To the editors:
In The Crimson’s article (News, “Petition Argues For Alternative To Ec 10 Course,” Mar. 3), I am quoted as saying, “The articles in the sourcebook [of Social Analysis 10] are somewhat biased...and they’d be dropped and replaced with other readings.” This requires amplification in one respect.
As a whole, the sourcebook is biased and I would attempt to introduce better balance by adding other readings. This would indeed mean dropping many of the existing readings, but the point is not to replace one set of biases with another. I have no intention of dropping all the readings in current or past editions of the sourcebook. The viewpoint which I regard as over-represented in Social Analysis 10 would continue to be represented, albeit in better counterpoint with views that are currently under-represented, or indeed, not represented at all.
Stephen A. Marglin ’59
March 3, 2003
The writer is Barker Professor of Economics.