Henry George in our Colleges and Universities
Vi G. Peterson
[Reprinted from Land and Freedom,
September-October, 1942]
Can we spread an understanding of Henry George in college classrooms?
After eight weeks in the field, I am prepared to say that we can, if
we work along established lines. Professors are not missionaries, and
we must not expect them to act that part. They will, however, present
the subject in what they consider a fair manner, and they will
distribute to their students literature which they feel is pertinent,
provided the subject is honestly presented and is free from
propaganda.
During July and August I toured the country on behalf of the
Foundation's college work. My trip covered 7,500 miles. I visited 35
colleges and had interviews with 126 professors. To each of these men
I sent literature suited to the specific work in which he will engage
this term. I am confident that in most of the institutions I visited
George will receive a better hearing.
In the Principles of Economics courses, George's Law of Rent is
widely discussed in almost every college. However, a check of the
libraries discloses that only a small number of students take the book
out for study. A pamphlet containing George's chapters on rent is now
being prepared by the Foundation, and will be supplied to the
professors teaching the "Principles" courses. The professor
will cooperate in the distribution of this pamphlet because he wants
these chapters read. Similarly, in the "History of Economic
Thought" courses where George is considered quite thoroughly, a
pamphlet can be designed to fit the course's own requirements, and
cooperation in its distribution is assured. In the Labor courses, I
found that The Condition of Labor has a special appeal. One
well known professor whose books on labor problems are widely read,
told me that for years he has required his students to read George's
answer to Pope Leo XIII. I used this testimonial with good results
when talking to men giving similar courses in other colleges. This is
another pamphlet we can print for classroom circulation.
Suppose we print this literature and the professors give it to their
students. Will it lead to a study of the whole philosophy? I predict
that it will have important results. "Get a bright young chap
interested in George," one professor said to me, "and he
gives the class and himself no rest -- they certainly 'put their teeth
into it.'"
I found friends in unexpected places. In a teacher's college in the
Northwest, for instance, I discovered a framed picture of Henry George
hanging in the office of the Economics Department and discovered that
the Head of the Department is devoting four sessions of each course to
Progress and Poverty, and is circulating a dozen copies of the
book, which he keeps in his own library. In Seattle I found a
professor, who took his doctor's degree at Princeton where copies of
George's masterpiece were offered to the students for fifty-five cents
a copy. His purchase of a copy had resulted in a close and convincing
study. He is now following Princeton's example in his own domain.
George gets some mention in the Sociology Department, though the use
of his books there is not extensive. I found one enthusiast in Chicago
who hails George's discovery of the relationship between poverty and
progress as an important contribution, and insists that his students
study sections of Progress and Poverty as part of their term's
work. He told me, with much satisfaction, of a young woman who had
found George particularly difficult, but who later returned to tell
him that she had finally mastered the book, read others in the set,
and enrolled for a course with the Henry George School in that City. "I
think," the professor said, "you'd say I'd made a Single
Taxer."
An essay contest for college students has already been suggested in
Land and Freedom's columns. I asked the opinion of many of the
men to whom I talked, and they endorsed it as a workable plan. The
prize, they advised, should be cash or a scholarship. Such a contest
requires careful selection of topic, a competent Board of Judges and
proper publicity. It will take time to work out these details, but I
think it very probable that we shall undertake it very soon. Your
suggestions will help us - let us hear from you.
One of the most interesting interviews was with Professor John R.
Commons who, until his retirement ten-years ago, was an important
member of the faculty of the University of Wisconsin. I sought an
audience with Dr. Commons because of his long fight to bring about the
taxation of land values in the State of Wisconsin. Dr. Commons is
eighty-six and while he shows his age and must rely upon a cane, his
mind is clear and keen. I think you will, enjoy reading part of the
report I made after my talk with Dr. Commons:
"Dr. Commons said we will never get George taught
in the colleges by trying to force respect for his ideas alone. We
must do it by proof that it works. Urged research and publication of
reports of result of same. Said Pittsburgh-Scranton plan should be
analyzed carefully and report issued on its accomplishments and
defects. Said the Grimstead Bill which he supported in 1921 should
be analyzed and report of its aims and purposes issued. Said farmers
had been in favor of Grimstead Bill, but he could not get any
support, financially or otherwise, to put the measure through.
"Dr. Commons differs from George in this: He believes we may
need other taxes (income) and should not limit ourselves to one tax.
He believes land should be taxed only on site value; that its
natural fertility should not enter into it at all. Would exempt from
taxation all improvements, irrigation, forestry, etc. Would have a
soil expert on every State Tax Commission Board. Said the fertility
of the soil can be measured as accurately as a yard of cloth. Said
this fertility was no use unless labor was applied to it and was
part of the 'Divine Providence Theory' which Adam Smith and others,
as well as George, believed in. As far as taxing incomes is
concerned, he would tax quality, not quantity. That is, he would
break income down into that derived from monopoly, privilege and
land speculation, and tax that, exempting all income derived from
human labor (salaries, wages).
"He said he read Progress and Poverty in 1881, right
after it was first issued. It was that and only that book that
started him as an economist instead of a journalist, the career he
had decided upon. He considers Progress and Poverty the
greatest book on economics ever written, and the most widely read,
with the possible exception of Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations.
"His admiration and respect for Mr. Purdy is great. He said,
'Purdy and I could have accomplished something in land reform if we
could have got together -- he knows the city problems, I know the
farm problem,' I told Dr. Commons about Mr. Purdy's separation of
land and improvement taxes, and his land value maps. He said, Purdy
is a rare man.'"
Besides visiting the colleges, which were, of course, my main
assignment, I had the great pleasure of meeting scores of friends with
whom the Foundation has corresponded for many years. Their hospitality
will always live in my memory. They told me about what they were
doing, and questioned me eagerly about activities in New York. I left
each regretfully, for in each I found a friend,
|