January 26, 1983
When I was appointed Chair of the Department of Political Science in July of 1980 and realized that Professor Buehrig would be retiring within a year, I shuddered to think of all the memory and insight about the Department that might be lost to future generations if Buehrig did not put some of this on paper. Knowing that he had many other things to do and write, I somewhat hesitantly approached him and asked if he would be willing, soon after retirement, to tackle the difficult task of writing a history of the Department to supplement the important and interesting history written at an earlier juncture by Oliver Field. Much to my joy, Buehrig was willing.
For many months I realized that he was poring over old materials trying to be sure that his historical account was factually accurate. While it is difficult enough to reconstruct the facts and figures of a large department such as that at Indiana, it is almost impossible to breathe life back into the shell of past eras. However, Buehrig has given us his own witty and insightful overview of a department many of us had heard about but did not know well and has brought us up to date into an era that we have shared with Ed.
Having asked Buehrig to undertake this task, I am very pleased with the result and hope that those faculty, students, and alumni who have been associated with the Department over the past years will be able to have access to this document for many years to come.
Political Science at Indiana: An Historical Essay
Edward H. Buehrig
The present endeavor is a partial-some may say an idiosyncratic-account of Political Science at Indiana University. Going back long before 1914, when the Department was established, the object is to trace the way in which the important subject of government and politics has been dealt with at Indiana University since its founding: how instruction in the requisites of American citizenship-the sole curricular test through the greater part of the nineteenth century- is today overlaid (put not abandoned) by the attempt to treat with intellectual detachment the puzzling phenomenon of man and his governance in its many manifestations. What is particularized here in the instance of a single institution, mirrors, of course, the history of American Political Science in general.
The present account of Political Science at Indiana is complemented by earlier treatments of the subject, the complexities of which are thus in some degree satisfied by multiple approaches. Oliver P. Field, a member of the Department from 1924 to 1927, who returned as professor in 1940, in his History of Political Sdence at Indiana University, brings the Department down to 1951. His treatment of the early years reflects the strong political cast of 19th century education. Of great interest (the more notable because his growing blindness had now become complete) is Field's research into 19th century texts and library acquisitions relating to political subjects. He also compiled a list of the disputations that were a standard part of (the week-long) commencement exercises and that constituted as well the typical fare of the rival literary societies -the Athenian and the Philomathean. These were occasions for students to demonstrate their oratorical and intellectual prowess and, overwhelmingly, the subjects chosen were political in character. No more then than now was politics confined to the classroom and the library.
For the post World War II period we have an incisive account of the development of Political Science at Indiana in an article authored by Charles S. Hyneman in The Review (November, 1964, published jointly by the College and the Graduate School). Hyneman, a freshman in 1919, majored in Political Science for both the B.A. and M.A. degrees. Among the earliest of the Department's graduate students, he was a teaching assistant. In 1956 he returned to the Department as professor. His presidency of the American Political Science Association followed in 1961-1962. 1
The Nineteenth Century
In the pioneer village of Bloomington (some 300 people), a fledgling institution called a Seminary opened its doors in 1824 (the name was changed to College in 1828 and University in 1837). There were ten students and one professor. For three years Greek and Latin were the sole subjects of instruction. Political Science as such was not taught; yet politics was not least among the concerns of the ancients, whose writings on the philosophy and institutions of government were replete with lessons to be learned. Indeed, the classics were an important ingredient in the political thought and creativity of the Founding Fathers2 - the progenitors (and practitioners) of an American Political Science that in 1824 was already a distinctive feature of the national heritage.
Curricular expansion first occurred in 1828 with the addition of mathematics "and such of the natural sciences as in that day were deemed of sufficient importance to engage the attention of aspiring youth." Politics, more explicit than in the classics, was not far behind. When in 1829 Andrew Wylie carne as President, he taught the senior class a variety of subjects (as compact units in succession), including Constitutional Law, Moral Science, and Political Economy.
Formal instruction in History was not introduced until1854, when it became a required subject (along with International Law, Moral Philosophy, Political Economy, and Constitutional Law) for completion of the newly inaugurated degree of Bachelor of Science alternative to the Bachelor of Arts.3
Further innovation occurred after the Civil War. Departments were now introduced into the administrative structure of the University, including the Department of Mental, Moral and Political Philosophy, which the 1877-78 catalog described as follows:
In this department is taught Mental Philosophy, embracing the usual topics. Moral Philosophy include[s] both the theory of morals and practical morals; the former embraces the moral sense, the grounds of right and wrong, the nature of virtue, the authority of conscience, the rules of moral conduct, and the sources from which they are derived; the latter includes the duties we owe to ourselves, to men as men, to society, to the State, and to God. Political Philosophy embraces Civil Polity, Constitution of the U.S., Political Economy, Social Science, International Law. The Evidences of Christianity are also taught in this Department. Textbooks are used, accompanied by lectures. The President will meet the Freshman class on Saturday mornings, during the first term, for Conversations and familiar Lectures upon the Elementary Principles of Morals.
The purpose here—to inculcate in the student a sense of personal responsibility—was deemed essential to a self-governing polity. Apart from the general tenor of the description, one's attention is arrested by reference to Evidences of Christianity, reduced here to almost parenthetical notice-and soon to disappear entirely from the curriculum. Early a standard part of a student's education, such instruction is testimony to the pulpit's forming influence on the American political culture, a role, moreover, performed by a clergy that was on the whole partial to the First Amendment's separation of church and state. The implications for public education of this basic principle of the Constitution (which validates authority for the first time in Christendom on secular grounds only) was in the 19th century perceived differently from today. Indeed, down to the eighties, all presidents of Indiana University (at the outset faculty in general) were clergy (mostly Presby terian, which caused other denominations to look askance).4 However, by century's end, divorce between Christian doctrine and the state university was implicit in the intellectual currents of the time. The always uneasy accommodation of Christianity to the Renaissance was under great stress.5 At Indiana, the philosophical impact of science on the curriculum is the hallmark of David Starr Jordan's presidency, a time when traditional instruction retreats before the institutionalization of new discovery as an avowed goal of higher education. An inquiring scientist (ichthyology), well known as a protagonist of the theory of evolution, Jordan came to the faculty in 1879. In 1884-with an alacrity deserving of comment, given the disputations of the time-he was chosen president by the Board of Trustees. A dynamic personality and evangelist of the liberating promise of science, he carried his advocacy of the new education to every county in the State.6 (A growing reputation led to his choice in 1891as the founding president of Stanford University.)
Reflecting an increasing degree of specialization, the Department of History and Political Science (a term that appears for the first time) was created in 1885.7 Further differentiation occurred in 1890, when European History became a separate department, leaving the combination of American History and Politics, a department headed by James A. Woodburn. A native of Bloomington and graduate of Indiana (B.A. 1876, M.A. 1885), Woodburn studied at Johns Hopkins, where he received the doctorate in 1890.
One is impressed with the degree of integration -the will'-o'-the-wisp' of Political Science - that was achieved between American history and government. In an enthusiastic account of the new department's offerings, the Indiana Student (1893) listed the following progression of courses: English Constitutional History; the Colonies and the American Revolution; the Development of the American Constitution; American Constitutional History to 1837; the Slavery Question and Causes of the Civil War; the Civil War and Reconstruction; the Cabinet and Parliamentary Systems (Bagehot and Wilson); the American Com monwealth (Bryce, including political parties, elections, civil service reform, municipal politics, etc.); and the Theory of the State (Bluntschli). Finally, jointly with the Department of Political Economy (headed by John R. Commons), one evening a week was devoted to current economic and political problems. The Student, reflecting (somewhat shakily) the intellectual climate of the time (echoing, no doubt, Woodburn's experience in Herbert Baxter Adams' famous seminar at Johns Hopkins), extolled "historical research" as "a superior element in education," and declared that the "laboratory method of investigation" (placing "history at last among the sciences") was being used "as far as convenient and advisable." More confidently, the Student asserted that the Department's course of study "widens the student's sympathies, broadens his relation to men, intensifies his love of country, and makes him liberal and open to the views of others." Pestalozzi is quoted: "Without civic and political education the sovereign people is a child playing with fire, at the risk each moment of burning down the house."
Amos Shartle Hershey, who joined the Department of American History and Politics in 1895, was the nucleus around which Political Science at indiana evolved into a separate department.
Needless to say, in taking this step Political Science was not starting from scratch. The political philosophy-reiterated in the Gettysburg Address-and the constitutional architecture of the Founding Fathers not only survived the fratricide of the Civil War but emerged invigorated. A highly political culture formed at the juncture between constitution-making and a distillation of the West's long tradition of political thought-placing Political Science at the crux of the American consensus - remained intact. But another and different current was running that at this distance has become obscure. Typified in the outlook of David Starr Jordan, its source can be traced in part to the nineteenth century German university, whose modernizing influence is an important chapter in the history of American higher education.
Amos Hershey came to Bloomington, fresh from Europe, fully in the professorial mold of the day. After Harvard, he earned the doctorate at Heidelberg in 1894, followed by a year in Paris as a Harvard fellow. His person is a direct link between German scholarship and its transforming influence on the American university. Apart from a career of distinguished scholarship, Hershey, a staunch defender of liberal causes, was a prominent campus personality, called a non conformist by Charles Hyneman in a lively portrayal appearing in 1925 in the undergraduate publication The Vagabond - whose maverick editors Hershey often championed against the social conservatism and puritanical standards of President William Lowe Bryan.8 (Buehrig recalls a knock on his office door one Sunday evening. It was the night watchman conveying President Bryan's instruction that no one was to work in his office on a Sunday.)
In Frank Green Bates, who was to join Hershey in forming the new department (having first been appointed in the Department of Economics and Sociology), the German connection, while less direct, can easily be traced through the School of Political Science at Columbia. Founded in 1880, it (along with a parallel development at Johns Hopkins) marked the beginning of Political Science as an avowed discipline. Its founder, John W. Burgess (like his counterpart Adams at Johns Hopkins) was German trained, as were other key members of the new School, including Frank J. Goodnow. Imbued with the ideal of productive scholarship and bent on its implantation in American education, they pursued new knowledge through analytical and comparative methods of research. Goodnow was Frank Bates' mentor and in 1899 Bates was recipient of the still innovative doctorate in Political Science.9
With Hershey's arrival, the Department of American History and Politics soon became bifurcated with Hershey in effect heading the Political Science component, and in 1906, in a communication to the Board of Trustees, Hershey recommended the establishment of a separate department:
. . . I would urge that Political Science has a right to be considered a separate and distinct science. It is so regarded in many of our leading Universities in this country and is made the subject-matter for a degree in Germany. A national Political Science Association was organized several years ago distinct from the American Historical Association and the experiment has been a decided success. While the close connection of Political Science with History on the one side and with Political Economy and Sociology on the other side is generally recognized, it is also generally felt and believed that Political Science has a distinct character of its own and that it differs from Historical Science in scope, purpose, and method. In scope it differs from History in that it concerns itself solely or mainly with the State and with Government as such, i.e. of legislation and administration, and, while it utilizes the results of historical investigation, it attempts to reach conclusions and generalizations of its own. Its method is comparative and to a certain extent philosophical instead of being purely historical, i.e. documentary. In these latter respects it bears a much closer resemblance to the allied sciences of Political Economy and Sociology than it does to History.
Eight years later- 23 March 1914- the Board enacted Hershey's proposal. By then some 35 departments of Political Science had emerged in American colleges and universities, while 1903 had marked the founding of the American Political Science Association.10
Hershey's communication to the Trustees contained a caveat against "a too narrow specialization in Political Science." While acknowledging overlap with Economics and Sociology, Hershey especially emphasized the importance of a "good knowledge of history... inasmuch as much of the data upon which the Political Scientist bases his conclusions is [sicj historical in character and origin." When, for the first time, the 1915-16 catalogue delineated an undergraduate major in Political Science, ten hours were required in Economics, Sociology, or Law, while twenty hours each were specified in History and Political Science. In the latter category, a year's work was required in American government, followed by a year devoted to European governments. The elective courses were State and Local Government, Municipal Government, Principles of Legislation, Principles of Administration, Social Politics, Theory of the State, International Relations, and International Law. Political Science majors were "expected" to have reading knowledge of French. German was also recommended. Majors were urged to join the History and Political Science dub--which continued to be a lively joint enterprise into the late thirties.
The Political Science curriculum has seldom enjoyed a period of repose. However, what was set out in 1915 pretty much characterizes Political Science at Indiana down to the second World War. In 1939 a major comprised a minimum of 25 semester hours in the Department, including two obligatory semesters in the senior year devoted to the History of Political Thought. Outside the Department, ten semester hours were required in two of the following: Economics, Sociology, History, or Journalism.
By 1939 Political Science at Indiana-like the University as a whole-was already poised for the great expansion that was to materialize after the second World War. The Government Department, as it was then known,11 consisted of seven members. Ford P. Hall (a Rhodes Scholar in law, first appointed in 1927) was Chairman--and continued so until his death in 1951. Bates was in his last year before retirement. Ernest E. Linton (recipient of the Department's first doctorate) was a continuing member of the Department from its early days. At a beginning rank still viable at the time, Pressly S. Sikes and Edward H. Buehrig had been appointed to instructorships in 1934, Francis D. Wormuth in 1937, and in 1938 John E. Stoner, while the year 1940 marked the addition of two full professors: Oliver P. Field in public administration and law, and Roy V. Peel in public opinion, political parties, and the electoral process.
The picture of an Indiana faculty member prior to the second World War, particularly at the lower ranks, would be incomplete without mention of the Extension Division (founded in 1912). Whereas today-formally as of 1962-the Regional Campuses are autonomous, degree-granting units, each with its own department of Political Science, the Extension Centers out of which they evolved were largely dependent on itinerant faculty from Bloomington. No obligation was involved, but the extra pay of a few hundred dollars per course was welcome augmentation of the salaries of the time, particularly in the depression years. Buehrig's beginning salary of $1800 is reminiscent of the nineteenth century, though, by way of perspective, the cost of living was very little compared to 1982, e.g. 25 cents for a haircut, and 35 cents for a dinner (in those days including soup and dessert) in the town's best restaurant.
The Postwar Era
The scientific Weltanschauung that so profoundly affected American higher education in the dosing years of the nineteenth century continued to work its transformation in the twentieth. By mid-century preoccupation had long since shifted from the known to the unknown, from old to new, from past to future. Already the natural and physical sciences had propelled the American university into the mainstream of public affairs, deepening and accelerating the current, both unpredictable and ambivalent in its numerous consequences.
The growing complexity of scientific inquiry and its ever mounting impact on human relations has had the effect of intensifying the need for still more research. The response at Indiana was infused with the dynamism of the Wells administration, while still other factors were impersonal, one being the affluence of the 50s and 60s. Another was a growing student body (though one notes that considerable growth had already set in before the war: 630 students in 1900, 2600 in 1920, and 6400 in 1940). Small giving way to large has had many consequences for Indiana University. For one thing, an enlarged faculty better enables the University to discharge its research responsibility.
The ubiquity of politics links Political Science-with special intimacy-to the vast ferment of the postwar world. Governments-more than contending with the accustomed abrasion in human relations-now struggle with the profound impact of science and technology on the social and economic fabric of society.It is intransigent stuff. It overwhelms the policy maker, and the academician as welL A challenge to all of social science, today's volatile mixture of hazard and promise poses questions highly relevant to Political Science.
More than practicaL the questions are also philosophical. Religion's depictions of the human odyssey having been supplanted by a secularized history, government-the repository of authority-takes on the appearance of a centralized intelligence capable of legislating the future. Yet the rudder's response to the helm is highly erratic. The bureaucratic reverberations of a governmentalized society are disconcerting, while a rationalized scheme of history, however tempting a speculation, is beyond the ken of political philosophy. That Political Science should appear perplexed is hardly surprising.
Its response begins with the overlap between theology and the philosophy of politics (e.g. Reinhold Niebuhr) and extends all the way to scientific empiricism-all the way from the deductive to the inductive approach to the puzzlements of politics. The accustomed inquiry into the uses and pitfalls of authority's many patterns has expanded from familiar ground in the West to the hitherto ignored, but now consequential, politics of the non-West, while, at the other extreme, Political Science searches for data on which to generalize about political behavior within and across cultures, and-at the level of international politics-among the proliferating entities that claim the prerogatives of sovereign recognition.
Aspiration for greater methodologial precision led in 1969 to the establishment at Indiana of the Political Science Data Archive and Laboratory. 12 But mainly-responding to the ever increasing flux and compression of human relations in the postwar world-Political Science now treats a range of subject matter much broader than before the second World War. Today's inquiry into the politics of development is without precedent. Meanwhile, however, treatment of international relations and foreign governments enlarges on a curricular past already well established, while today's treatment of American government and expands on a curricular concern older still.
Foreign and International Politics
We saw that instruction bearing on the art of governance has never been parochial at Indiana. The pursuit of classicism, however fragile an enterprise in a village of log cabins in the midst of the primeval forest, survived the derision of the native Bloomingtonians, whose proprietary interest in the new college was one pole in the clash of cultures universally known as town versus gown.13 We also noted the early introduction of international law, which has since continued to be standard. Indeed, by century's end the play of intellectual curiosity had led to considerable sophistication. By then the historical and comparative treatment of the political institutions of the West was well developed. Such was Woodrow Wilson's work The State, which both reflected and propagated the intellectual currents of the time. Accustomed suspicion of Britain as enemy had given way to admiration for British institutions, and the origins of American political culture in British history were both acknowledged and celebrated. (Unwittingly, Wilson was forecasting the choice of sides in the first World War, while at the same time predisposing the scholarly community to the backing of policies that culminated in the break with Germany).
If Wilson exemplified Political Science at the tum of the century, Amos Hershey may well be characterized as Wilsonian, but not because he patterned himself after another; rather both men were formed in the same mold. Thoroughly schooled in the history and institutions of the Western State System, Hershey's writings were mostly in that tradition. But he also pursued a then little beaten path. It is fitting that today's wide-ranging Department should acknowledge Hershey as its pioneer in the non-Western world. Japan quickly caught Hershey's eye and became the subject of two books. His work in 1906 on The International Law and Diplcmacy of the Russo-Japanese War was on the whole an approving account of Japan's conduct of the war in accordance with the laws of land and sea warfare, a book warmly received by the Japanese precisely because it judged the belligerents by the standards of the West as reflected in nineteenth century intemationallaw.14
Modern Japan, jointly authored by Hershey and his wife Susanne, is of particular interest. The earlier book had opened doors when, on a trip around the world in 1913-14, Amos and Susanne visited Japan at length, leading to an account of that country, not just political, but social and cultural. It is an impressive book, well rounded, appreciative of Japan's unique qualities, and perceptive in its judgments.15
Hershey taught a course on Japan, but the large number of foreign governments added to the postwar curriculum is more immediately traceable to the Army Specialized Training Program in which the University was heavily engaged during the War. The broad scope of this Program included the language, history, and politics of countries around the world, both friend and foe, with which the military became involved.16 The novelty of so employing the American university is but one intimation of how the intellectual resources of the country were brought to bear on the conduct of the war and the making of peace. Not only did government come to the campuses. Social scientists went to Washington, among them a large number-- me might almost say a whole generation-of political scientists.17 The impact on public policy-for better or worse-is, of course, hard to judge. Clearly much of the postwar planning went awry. Yet one notes the vast difference for the better between the aftermath of the second World War and the economic and political debacle that followed the first, a contrast hardly attributable to fortuity alone but at least in part to lessons learned from the past.
At Indiana the stimulus to international studies afforded by the Specialized Training Program-to which the Russian and East European Program in particular owes its origin-did not dissipate for several reasons. A growing student body and the increasing affluence of the University helped. More to the point, however, was the Wells' presidency in conjunction with a liberal sprinkling of interested and energetic faculty members. A multi-million dollar grant from the Ford Foundation in 1961 must also be credited. A welcome acknowledgment of a curricular and research orientation already well ensconced, the grant was designed to reinforce the University's international outlook and to encourage an interdisciplinary approach to various geographical areas.18
The expansion laterally of Political Science beyond its accustomed Western orientation has been a major postwar development. At Indiana comparative government now includes the European democracies, the communist regimes of Russia and Eastern Europe, and the polities of Latin America, the Far East, the Middle East, and Africa. Actually none of these areas is truly homogeneous. Patterns of governance in their great variety-and degrees of stability or lack thereof-reflect the differing quality of political cultures, the peculiarities of historical circumstance, and the fortuities of territorial endowment. Yet a region affords a useful focus around which to organize an interdisciplinary approach. In all such programs at Indiana, Political Science is strongly represented.
The Political Science component of the Russian and East European Program began with the appointment ofVaclav Benes to the Department in1950. He taught and researched the politics of Eastern Europe until his death in 1972. Eastern Europe is now covered by Jacob Bielasiak. Robert C. Tucker was the Departmental specialist on the Soviet Union and communism from 1959 to 1962. The domestic side of Soviet politics has since 1961been dealt with by Darrell P. Hammer, while Bernard S. Morris, who came to the Department in 1963 from the Department of State (Bureau of Intelligence and Research), treats Soviet foreign policy in the wider context of international communism and of international politics in general.
The African Studies Program was founded in 1961 by J. Gus Liebenow-who in 1977-78 was national president of the African Studies Association. Patrick 0. O'Meara succeeded to the Program's directorship in 1972, when Liebenow became Vice President and Dean for Academic Affairs for the university. The Political Science component of the Program also consists of Richard E. Stryker (West Africa) and Edmond Keller (East Africa), while, since 1974, Gwendolen Carter, with special interest in South Africa, has been in residence on the Bloomington campus the first semester of each year.
Currently Norman S. F_urniss is Director of the West European Program. Previously Alfred Diamant and James B. Christoph served in this capacity; both have held national offices, the former as Co-Chairperson of the Council for European Studies,1976-1979, and since 1971 a member of the Executive Committee of the Conference Group on German Politics, the latter as president from 1978 to 1980 of the British Politics Group.
Iliya Harik, who in 1964 succeeded P.J. Vatikiotis in the field of the Middle East, is currently Director of the Middle East Studies Program. As of 1981 Kevin Middlebrook has dealt with Latin American Politics and Jean Robinson with the Far East. These areas had earlier been covered by David Collier and Joseph E. Sutton, respectively. Sutton served in various administrative capacities in the University, culminating in the Presidency, 1968-1971.
Passing from foreign governments to relations between governments, one encounters a problem in academic nomenclature. Though commonly regarded as a field in Political Science, International Relations is indistinct at both its margins. On the one hand, it embraces all of social science, while, on the other, it partakes of all the fields within Political Science itself. Yet at the core of International Relations there is a political dimension that sets it apart. Its structure, however primitive, is defined in International Law and Organization, while its sovereign entities have peculiarities and a dynamism of their own. Regarded in the legal sense as independent and equal, yet in fact interdependent and unequal, these islands of territorial authority-chief among the actors on the international stage--invite inquiry on a global scale into their patterns of interaction, economic and political.
As taught and researched from a systemic point of view by Jeffrey Hart, Francis W. Hoole, JohnP. Lovell, and Harvey Starr, today's field of International Relations bears little resemblance to the two-semester course by that name included in the Department's initial curriculum of 1915-16. Each semester was geographically focused, one on the Far East: "The opening of the Orient to international trade; the awakening of China; the rise of Japan as a great world power; and the relations of America and Europe with the Orient." The other centered on the international politics of Europe, with special attention "to the causes and the results of the Great European War." However, there was intimation of a more generalized approach to international politics. Included in the course description was "the philosophy of war and peace, and the means of preventing and settling international disputes."19
A New Dimension
Decolonization--a marked feature of the postwar period-ushered in the time when the profound contrast between technological and traditional societies gave an added dimension to the study of comparative government and opened a new fissure in international politics. Development became the theme and technical assistance the mode of a novel tum in relations between states, constituting a wholly new departure in Political Science, though at first it appeared-quite deceptively-that nothing more was involved than the curricular extension of public administration abroad. Actually, a growing preoccupation has increasingly involved Political Science in society's complexities. More so than Hershey could have foreseen in 1906, Political Science now overlaps with sociology and economics--and with anthropology. Meanwhile, as of old, Political Science is still entangled with religion. Modernization, more than a surface phenomenon yielding to mere technical intervention, sends intellectual reverberations through the whole of society, opposing-with explosive force--the scientific view of the world to the traditional.
Policies, domestic and international, designed to induce development are of interest in their various adaptations--regional and at the more general level of political economy-to Harik, Hart, Keller, Middlebrook, and Stryker. Common to all developmental programs is the implementing role of bureaucracy, a mechanism whose characteristics and pathologies are explored by William J. Siffin.
Fred W. Riggs, an early theoretician of development, applied sociological theory to the comparative study of public administration. A member of the Department from 1956 to 1967, he organized and directed the Comparative Administration Group: an affiliate of the American Society of Public Administration, financed by a large grant from the Ford Foundation. The CAG was an intellectual center, national and international, for probing the social and organizational dimensions of the development process. Seminar papers, articles and books comprised some 125 items. 20
For twelve years, beginning in 1954, the Department was chaired by Walter H.C. Laves-who for four years previously had been Deputy- Director of Unesco. The dynamic expansion of the Department under his leadership included technical assistance. With tangible results, still much in evidence today after passage of some twenty-five years, institutes of public administration were founded in Indonesia and Thailand. Under contracts financed by those governments in conjunction with Washington, Departmental personnel functioned abroad, while their counterparts were trained in Bloomington. John W. Ryan, who became President of Indiana University in 1971, was included in the initial party sent to Thailand in 1955. A graduate student, Ryan's two-year tour provided the basis of his dissertation Bangkok Government and Administration. Subtitled "Appearance and Reality," the study shows that Bangkok's formal structure "must be examined in the light of the governmental traditions, expectations and values of the people in order to approach an understanding of its real nature."
Such was the extent of the University's involvement in development projects (the Schools of Education, Business and Medicine too became heavily engaged) that Indiana in 1964 was a founding member, along with Illinois, Michigan State and Wisconsin, of the Midwest Universities Consortium for International Activities (MUCIA), a unique organization the impetus for which carne from the Ford Foundation in the form-again--of a multimillion dollar grant. Under this umbrella, with primary responsibility assigned to Indiana, the Institute of Public Administration originally established in Thailand at Tharnrnasat University evolved into the autonomous National Institute of Development Administration. Founded in 1966 and now entirely under Thai administration, NIDA brings together three research centers and comprises four curricular tracks at the masters level: public administration, business administration, development economics, and applied statistics. "Its ultimate role in Thailand may turn out to be central to the nation's political life... , for NIDA trains a select group... whose careers will affect the course of Thai history."21
In a second instance Indiana, within the context of MUCIA, assumed a role of primary responsibility. In 1971 MUCIA took on a formidable challenge to social science: a million dollar grant from the Administration for International Development (AID)-with a supplement in 1976 of $575,000--to extract from the vast literature on development practical lessons for the engineering and evaluation of institution-building, with provision for seminars, at horne and abroad, designed to sensitize AID personnel to the complexities and the ever-threatening frustrations inherent in the process of development. Administrative responsibility passed in 1973 to the already existing International Development Institute at Indiana, whose Director, William Siffin, became head as well of the MUCIA Program of Advanced Studies in Institution-building and Technical Assistance Methodology. So direct an assault on society's inner workings was bound to undergo much scrutiny. Yet "PASITAM has survived for nearly a decade and has added to the stock of social science literature on the problems of new organizations and institutional functioning in the Third World. Its tenacity [is a]... tribute to MUCIA as well as a result of the high quality of its leadership and published output."22
PASITAM was phased out in the 1980-81 fiscal year-though evaluation by an AID team had recommended continuance.23
American Government and Politics
Mathematical problems are solvable through equations, whereas political problems do not readily yield to such definitive answers. Choice between security and welfare--between consequences long-run opposed to short-is the everpresent dilemma in government and in the politics that pervade human relations throughout. Struggle amidst forces always in flux is ceaseless and, not infrequently, authority-prey to the intransigencies-is itself overwhelmed. Such is the challenge to all governance: with much wreckage in its wake. American Political Science responds as an integral part of a distinctive culture (so distinctive as to make dubious any attempt at transplantation), a culture that afforded the original model of institutionalized rationality, that is accustomed to self-analysis, supportive of the professional social scientist, and responsive to the shifting interventions of legislative and judicial prescription. One asks how, more precisely, does Political Science minister to American politics and government?
Change, beyond the trial and error of successive policies, provokes-always anew--questions about authority's uses and government's structure. Such queries, philosophical and institutional gained curricular status in 1829. Moral Science-as it was then called-became a constant. It is present in today's curriculum as the History of Political Thought, taught by Byrum E. Carter, the subject to which he succeeded in 1947, following Wormuth, and to which he returned after the years, 1969-75, during which he served as Chancellor (the office now designated as Vice President) of the Bloomington campus. Meanwhile, American Political Ideas is a separate course. Taught for many years by Louis E. Lambert prior to retirement in 1974, it continues to be a standard offering. More narrowly, the politics of the welfare state raises issues philosophical as well as economic, a subject explored across the spectrum of the West by Furniss and Timothy A. Tilton, the latter with special reference to Sweden.
On the institutional side, Constitutional Law too has been a constant since 1829, a course now taught by Warner 0. Chapman, following Field's death in 1953. Always relevant, Constitutional Law has become increasingly so in a government whose judiciary readily enters the political lists, taking on the awesome task of mediating between institutional constraint and philosophical value.
Resolution of conflict centers on decision-making by contestants competing for influence. A peaceful outcome is not ordained; struggle often prevails over accord. An articulated philosophy and a tested legal structure serve to inhibit discord but of themselves do not assure the mutual trust essential to a national consensus. A political culture-rooted in its own particular history-may or may not foster attitudes and conduct favorable to the accommodation of conflict. Exploration of this-the habitual and unspoken-aspect of political behavior is today included in the term process.
The analysis of politics in its behavioral (non-normative) aspect attained special emphasis at Indiana in the fifties. New to the Department was a course in the Logic of Scientific Inquiry taught by Milton Hobbs, while empiricism was used by David Derge for probing the nature of American politics, an approach to the latter that now comprises a wide spectrum. Formation of policy, particularly at the legislative level, is the special interest of Lawrence C. Dodd, Leroy N. Rieselbach and Roberta L. Herzberg, while Marjorie R Hershey, James H. Kuklinski and Gerald Wright concentrate on the operation of public opinion through political parties, interest groups, and elections. The bureaucratic component is treated by Siffin. At the level of state and local government, Russell L. Hanson explores the political process in its various aspects, while Jack L. New-formerly assistant to Governor Welsh and onetime state Treasurer-teaches Indiana government in particular. Most elusive of all is the psychology of behavior, an aspect of politics that has caught the attention of Edward G. Carmines. What emerges is a mosaic that defies the depiction of constitution and organizational chart, a complexity embracing attitudes and practices that, beyond the teachings of philosophy, are embedded in the matrix of history.
A flexible curriculum permits treatment of specific issues of current interest on a selective basis, while American Foreign Policy is regularly offered, taught by John P. Lovell. Lovell's attention to the security side of American policy, particularly in its military aspect, is a measure of the demands incumbent on the United States in the twentieth century compared to the almost effortless security peculiar to the American experience in the nineteenth.
Apart from curricular treatment of current issues, the Department has cooperated in the organization of public-affairs conferences-typical of the postwar period-dealing for the most part with questions of foreign policy: occasions facilitated through Robert W. Hattery whose appointment in the School of Continuing Studies is paralleled by adjunct membership in the Department of Political Science. Of singular character and importance, the activities of the Poynter Center bear on the fundamentals of citizenship with special relevance.24 For ten years from its founding in 1972, the center was under the direction of William Lee Miller, jointly a member of the Departments of Political Science and Religion. The application of Political Science to policy issues can profit from organizational devices that focus research, attract outside funding, provide supporting facilities, and that afford visibility within the profession and in the public at large. The Bureau of Government Research (whose functions are now largely absorbed by the School of Public and Environmental Affairs established in 1971) was a Departmental enterprise for many years, while currently two undertakings within the Department are policy oriented: Advanced Studies in Science, Technology and Public Policy; and the Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. Treated here as well is the Center for International Policy Studies that functioned from 1975 to 1980.
Addressing Policy Questions
What Amos Hershey was to the international side of Political Science at Indiana, Frank Bates (regarded as mentor by Hyneman)25 was to the domestic. We saw that Bates, like Hershey, personified the intellectual cast of Political Science at century's turn. And, again, Woodrow Wilson comes into the picture. His essay on "The Study of Administration", published in 1887, marks the beginning of public administration as a field of Political Science.
As industrialization overtook America's rural past, the concept of the public interest was itself affected; governmental intervention in society, not only more frequent, took on a new dimension: in economic and social thrust, and also in manner of execution. Increasing regulation did not fit well into the accustomed allocation of rights and duties enforceable through the sanctions of criminal and civil law. Interposed between legislation and adjudication, regulation-partaking of both functions--is a continuous process, hardly sustainable through the retroactive sanction alone. Bureaucracy, more than merely passive, formed a new juncture in American politics:as described, for example, in Ford Hall'sThe Concept of a Business Affected with a Public Interest (1940) and as treated in Government Regulation of Business, taught for many years by Stoner. Meanwhile, welfare and other forms of benefit came increasingly into the public domain (Social Politics-taught by Bates--was included in the Department's initial curriculum). As purveyor (many benefits with strings attached), administration in this connection too, as in its regulative role, became more than a transmission belt. Today's curriculum treats bureaucracy as a dynamic element in the political process, and, as we shall see below, the study of public administration now includes the further sophistication of policy analysis.
Much of this lay ahead at century's turn, at a time when attention centered on the problems of the burgeoning cities.26 Urban government became a standard subject in Political Science, at Indiana beginning with Bates. More recently, the subject has been the special interest of York Willbern. Willbern, onetime Editor of the Public Administration Review, was in 1963-64 President of the American Society of Public Administration.
Bates' enthusiastic interest in municipal and state government carried him beyond the classroom. As executive secretary from 1922 to 1932, he was the guiding and sustaining force in the Indiana Municipal League, 27 which-through publications and lectures--he tied into the University Extension Division for Adult Education. Prefacing his City Planning and Zoning (1923), he informed the reader that "This bulletin is issued by the Extension Division of Indiana University in cooperation with the Indiana Municipal League to assist in the development of cities and towns as efficient, healthful, and beautiful places for homes and industries."28
In 1924 Bates joined with nine other executive secretaries of municipal leagues in the founding of the American Municipal Association (now the National League of Cities). That the founders should have gathered at the University of Kansas has a certain significance. It was there, while teaching from 1907 to 1910, that Bates had organized the Kansas Municipal League, which became the model followed by other states.
Through Bates, the Department from the outset had close relations with the Legislative Reference Bureau of the General Assembly of Indiana. At one point the Director of the Bureau and Bates offered a joint course in Economic and Social Legislation, student internships were available in the Bureau, and Bates prepared research bulletins on its behalf.
The preparation and publication of studies useful to lawmakers and administrators in state and local government was formalized through the Bureau of Government Research, established under the directorship of Sikes soon after his appointment to the Department. Edwin B. McPheron succeeded as Director from 1946 to 1957, a period notable for conferences held in Bloomington, attended by legislators and other state officials, devoted to a preview of up-coming sessions of the Legislature. Willbern followed McPheron and was succeeded by James Kessler in 1966, who subsequently became Executive Assistant to Governor Whitcomb. Phillip Kronenberg was the last Director prior to the establishment of SPEA in 1971-at which time Willbern and Lynton K. Caldwell became half-time appointees in the new School.
Advanced Studies in Science, Technology and Public Policy. Placing Political Science in historical perspective is but a segment of the larger story of higher education in America. We have noted the sensitivity of political thought to the reverberations emanating from the scientific view of the world, while, more narrowly, empiricism hasaffected the methodology used to depict political behavior.
Apart from its purely intellectual implications, science has still another consequence: its vast technological spin-off poses a host of concrete questions of policy. For business, there is the worrisome decision of how much to spend on the problematical results of research and development. Government, too, now allocates money to research, while the greater decision is how to cope with the societal consequences of technological innovation.
The connection between science and politics is now recognized as an important juncture, new not only to public policy but, by the same token, to Political Science as well. It was so perceived by Caldwell when, in 1965, he established the pioneering Program in Science, Technology, and Public Policy. The Program is multi-disciplinary in approach and encompasses research, teaching and service, the latter primarily consisting of Caldwell's many consultancies to international organizations, public and private, and to numerous agencies of the American government, most notably to the Congressional committees responsible for the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. The environmental impact statement was Caldwell's most notable contribution to this legislation.
The Program, supported largely from external sources, has received numerous grants from the National Science Foundation, initially for the preparation of instructional materials: a syllabus designed as a model for the study of science and public policy, and, collateral to this two-volume publication, a comprehensive three-volume bibliography. Central to the instructional program at Indiana is a two-semester seminar, international in scope, covering the organization, in its public aspect, of science and technology; technology's social and environmental impact; and the various approaches employed by governments and international organizations in their attempt to cope with specific problems. Since inception of this aspect of the Program in 1966 more than 160 midcareer administrators, selected in the area of science and technology by eighteen Federal agencies, have participated in the seminar as the centerpiece of a year's graduate study at Indiana.
Research under the auspices of the Program has included numerous books and articles by Caldwell himself (among which have been translations into nineteen languages). Among the books are Environment: a Challenge to Modern Society and In Defense of Earth: International Protection of the Biosphere (1972)-to which a follow-up volume is currently in preparation. Some among Caldwell's countless monographs and articles stand out for their seminal importance, particularly his "Environment: A New Focus for Public Policy" in Public Administration Review, 1963 and "Biopolitics: Science, Ethics and Public Policy" in the Yale Review,1964. 29
The Workshop in Political Theory and Policy Analysis. The Workshop was founded in 1973. Pedagogically it is highly innovative. More than a center (national as well as campus) for bringing together already established professionals seeking through social science to assess alternative policy strategies, the Workshop also serves a curricular purpose.lt is used to accomplish a difficult combination: not just instruction about research but instruction through research. Both in design and logistics, Workshop evaluations of the delivery of public goods (such as police services)30 are undertaken by students in seminars devised by Elinor Ostrom. The student first struggles to identify the meaningful variables. In the field, he then collects the needed data through questionnaires and in accordance with the observational rules that he has helped to formulate: "Starting from an established base of theory, students are able to examine its application to concrete problems, and in the process arrive at conclusions that confirm, challenge, or modify their theoretical preconceptions."31
Over the past twenty years the assessment of policy outcomes--always an aspiration of Political Science--has advanced in two ways. On the one hand, empirical research has increased in sophistication through the computer, which can order and manipulate large quantities of behavioral data. In conjunction with this recently acquired capability, Vincent A. Ostrom employs a theoretical point of departure, called Public Choice, that adapts economic theory to non-market decision making. In this respect a new approach to policy analysis, Ostrom at the same time pays heed to the traditional preoccupation of Political Science with the structure of authority, deeming the choice among different formulae governing its allocation to be a constitutional question of consequence: a choice, moreover, that is called for repeatedly in a pattern of authority as highly complex and decentralized-and as flexible--as the American.32
The Center for International Policy Studies. Struggle for advantage pervades the whole of politics. Evident not only in the partisanship of party rivalry and in the maneuvering of interest groups, competition for influence infects the workings of government itself as among its legislative, executive, and judicial organs and within the vast intricacies of its bureaucracy. If manifestation of struggle stops short of fighting effectiveness, such mitigation bespeaks the presence of an underlying regard for the general welfare, while, more calculatedly, it may owe much to the success of a constitutional allocation of authority designed to regulate governmental interposition in the affairs of society.
Benign as well as menacing, power has many guises. Valued as insurance against adversity and thus end as well as means, its pursuit is betrayed even by those who would negate it. In the realm of international politics, where fear and ambition are affected least by the inhibitions of consensus and constitutional device--where struggle translates the more readily into fighting effectiveness-in this realm, never more so than today, policy contends with the most baffling and dangerous of quandaries.
It is precisely the perplexing question of prudence in pursuit of power to which the Center for International Policy Studies was addressed. Too little, or too much, exertion can endanger the future. Error in either direction is fraught with dire consequence. History is littered with the disasters of such misjudgment, whether of apathy or bellicosity.
The Center, founded by John Gillespie and Dina Zinnes in 1975 (in successful competition for a Ford Foundation grant in the area of arms control and international security), combined research with a training program at both the pre and post doctoral levels. Its approach was interdisciplinary, including the natural as well as the social sciences, while its methodology was quantitative and mathematical. Supported by Ford and other agencies (notably the National Science Foundation), the Center was a lively enterprise until its dissolution in 1980 owing to Gillespie's untimely death the previous fall and acceptance by Zinnes of the Merriam chair at the University of Illinois.
In numerous publications, the object was broad generalization about the dynamics of such fundamentals of political behavior as conflict, coalition, balance of power, and arms rivalry. Common to these studies was the endeavor to model the interaction of policy-makers in their perennial role as power brokers. 33
Social science can entertain no greater ambition than to predict the effect of today's decisions on a future whose contingencies so readily admit to gross errors of policy. To equip foresight with the advantage of hindsight is a great challenge-though, in all candor, one is mindful that deciphering the past is often no less puzzling than foreseeing the future.
In his petition to the Trustees, Hershey asserted that "Political Science has a right to be considered a separate and distinct science."Politics, however, does not afford the convenience of a single point of departure from which Political Science can unfold into a neatly integrated discipline. Politics is highly paradoxical: a dangerous game, yet capable of yielding the fruits of mutual endeavor.
Granting that Political Science "utilizes the results of historical investigation", Hershey said that it"differs from Historical Science in scope, purpose, and method." In scope it is concerned "solely or mainly with the State and Government"; in purpose, he said, it deals with legislation and administration; while its method is "comparative and to a certain extent philosophical. ... "
This characterization is familiar to today's Political Science. Yet as we near the end of a century witness to profound shifts of power and authority within and among nations-whose politics has wrought death, destruction, and flight into homelessness on a scale without precedent-the tenor of Hershey's formulation an earlier era. Whatever of generalization that may have been implied in his assertion of overlap between Political Science and Sociology, Hershey could only have centered on the constructive, not the destructive, side of politics, on authority rather than power, on the promise of the former, not the menace of the latter. That students of politics might choose to regard power-its dynamics and inherent perversities-as an organizing concept, could hardly have occurred to him. Political Science in his day was conceived in a more optimistic vein. Yet the very year of the Department's founding marked the beginning of a war that rapidly degenerated into a mindless struggle for power, whose ravages Western Civilization was never to repair.
Hershey's rather slighting reference to political philosophy cannot be taken as adumbration of a Political Science concerned merely with the depiction of behavior. The democratic thought underlying the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution was for Hershey well nigh self-evident; yet the American revolution was deceptive. Victorious (not unlike other revolutions) in casting off oppression, its sequel was extraordinary in the success with which a mature political philosophy seized upon circumstances favorable to its incarnation.It was a tour de force. While in no way minimizing the vulnerability of politics to selfinterest (on the contrary, taking such susceptibility fully into account), the Founding Fathers proceeded, anomalously, to subject government to the consent of the governed. However, the seeming illogicality dissolves if one is prepared to regard means as the centerpiece of a political system. This is not easy. Ideologically one rejects the prospect of an ultimate historical goal, while, psychologically, one accepts extraordinary restraint, enough to countenance an adversary and to admit of a loyal opposition. Such skepticism and such tolerance are virtues neither readily acknowledged nor easily practiced. Yet the idea of self-governance is so attractive and its practice in the United States so deeply engrained, that American opinion confidently foresaw the universal triumph of democracy. We may fairly assume that Hershey-no less than Woodrow Wilson-harbored this confidence, ironic preface though it was to the stridencies of the twentieth century. In a century destined to become increasingly ungovernable, all of the abiding questions about the legitimacy of authority and its role in society are kindled anew, the very propositions posited as answers themselves becoming weapons in the arena of politics.
Needless to say, Political Science has not found the Philosopher's Stone of justice from which to project incontrovertible policy. If, through faith, such a cynosure is believed (or through oppression is imposed), authority can only be autocratic, leaving little latitude for Political Science except as exegesis of doctrinal truth. Democratic thought, on the other hand, affords the maturity with which to discount the pretensions of dogma and the sophistication needed to reflect with detachment on the ceaseless quest for security of individuals and the numerous groupings into which they coalesce. It is enough-indeed much-that Political Science should seek to maximize the fruits of mutual endeavor, while ever sensitive to the propensity of politics to slide into the habit and excitement of contention-a game of all games the most lethal.
The present essay is not a chronicle of Political Science at Indiana. While suggestive of instructional breadth, it does little to underscore the national and international importance of the Department's graduate program. The writings of its faculty, past and present, are only partially dealt with, while even less so the many instances in which its members have rendered public service or assumed administrative responsibility in the University. Nor has a point been made of the Department's concern for performance in the classroom and the experimentation that this entails-such as Judith Gillespie's innovations in the teaching of American government.34
Yet the present effort may have succeeded in showing how American Political Science seeks to grapple with the question of man and his governance. It is a perplexing question. How perplexing is evident in the pluralism of the Indiana Department. enough in size and tolerant enough, it harbors multiple approaches: the normative injunctions of philosophy and law, and the behavioral patterns of attitude and practice. While such eclecticism is not without virtue, one might wish for less fragmentation: at least for a more rounded view of the American democratic culture. It is not surprising, however, that the many guises-indeed the perversities-of governance should fail to coalesce into a discipline better capable of facing the future with managerial assurance. Struggle with the intractable-with the centrality of political motivation to man's nature and his history-must be shared with the humanities. Political Science cannot finally dispel the moral ambiguity and the hazard of political endeavor.
Roster of Chairpersons
Department of Political Science
1914-1932 AmosS. Hershey
1930-1934 Frank G. Bates
1934-1951 Ford P. Hall
1951-1953 Oliver P. Field
1953-1954 Edward H. Buehrig
1954-1966 Walter H.C. Laves
1966-1967 Edward H. Buehrig
1967-1971 James B. Christoph
1971-1977 Leroy N. Rieselbach
1977-1980 Alfred Diamant
1980-1981 Elinor Ostrom
1/82-8/82 Francis W. Hoole
For convenient reference, general histories of the University (ordered chronologically) are as follows:
Baynard Rush Hall (Robert Carlton, pseud.), The New Purchase or Seven and a HalfYears in the Far West (first published in 1843 and reprinted in 1914 with an explanatory introduction by James A. Woodburn).
Theophllus Adam Wylie (ed.), Indiana University, Its History from 1820 to 1890 (1890).
Samuel Bannister Harding (ed.), Indiana University 1820-1904: Historical Sketch of the Course of Instruc tian (1904).
James Albert Woodburn, History of Indiana University 1820-1902 (1940).
Burton Dorr Myers, History of Indiana University 1902-1937: the Bryan Administration (1951).
Thomas D. Clark, Indiana University: Midwestern Pioneer. Vol. I (1970); Vol. II (1973); Vol. III (1977); Vol. IV (1977).
Herman B Wells, Being Lucky (1980).
1. Burton Y. Berry was a fellow student whose degrees in Political Sdence paralleled Hyneman's (B.A. 1923, M.A. 1925). His subsequent career, like Hyneman's, merits spedal comment. As a Foreign Service Officer he saw extensive service in the Near East, culminating in 1952 as ambassador to Iraq. The bulk of Berry's vast collection of antiquities has been given by him to the l.U. Art Museum. Comprising "one of the finest and most extensive collections" of andent jewelry (some 3,500 pieces), it includes as well andent intaglios, early mosaic pieces, Anatolian pottery fragments,coins, bronzes ("an astounding number"), Byzantine terra cotta plates, bronze and silver vessels, marble and stone objects, and utilitarian objects ofthe Roman and Byzantine periods. See Highlights of the Burton Y. Berry Collection, a catalogue published by the Museum, and, for further background, "Stalking the Objects of Antiquity," Indiana Alumni Magazine, January, 1980.
2. John Quincy Adams, perhaps our most eminent Secretary of State, was counseled at the age of ten ina letter from his father(ll August 1777) to turn his thoughts "to such studies as will afford you the most solid instruction and improvement for the part which may be allotted you to act upon the stage of life."The letter averred that for that purpose there was no better master than Thucydides, whose history John Quincy must read in Greek-"the most perfect of all human languages." He would need a translation to help him and would find in his father's library the works of Thomas Hobbes, "in which, among a great deal of mischievous philosophy, you will find a learned and exact translation of Thucydides."John Quincy would di. cover the book to be "full of instruction to the orator, the statesman, the general, as well as to the historian and philosopher."
3. Professor Field comments that one "can only surmise the tenor of the discussions, the serious ness of the misgivings, or the height of the hopes for curricular improvement that were to be found among the faculty during the months preceding the eventful decision to supplement the classical course with the more 'modem' curriculum."
4. Religion was dealt with somewhat ambivalently in the 1885-86 catalogue: "The University, established by a government which recognizes no distinction of religious belief, seeks neither to promote any creed or to exclude any. Persons of any religious denomination or of no religious denomination are equally eligible to all offices and appointments. It is proper to state, however, that nearly all members of the Faculty at present, as in the past, are members of Christian churches.
"Religious services are held in the chapel of the University at the beginning of the work of each day. These all students are expected to attend, unless spedally excused."
Religious devotionsand ceremonies may today be conducted in the Beck ChapeL Dedicated in 1957, its architecture, however Christian in appearance, is devoid of the cross. Symbols of various religions are stored away and available for use.
5. Francis Landy Patton (the last Princeton president in an unbroken line of Presbyterian clergy), congratulating Woodrow Wilson on his election by the Trustees (February 1890) to the Chair of Political Economy and Jurisprudence, alluded to "one or two criticisms that I have heard regarding your work on the State."
... in your discussion of the origin of the state you minimize the supernatural, and make such unqualified application of the doctrine of naturalistic evolution and the genesis of the State as to leave the reader of your pages in a state of uncertainty as to your own position and the place you give to Divine Providence. More particularly have I been reminded of the fact that while you have devoted inordinate space to Roman law and while you credit Roman law with its full share of influence upon the regeneration of modem society, you are silent with respect to the forming and reforming influences of Christianity.
The Trustees, Patton said, "mean to keep this College on the old ground of loyalty to the Christian religion," and would "not regard with favour such a conception of academic freedom or teaching as would leave in doubt the very direct bearing of historical Christianity as a revealed religion upon the great problems of civilization."
6. "Go where the masters are, in whatever department you wish to study," was Jordan's admonition to the student. "The teacher," he said, "should be a constant source of inspiration, leading the student... to the farthest limit of what is already known and inciting (him) to make excursions into the greater realm of the unknown."
7. With an eye for promising talent, President Jordan sought to recruit Woodrow Wilson (1 February 1886): "There is a possibility that our Chair of History may become vacant in June. Salary $1500 to $2000. Would such a position in a flourishing State University in a faculty chiefly composed of young men of modem training offer any attractions to you? Please regard this communication for the present as confidential."
Wilson having declined, Jordan asked him to suggest "the name of some young and rising man, who has the right kind of stuff in him." Wilson recommended his friend Richard Heath Dabney, who received the appointment. [We learn from subsequent correspondence between Wilson and Dabney that living in Bloomington "is very cheap (my room costs $2.00 a week, and my board, which is as good as the town affords, $3.00 a week).... ")
8. Hershey was the uncomplaining subject of a body of campus lore, apocryphal and otherwise, savored by colleagues and students alike. The opening paragraphs of Hyneman's profile are samples of the stories that abounded:
One afternoon, a few years ago, a stoop shouldered portly man of middle age sauntered indolently down Kirkwood Avenue, his mind far away from the realities of Main Street and the half opened umbrella which he carried under his arm. As he stumbled along he puffed from time to time at a long black cigar. Presently a small boy accosted the preoccupied gentleman to inquire, "Mister, can I have what's left of it?"Thus aroused from his reveries, our hero discovered that the umbrella under his arm, ignited by ashes from the cigar, was fast going up in flames and that a goodly portion of his coat was already reduced to smoke and ashes. No further description is needed to identify the subject of this sketch. Every undergraduate who hasn't heard the above story knows the campus classic which relates how Dr. Hershey, hurrying to class, took time out to carry his dog back home only to discover when he arrived at his front door that the canine in his arms was not his own, but a total stranger to the Hershey kennel.
9. Such was American regard for German scholarship that Woodrow Wilson, studying at Johns Hopkins, learned the language on his own, though, he acknowledged, not well enough "to be emancipated from the constant use of the dictionary in reading it." In 1886 he laid plans to spend as much as two years at German universities; but Mrs. Wilson's second pregnancy intervened. Wilson's pioneering of the field of public administration was heavily dependent on German sources, as was the content of The State, while his course bibliographies at Princeton were replete with German references.
10. The Department's fiftieth anniversary was observed by a series of lectures in 1964 published in Edward H. Buehrig (ed.), Essays in Political Science (Bloomington, Indiana University Press, 1966). The book, which went to a second printing, contains the following papers: Anatol Rapoport, The Use of Theory in the Study of Politics; Charles B. Marshall, The Making of Foreign Policy in the United States; Quincy Wright, Approaches to the Understanding of International Politics; David B. Truman, The Representative Function in Western Systems; Leon D. Epstein, Political Parties in Western Democratic Systems; and James Q. Wilson, Problems in the Study of Urban Politics.
11. The name was changed in 1934 to Government and in 1969 back to Political Sdence. While this shifting terminology reflects uncertainty in the profession as to the essential character of inquiry into politics, it was prompted in the first instance simply by public puzzlement over the attribute of science. Restoration of the original name was intellectually motivated on the part of some members of the Department, while expediency was the inducement on the part of others. For the latter, it was again a question of public perception, only this time it was not the public at home. When investigating abroad, members of the Department, by virtue of its name, had all too readily been regarded as agents of the American government.
12. Founded by Ronald Weber and John Gillespie and now under the direction of Gerald Wright, "the Lab''assists faculty and students in the empirical study of political phenomena. Services include the acquisition and management of quantitative data on political and social topics and provide training and consultation in computer usage and statistical techniques. The Lab's holdings comprise over 1,200 data sets covering the various subfields of the discipline: electoral data, opinion surveys, frequency and characteristics of international conflict, comparative cross-cultural data, etc.
13. WeD and humorously documented by Baynard Hall, Professor of Greek and Latin, not only the first but for three years the only professor, in The New Purchase or Seven and a Half Years in the Far West.
14. Whereas the first World War was soon to make a shambles of the traditional rules of war and neutrality, Hershey found that both belligerents in the Russo-Japanese war observed "the rules of civilized warfare... fairly weD", the war ranking in this respect "as high as any in history with the possible exception of the Spanish-American War". Commenting on Japan in particular, Hershey con tinues: "This 'pagan' nation of warriors appears indeed to have set up new standards of International Law... for the future guidance and imitation, let us hope, of the so-caUed Christian nations of the West.... "Hershey added that "Japan sent trained international jurists with each army corps.... Her conduct throughout the war was marked by the utmost regard for the forms and precedents as well as the principles of the law of nations, and she showed the most scrupulous regard for the rights of noncombatants, and of prisoners, more specifically of the sick and wounded of the enemy". Passim pp. 319-324.
15. The book prefigures the course taken by Japanese-American relations in the 1930s: "... more serious and dangerous perhaps than the problems involved in the race and immigration issues are the possibilities of future conflict of interest and sympathy growing out of Japanese political and economic aims in China. While paying lip service and formal homage to the principle of the open door and equal opportunity, Japan is rapidly developing a policy of her own in respect to China--a policy with which she feels that we have no right to interfere". p. 342.
16. A manuscript prepared by Oliver Field on Indiana University in the second World War may be consulted in the University Archives.
17. Fascinating documentation to this effect is contained in the APSA's Oral History Project. Selections from interviews with Almond, Truman, Hyneman, Herring, Carter, Fesler, and Price are contained in News for Teachers of Politictll Scimce (Winter, 1981). All of these interviewees (except Gwendolen Carter) were wartime officials in Washington. Hyneman's extensive and varied Washington experience is the basis of his Bureaucracy in a Democracy.
Other than Hyneman,Indiana Political Scientists with wartime experience in Washington were Peel, Walter H.C. Laves and Buehrig. Peel was with the Office of Strategic Services. Laves was in the International Section of the Bureau of the Budget. Buehrig was in the International Organization Section of the Postwar Planning Division of the Department of State. Both Laves and Buehrig were present at the San Francisco Conference in their official capacities, and at the first meetings of the UN in London. In Spring 1946 Buehrig was Secretary-General of the Italo- Yugoslav Boundary Commission.
Again, Amos Hemhey affords a precedent. He was among the scholars forming the Inquiry, set up by Woodrow Wilson preparatory to the Paris Peace Conference. He went with Wilson to Paris.
18. Twenty years later, the durability of the international thrust is attested to by two successive issues of Research and Creative Activity devoted to foreign studies at Indiana (May and October 1980, published by the University's Office of Research and Graduate Development). The Preface notes that "IU is one of only a few universities with four National Defense Education Act Language and Area Centers: the Russian/East European Center; the Uralicand Inner Asian Center; the African Studies Center; and the East Asian Center."
In 1981 these Centers continued to receive financial support from the International Division of the Department of Education, while the program in West European Studies was newly designated as a national resource study center. In addition, Latin American and Near Eastern Studies received graduate fellowship money.In aU, seven programs in national competition received more than a million dollars.
19. Consider by way of contrast the following paragraph contained in the Preface to Bruce Russett and Harvey Starr, World Politics: "We have organized the book in two major parts. Part I introduces the student to the modem shtdy of world politics and sets out the six levels of analysis we find useful: the global system, relations between states, the societal level, the governmental level, roles, and the individual actor.... We discuss and illustrate how influences at various levels affect the process or act of choice. In part U we apply these analytical perspectives to particular issues. Topics we consider include arms races, deten:ence and arms control, theories about poor countries' dependence on rich ones and possible alternatives to dependence, the implications of interdependence among industrialized countries (we try to understand why these countries are, almost without precedent or parallel, at peace among themselves), problems of achieving colledivegoods in thecontext of globalenvironmental problems, and finally evaluation of demands for continued economic growth in a world of scarce resources and population pressures. We try to communicate a sense that rigorous theory is essential to any comprehension of these very real contemporary problems."
20. See Riggs' Administration in Developing Countries: The Thoory of Prismatic Society. Various authors, through papers and articles, dealt with such subjects as Comparative Analysis of Historical Change; Organization and Administration of Innovation; Bureaucracy in Developmental Movement Regimes; The Military in New States; etc.
21. George M. Wilson, MUCIA: A Multiuniversity Approach to International Development, 1964-1980.
PASITAM's quartedy Newsletter and a series of 23 Design Notes have gone to some 3800 recipients in 92 countries. These and other publications have been put to instructional use by universities and international organizations, including the World Bank's Economic Development Institute. Book-length treatment of development problems are titled: Systems Tools for Project Planning; Designing and Managing Agriculture Programs; andManaging Induced Rural Development, while titles in a monograph series are of the same tenor. Seven readers on international development include Cost-Benefit Ant lysis and Project Design; Environment and Development; and Growth with Equity: An Ideal in Search of a Strategy.
23. Meanwhile-no longer in conjunction with MUCIA-a new contract between AID and the International Development Institute calls for nine two week workshops to be conducted over a three-year period.
24. Nelson Poynter "disturbed by declining public confidence in American institutions, gave his alma mater a generous gift to enable it to try to comprehend the meaning of that trend." The Center is concerned not only with government but with the institutions of law, science, medicine, the media, business, religion and the university itself."The Center has attempted to fulfill its mission by sponsoring conferences and undertakings in adult education, by publishing essays, by bringing distinguished visitors to Indiana colleges, and by developing undergraduate courses and the [intellectual] resources to support such courses."
25. Hyneman dedicated his Supreme Court on Trial (1963) to the memory of Frank G. Bates, while his Voting in Indiana: ACentury of Persistence and Change (1979,incollaboration with Hofstetter and O'Connor) is dedicated "To Frank G. Bates,Pressly Sikes, and John E. Stoner because they pioneered in bringing the training of Political Scientists to the public problems of the state and to Herman B Wells who came to their aid whenever he saw how he could be of help".
26. Such was the emphasis in Wilson's lectures on public administration given annually at Johns Hopkins from 1888 through 1897. Characteristically, his approach was comparative. German and French administrative systems were used to gain perspective on the American, the peculiarities of the laHer standing out by virtue of its British antecedents and the novelty of federalism.
27. Carrol J. Owen, "History of the Indiana Municipal League," published in the 1981 Proceedings of the Indillflll Association of Cities and Towns (the League's new name as of 1968).
28. Other subjects in the series included budgets, indebtedness, the city manager, etc. Hyneman recollects that "Bates spent his Saturdays, and any other time he could muster, running around the state in an old Reo, cultivating city and town officials. It was part of his nature to be curious about local government, and he was an ambitious researcher. He once boasted that he had visited every county in the state''.
29. Students in the Program and visiting scholars have produced other works (some co-authored with Caldwell) such as: Environmental Policy, Law and Administration; The Garrison Diversion Unit; The Hoosier National Forest; Citizens and the Environment: Case Studies in Popular Action; Administrative Technology; The Reserve Mining Contrrmersy: A Case Study of Science, Technology and Values; and Energy, Eamomic Growth, and Regionalism in the West.
30. For an account of this large project (a four-year, 2.2 million dollar undertaking funded by the National Science Foundation) see the campus publication Research and Creative Activity (Voll, No. 1, November 1977). Designed to evaluate the delivery of police services amidst the variety of circumstances that characterize the American scene, the inquiry gathers and correlates data on such variables as the internal administration of a police department, the level of citizen cooperation with the police, and the arrangements among overlapping agencies in a given region. The findings challenge the received wisdom that consolidation and centralization increaseeffectiveness while saving manpower and money.
31. See "Applying Political Theory," an article describing the Ostrom seminars in Change (Vol. 8, July 1976), an issue devoted to innovation in teaching.
32. Such is the tenor of Vincent Ostrom's The Political Theory of the Compound Republic (1971) and of his Institutional Arrangements for Water Resource Development (1972).
A twenty-eight page listing (1981) of materials available through the Workshop (working papers, technical reports, reprints, books, etc.) is prefaced in part:"Empirical research atthe Workshop has been concerned with the effects of institutional arrangements on the performance of public service systems, especially in the areas of police and education. Specific research questions have addressed such issues as economies-of-scale in service production, the structure of service delivery arrangements in urban areas, institutional factors encouraging higher levels of citizen participation and coproduction... , the measurement of intraorganizational rule systems and their effects, and the measurement of public agency performance".
33. Most reflective of the Center's work is Mathematical Systems in international Relations Research (1977; Gillespie and Zinnes, eds.), while less directly related but consonant with the Center's methodol ogy are Quantitative International Politics: An Appraisal (1976: Hoole and Zinnes, eds.), and Mathematical Models in international Relations (1976; Zinnes and Gillespie, eds.).
The Center's last year was occupied chiefly by research (under contract with the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency) into the stimulus-response patterns leading to crisis in international relations. A brief account of this project is contained in Research and Creative Activity (May, 1980), p. 8.
34. The housing of the Department deserves special mention. In 1934 Political Science shared Rawles Hall with several other Liberal Arts Departments and the School of Business. In 1960 the Department moved to the eighth floor of the newly completed Ballantine Hall, and in 1966 took over Woodburn Hall when the School of Business moved from Woodburn to its new quarters on Tenth Street. In 1980 Woodburn was completely remodeled and refurbished. Departmental liaison with the architects and contractors was the responsibility of Doris Burton. Today's Woodburn-its arrangement and decor-reflects Burton's vision and tireless attention to detail. Burton became Assistant to the Chairperson in 1971 and since 1976 has been teaching a course on Sex Discrimination and the Law.
The Departmental Library is an asset not only of utility but of beauty. Today's collection and organization of books is the work of Fenton Martin. The rose window is the gift of Robert and Phyllis Menke.