'Money Talks,' Is Faculty's Feeling on Social Security

"A little money here, a little money there, it all adds up," agreed the faculty members who were asked yesterday their reactions to joining Social Security. Almost all the professors entered the program on January 1, after 90 percent of the University's staff had approved the plan.

Most of the faculty were not worried over the ethics of taking federal money or over the possibility of later government interference.

One or two teachers, who declined to be identified, believed that there was an ethical question involved. They considered it was "absurd for people with such big salaries to take pensions that are susually meant for poorer people." Those men also forsaw a chinta reaction, "if we adopt this plan, so will others who are even higher paid."

"Fiddlesticks, the purchasing power of a faculty member is not too much," said Gordon W. Allport '19, professor of Psychology. "Why shouldn't all citizens be treated alike . . . everyone is entitled to security."

No Ethical Problem

"People, who are foolish enough to teach, don't have much money. . . the problem of ethical criticism never occurred to me," remarked Samuel A. Stouffer, professor of Sociology.

"Few people have taken such a beating as the Harvard professors," sad Seymour E. Harris '20, professor of Economics. He went on to point out that teachers "contribute so much to the well-being of the nation and this is a relatively small repayment."

"When a professor retires, his University pension in terms of 1939 dollars is about $2,500." Harris estimates that married faculty on retirement will reap about $1,200 per year from Social Security, while bachelors will receive about half that.

Cash In Pocket

"Here is something that is cash in our pockets when we reach 65, the amount we get is pretty good considering what we put into it, I certainly believe in taking advantage of the program," George C. Homans '32, associate professor of Sociology said. He added that the professors should show "less concern with ethies and more with self-interest."

Talcott parsons, professor of Sociology, said that discrimination among the receivers of Social Security was "not the intent of Congress" and added "I agree with Congress."

Government Controls?

The "ogre of government controls" following in the wake of federal aid was raised by one professor. In reply Arthur Smithies, professor of Economics, said, "Social Security has been in force for 15 years or so, and so far the government has no real control over corporations."

Joshua Whatmough, professor of Comparative Philology, scorned the idea of federal intervention saying, "if the government contributed directly to the University, perhaps, but pensions to the faculty, no."

According to John W. Holt, director of Student Employment, from new on faculty members who employ students--even in the capacity of baby sitters--for more than 20 1/4 hours per quarter must deduct 1 1/2 percent from their employees' wages, add an equal sum, and forward the total to the federal government.

Opinions as to the results of a faculty under Social Security varied. Pitirim A. Sorokin, professor of Sociology, said, "with inflation and rising prices, the Social Security system as a whole is not quite secure . . . but then nothing is secure at the present time."

Whatmough warned, "There is a very grave danger that we will lose everything in the end, for somebody may later propose a 'means test' (limiting Social Security to lower income groups). As a Lancashire man, almost as good as a Yankee, I think that we are entitled to this pension and that such a test would be unfair. But it will give us a chance to join the powerful lobby in Washington of those whom Livy unkindly calls 'aetate provectl' (advanced in years)."