⁷ He con­cluded by saying that if Samuelson’s aim was to foster independent thinking,

should the student not have a better grounding in the economic lessons of history? As might be expected from someone who learned economics at MIT many years previously, he advocated a more historical approach to economics. However, while he replied personally to Beadle, Samuelson appears, quite understandably, to have left it to his superiors to reply to Chesterman.¹⁸

In replying to Beadle, on August 6, Vice President James Killian defended the entire department, arguing that all its members supported free enterprise.

There is no question but that every member of our Economics Department is a wholehearted advocate of the free enterprize system. No one of them is a Socialist or Communist. I believe, however, that many of them may sincerely believe that policy founded on no eco­nomic controls or balancing by (or sponsoring by) the Government is one of the surest ways to wreck the free enterprize system.¹⁹

Recognizing that Beadle might question this last point, Killian explained that the same views had been held by most members of the Business Advisory Council, a large group that included conservatives as well as liberals, and that was “certainly not predominantly New Deal.” He also defended Ralph Freeman as someone who had been nominated for the position of depart­ment chair by Davis Dewey (who had held the position when Beadle had been a student), on account of his having the properties of “ability, sound and objective judgment, conservative but with a liberally open mind and a background including both industrial and academic.”²⁰

Given that Beadle's letter had taken the line that Samuelson's book would bring discredit on MIT, Killian chose to focus not on his ideas but on his loyalty to MIT:

there is no question but that he is our most brilliant scholar in the field. He is also a young man of extraordinary fine personal quali­ties. At considerable professional sacrifice during the war he took some classes in the Department of Mathematics to help in an emergency. He similarly did a most helpful job in analyzing the performance and requirements for certain radar equipment. He is modest and coopera­tive to a high degree, and his loyalty to MIT is the only reason we have held him on our staff.²¹

Killian, who will have discussed the matter with Compton, supported Samuelson unreservedly.

Killian also challenged Beadle's view of Samuelson's text, implying that Beadle found it objectionable only because he was predisposed to do so. The statements Beadle had quoted were, in his view, “sound statements of policy” provided they were “carried out in a spirit of supporting the free enterprise system and not as a means for wrecking or weakening it.” Whether one was disturbed by Samuelson’s remarks depended on whether or not the reader “happened to be particularly ‘sensitized’ to and suspicious of a subversive motive in respect to the free enterprise system.”

Moreover, even though Beadle’s criticisms were unjustified, Samuelson had been willing to amend the text, and he had discussed it with many economists, incorporating their criticisms. This did not indicate dogmatism. Killian then returned to defending the department, explaining that students needed exposure to different schools of thought. The only requirements in a teacher were competence and loyalty to “our American ideals.” He reiter­ated that there was no subversive intent, and that there was full support for the free enterprise system; he closed by thanking Beadle for his constructive advice.

Despite Killian’s attempt to set the record straight, the dispute esca­lated. Killian’s letter to Beadle crossed in the mail with one from Beadle to Compton. He had learned from Samuelson that the text had already gone to press, and because he doubted that his revisions would be satisfactory, Beadle decided that stronger measures were needed. “Would it not be possible,” he asked, “for you personally to get hold of the rewritten text and give it a thorough reading before it is published?”²² It was necessary to establish whether, as he had presumed in his earlier letter, the problems with the text stemmed from Samuelson’s “lack of maturity” or whether from “an ingrained socialistic philosophy.” If it was the latter, then it would seem that “more drastic correctives would be required with respect to the teaching of econom­ics at the Institute.” Beadle had shifted his ground, and while not accusing Samuelson of being a communist, he had come much closer to Chesterman’s position. He also broadened his attack from criticism of Samuelson to criti­cism of the whole department.

In any case, I believe that the Department administration is subject to severe censure for having permitted the text, in the form in which the Committee reviewed it, to be passed out to the students of Ec. ιι and used as a basis for classroom instruction. It raises a question in my mind as to the competence of that administration.

In view of this he suggested a further meeting with Compton, but without any representatives of the department being present.

Samuelson also wrote to Compton, on August 7, sending a copy of a letter he had sent to Beadle.²³ His main defense was that his book represented the methods of analysis used by “90% of the active academic economists under the age of 50 over the last decade.”²⁴ The older generation of economists might disagree, but the field had changed, and Samuelson was doing no more than reflecting a consensus among the younger generation. Contrary to what Beadle was now suggesting, he and Beadle did not disagree at all on “gen­eral questions of socialism, communism and capitalism,” but only on specific policies. He gave Compton a clear and explicit statement of his beliefs in regard to both politics and academic freedom.

It may be added that the book is in no sense a “left-wing” work; and I have never, myself, been associated with left-wing organizations of any kind, or with organizations working with such groups, or—for that matter—with any labor organizations whatsoever. This does not mean that I do not recognize the rights of other teachers to entertain their own convictions; and speaking for myself, I would not hesitate to recommend for appointment in our department any person loyal to the American government who was by temperament and training a desirable teacher and researcher—even if he held views on, say, social­ism or pacifism which I do not share.²⁵

Here, he was defending himself not just against Beadle but also against Chesterman's accusation that he must be at least a communist sympathizer, if not a member of an affiliated organization. He had no problem denying any such involvement, for he had no history of political activity beyond writing articles in The New Republic and national newspapers in support of Hansen's policies. However, his friends included many socialists—Russ Nixon was then developing a career in the United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers Union (which had many communist members), albeit one interrupted by a distinguished military career; Paul Sweezy and Shigeto Tsuru were avowed Marxists; and Lawrence Klein was then involved with the Communist Party—and he was defending their right to their own convictions.^d

The charges being made were escalating rapidly, and Compton prob­ably did not need any prompting from Samuelson to see that he had to take a much stronger line if it were not to get out of control. As Samuelson's critics were members of the MIT Corporation, claiming to defend MIT, he chose to explain the role of the MIT Corporation in relation to academic freedom.

d. Perhaps his reference to pacifism reflected his sensitivity to questions about his contribution to the war effort.

The entire university tradition from the beginning, and the condi­tions under which creative scholarship and effective education have flourished, rest basically upon what is sometimes called, and some­times abused, “academic freedom.” An educational institution is not a “line organization” in which directives flow from the controlling body and the administration down to those who are directly performing the functions of the institution. Universities are more like cooperative aggregations of scholars and teachers. To support this valuable work boards of trustees voluntarily have associated themselves to provide business leadership and facilities. Their influence on the views of the faculty or what is taught by the faculty or how it is taught can be by advice, suggestion and criticism, but not by directive or control. The only legitimate control of such matters by a board of trustees is through the appointments of the administrative and teaching staff.²⁶

The clear implication of this position was that it would be wrong for either Beadle's committee or the MIT president to go “beyond suggestion, advice and criticism.” Compton wrote that, while he had presumed that Beadle did not intend to go beyond this, the tone of his recent letter obliged him to clarify his position. While action could be taken in cases of “moral turpitude, disloyal or subversive activity, or demonstrated incompetence,” Compton made it clear that he would not issue any orders or directives infringing on academic freedom, “nor will any such be issued by the Corporation so long as I am President.” Beadle's criticisms of Samuelson had reached the point where Compton was not prepared to compromise. He asked to know the names of everyone to whom Beadle's letter had been sent so that he could make sure that they also received his reply.

Faced with this ruling by Compton, Beadle hastily retreated, saying that his remarks were intended to be constructively helpful and not intended as dictation or control.²⁷ Samuelson's letter of July 31, he wrote, reflected the “fine personal qualities” to which Compton had referred, and he opined that Samuelson has simply not understood the scope of the comments he and his colleagues on the corporation had made. Compton responded positively to Beadle's suggestion about a meeting to discuss the matter further, but as he was not available at the end of August, he suggested that Killian represent the administration. Brewster and Charles Spencer (unlike the other critics, a permanent member of the MIT Corporation) agreed that there were still procedural matters that should be resolved, and supported the idea of a meet­ing.²⁸ Now that it was too late to influence the content of Samuelson's book, they took the line that academic freedom required that students be exposed to all points of view, and they wanted to ensure that procedures were in place to make sure this happened.

During August, Beadle tried to gather support for his criticisms of Samuelson’s book. Beardsley Ruml, an economist with experience at the Rockefeller Foundation and the Social Science Research Council, expressed the view that as a matter of principle, members of the Visiting Committee should not comment on the text used in a particular course in the depart­ment. The furthest he would go was to express the view that some parts of Samuelson’s book were not as good as others, and that he would be happy to discuss this with him.²⁹ Samuel Stratton of Middlebury College initially formed a negative view of Samuelson’s book: it gave the reader the impres­sion that there was a lot wrong with the free enterprise system, not because of what Samuelson actually said but because of the way he expressed him- self.³⁰ However, when he had time to read the book properly, he changed his mind. He conceded that Samuelson had oversimplified the problem of achieving full employment, and some of his conclusions were too dogmatic, but he found the book was very stimulating and he would enjoy teach­ing from it, because it would provoke lively classroom discussions. He con­cluded that Samuelson was obviously familiar with orthodox theory, and parts of the book (on price determination and central bank policy) were very well done.³¹

Killian met with Beadle, Spencer, and Brewster on August 27, all sides hoping to draw a line under the affair. Summarizing the meeting to Compton, Killian said that he had explained that the remit of the Visiting Committee was confined to offering advice on the teaching of economics in the depart­ment, and that Samuelson was free to publish any book he liked. However, while Spencer and Brewster agreed with this, Beadle did not. Killian summed up the meeting:

Beadle repeatedly returned however to an attack on Samuelson, and was most vehement and bitter in his criticism of the book. There is an evangelical fervor about his judgments that make it futile, it seems to me, to discuss dispassionately the points of view held by Samuelson.

I came away from the meeting greatly discouraged with Beadle’s point of view, and troubled by what could only be construed as threats. He said for example that he could not conscientiously give his approval to the Institute’s fund-raising program if it continued to teach eco­nomics as it now does, and he reported that he had finally decided to take the whole matter up with Lammot duPont and that Lammot had said that he dreaded to think of what Samuelson was pouring into the minds of Institute students. There were other remarks by him which were belligerent and authoritarian.³²

Killian concluded that the matter should be taken up by MIT's Executive Committee, as it was clear that Beadle intended to pursue the matter and that he could do much harm.

The day after the meeting, Killian framed a statement of policy on teaching economics that amounted to a very broad declaration of principles.³³ As he explained when he sent it to Beadle, it supplemented the descriptions of dif­ferent courses contained in the course catalogue.³⁴ He also tried to defuse the situation by saying that he could make available to the committee the results of questionnaires issued to students taking Ec. ιι. However, he pointed out that MIT administrators and faculty had no right to question students on their beliefs or opinions.³⁵ Beadle, however, implicitly questioned this on the grounds that, if students were not questioned about their beliefs, it might be impossible to demonstrate that instruction was not as biased as he thought it was.³⁶ In addition, given that he was arguing that Samuelson's treatment of the subject failed to meet the criteria of presenting “a scholarly treatment of the subject” and “all relevant facts and points of view” listed in Killian's statement, he asked for information about how Freeman intended to apply the statement of policy in future.

It was the dean, Robert Caldwell, who saw a way to placate Beadle. Students were assigned not just a textbook but also a set of recommended readings, and these could be used to ensure that different points of view were represented in the teaching. This possibility enabled him to claim that Beadle's letter of September 10 contained a suggestion “of real educational value.”³⁷ Whether or not he was reading more into Beadle's letter than was there, this was a possible way forward.