Edward Shils: A Last Harvest

Donald Dewey
The Virtue of Civility: Selected Essays on Liberalism, tion when he prepared a never published research
Tradition, and Civil Society. Editor, Steven Grosby, memorandum for the Carnegie-Myrdal study: The
Indianapolis, Liberty Fund, 1997, pp. xv + 395. Bases of Social Stratification in Negro Society, 1940.)
However, he declined to make his study a summary of
The Calling of Education: the Academic Elite and
their results, as his original commission had appar-
Other Essays on Higher Education. Edited, with an
ently contemplated, and instead chose to advance pro-
introduction by Steven Grosby and foreword by Joseph
Epstein, The University of Chicago Press, 1997, pp. visional hypotheses based on his own reading and ex-
xiv + 294. perience. (A microfilm of the memorandum is at the
Schomburg Center of the New York Public Library.)
In Weber Shils also discovered a kindred spirit.

E arly in his work as a graduate student in the soci- Weber was clear that rationalization—the spread of
ology department of the University of Chicago, "cause and effect thinking"—was transforming and
Edward Shils, who was to emerge as the most leamed often undermining many traditional institutions and
man in the social sciences of this time, was introduced he was dedicated to its study. At the same time, Weber
to Max Weber and the German tradition in sociology. was clear that "you can't derive ultimate preferences
For Shils, an agnostic, the encounter seems to have from fact statements" and therefore did not marginalize
been close to a religious experience. It provided him questions of ethics. He saw the limits of social engi-
with a coherent set of categories for analyzing social neering and pointed to the futility of putting one's faith
behavior that he found superior to Marxism, which he in scientism. As Weber taught, the uses of science,
early came to distmst and especially to the prevailing and even science itself, have to rest on moral founda-
Stalinist variant which, from the beginning, he de- tions. (At the very least, as Frank Knight who trans-
spised and hated. (Shils had received reliable infor- lated Weber's General Economic History pointed out,
mation on everyday life in the Soviet Union from a modem science, as we know it, could not exist unless
relative who had worked there as an engineer.) Then, we can assume that investigators are telling the truth.)
too, he found the German tradition more sustaining The influence of Weber on Shils was overwhelm-
than the fragmented and often parochial empirical ing and lifelong. It gave him his research agenda, his
work of his graduate department though, at its best, it methodology, and a body of work that Shils found to
always commanded his respect. He counted Robert be an invaluable source of inspiration for his own con-
Park among his great teachers. (Shils did draw on the tributions. To Shils, the test of a tme classic work in
empirical work of sociologists in the Chicago tradi- the social sciences is not so much what it says in plain

text, but rather its power to send the reader's thought
in new and rewarding directions.
Given the omnipresence of Weber in Shils's life, I
tumed first to the essay in Civility on "Max Weber
And The World Since 1920." The essay is quite dis-
passionate and Weber is not seen as an all-wise seer.
Shils accepts that there was nothing in Weber's analy-
sis that could have provided a waming that anything
approximating the Holocaust was in the near future.
Nor, notwithstanding Weber's voluminous writings on
the religions of the world, could anything in it have
suggested the rapid decline of colonialism after World
Warn.
Weber was correct, as Shils stresses, in foreseeing
the continued rise of bureaucracy in the world but
without getting the explanation quite right. To Weber,
bureaucracy with its hierarchical stmcture, division
of labor, and recmitment by merit was on the rise be-
cause it was the efficient way of organizing the func-
tions of govemment and business (the altematives
being mle by notables and nepotism for govemment
and the family enterprise for business). Shils, who had
leamed from economist colleagues at the University
of Chicago whom he greatly admired, believes that
Weber overestimated the efficiency gains of bureau-
cratic organization, especially when a market altema-
tive was available. To Shils, state bureaucracy grows,
in large part, because of the pressures from special
interest groups in democratic countries.
In the area of politics, Shils believes that time has
made clear the blinders that Weber wore. He was a
German nationalist who assumed the nation state to
be the highest form of political organization or, at any
rate, the only one he could imagine for the modem
world. Weber dismissed any notion that there were
sacred, natural or human rights. He favored parliamen-
tary democracy because it promoted national solidar-
ity and was less bad than the altematives available to
Germany. But Weber believed that democratic poli-
tics was essentially a contest between political elites
who provided altemative legislative agendas (a view
of democratic politics that is now usually ascribed to
Joseph Schumpeter). Shils rather unfairly faults We-
ber for failing to see the rise of the chaotic American-
type pressure group politics (which to date has had no
close approximation outside this country). Weber cor-
rectly predicted the continued decline of religious con-
viction but, like most other agnostic intellectuals of
his day, greatly underestimated its tenacity in many
parts of the world—even Europe as we know too well.
While I hesitate to say that Shils cared more deeply
about the human condition than Weber, he was more
EDWARD SHILS: A LAST HARVEST 75
willing to let his emotion show through. Almost a; 1 of
his work, one way or another, was devoted to tryir g to
understand how a good society comes into being and
how it perpetuates itself. (An early seminar at the
London School of Economics was devoted to the
"social and psychological preconditions of democ-
racy".) The dilenuna of scholar as citizen, which IjWe-
ber only touched on, was keenly felt by Shils. (!on-
sider his difficulties.
Shils clearly saw the importance and generally be-
neficent role of tradition in human affairs. In a ' )as-
sage worthy of Edmund Burke, he could write:
Tradition is not the dead hand of the past but
rather the hand of the gardener, which nouri ;hes
and elicits tendencies of judgment which would
otherwise not be strong enough to emerge on heir
own. In this respect tradition is an encounge-
ment to incipient individuality rather thau its
enemy. It is a stimulant to moral judgment and
self-discipline rather than an opiate. It estabUshes
contact between the recipient and the sacred val-
ues of his life in society. Man has a need fo: be-
ing in right relations with the sacred. Most inen
do not need a continuous and intense contact vith
the sacred. A low level of intensity with iiiter-
mittent surges serves their needs. But should 'hey
be entirely deprived of that contact for too long
a time, their needs will flare up into a passionate
irrationality. What was a stimulant to indix idu-
ality becomes an intoxication which overwhi 1ms
it (Civility, p. 107).
Shils could also add:
A major task of liberal policy is to respect th j sa-
cred while keeping it at low ebb. This is one of
the chief functions of the transmission of sacred
beliefs, through a loose tradition (Civility, p. 109).
The above passage notwithstanding, many avowed
conservatives would be slow to accept Shils as one of
their number. He was neither a believing nor ari ob-
servant Jew. Although the traditional family figired
prominently in his ideal of the good society, he was
twice divorced. From his time in London during World
War II, he had a love affair with traditional Britain;
still, he saw its insularities and class anachroniisms
with clear eyes and, notwithstanding the honored place
he achieved in the intellectual worlds of London and
Cambridge, he was always conscious of his posj tion
as an outsider—and an American at that.
76 / SOCIETY • MARCH/APRIL 1999
Shils partitioned the liberals of the world into two
basic groups: the atomistic (essentially the Manches-
ter type) and the collectivistic (Social Democrats). He
was closest to the former beheving with Henry Simons
that loading too much responsibility for problem solv-
ing on the state undermined the consensus that the good
society required. But Shils distrusted the free market
enthusiasts' disrespect for tradition and all social in-
stitutions that interfered with the free contractual re-
lations of individuals, (An old Chicagoan is always
conscious in these essays of the influence of Frank
Knight who, I suspect, ranked second only to Max
Weber in the pantheon of Shils.) He distrusted collec-
tivist liberals because of their faith that a wide range
of problems could be solved by bringing the coercive
power of the State to bear on its citizens. However, as
I recall, Shils never regretted his youthful support for
the measures of the New Deal that tried to cope with
the emergency of the Great Depression, In fact, Shils
had done social work in Chicago before going to gradu-
ate school.
It should be recorded that Shils could not, or would
not, forgive the collectivist liberals of his generation
for their willingness to turn a blind eye to the horrors
of the Soviet Union, This moral weakness, he believed,
was directly traceable to their exalted view of the State
and their faith in the possibility of using it to remake
society along the correct lines,
A Machiavellian, or even a merely pragmatic, in-
tellectual can urge respect for tradition (especially
religion) on his fellow men while privately priding
himself on his own freedom from superstition. Shils
had no such easy way out. He accepted what he saw
as the scholar's responsibility to fight the good fight
by pointing out "the unintended consequences of
conscious actions" (the phrase is Karl Popper's) in
the hope that the knowledge would lead to more ra-
tional action. Inevitably, for the scholar who wishes
to do good, pointing to unintended consequences
shades imperceptibly into preaching and, in his later
years, the preaching voice of Shils grew stronger and
shriller. In the essay on "The Antinomies of Liberal-
ism" he sternly rebukes those who advance the more
romantic and socially disruptive arguments for affir-
mative action. If pressed, I suspect that he would
concede that there are often good utilitarian argu-
ments for the policy. I am sure that he would agree
that rigorous written exams must not be allowed to
deprive a city with a large minority population of
minority police officers.
Civility? To Shils it was an absolutely essential
foundation of the good society.
Civility is a belief which affirms the possibility
of the common good; it is a belief in the commu-
nity of contending parties within a morally valid
unity of society. It is a belief in the validity or
legitimacy of governmental institutions which lay
down rules and resolve conflicts.... It restrains
the exercise of power by the powerful and restrains
obstruction and violence by those who do not have
power but wish to have it (Civility, p. 4),
To Shils the most dangerous enemies of civility
understandably are ideological politics and religious
fanaticism. He is inclined to discount much of the back-
biting and extreme rhetoric of democratic politicians
as a kind of play-acting and feels that the media gen-
erally focuses on the least edifying behavior of the
political class.
No such allowance is made for the class of intel-
lectuals who always carp and ridicule. Their desire
for attention, romantic wish to be identified with grand
causes, and freedom from political responsibility too
often lead them to abusive innuendo and invective that
brings public life into disrepute. The greatest contempt
of Shils is reserved for academics whose behavior
undermines the legitimacy of their own universities
and professions.
The English economist Alfred Marshall, in good
Victorian fashion, averred that mankind did not need
to be instructed so much as it needed to be reminded,
Edward Shils is committed to reminding us what, in
our most reflective moments, most of us still accept
as the principles that should guide the conduct of uni-
versities as institutions and its faculty as teachers,
scholars, and citizens. The university of Humboldt's
aspiration in the last century remains the ideal how-
ever much we may despair of ever reaching it. The
ideal university is a unity and not merely a collection
of isolated specialties. Its purpose is the transmission
and creation of knowledge of the kind that cannot be
gained in on-the-job training or in the course of nar-
row technical instruction, I suspect that Shils would
have agreed with Robert Maynard Hutchins that there
are only two justifications for a strictly professional
school in a university: to teach what cannot be learned
on the job and to maintain standards in a profession.
The university should, of course, be faculty-gov-
erned in most matters though Shils shows a regard for
strong-willed university presidents who can shake up
sleepy departments and introduce fresh ideas. Shils
never shared the antipathy to Robert Maynard Hutchins
that came to characterize so many of the University of
Chicago faculty during his tenure. In fact, Shils has

written elsewhere (in Remembering Chicago, 1991)
that "Hutchins was one of the very few university presi-
dents of his time—perhaps the only one—who be-
lieved in the value of intellectual life as an intrinsic
good, who believed that intellectual achievement in
teaching and research was the only worthwhile objec-
tive for a university to pursue."
Do strong university presidents exist anymore? In
1946 at Chicago, President Colwell over-ruled the De-
partment of Economics and vetoed the appointment of
the rapidly rising star George Stigler as "too empiri-
cal." (As it happened, Chicago lucked out; the appoint-
ment subsequently went to Milton Eriedman and Stigler
joined the department some years later.) I cannot imag-
ine such an intervention today in a major university.
Above all, the unity of teaching and research should
be maintained. The increasing neglect of undergradu-
ate education, especially in the research universities
of the United States, was deeply troubling to Shils and
he keenly felt what he saw as the devaluing of his
beloved College at Chicago. In his early years, while
still an instructor, he had organized, under the nomi-
nal supervision of a tenured professor, the remarkable
Social Science II course with a syllabus as exciting as
it was demanding. The official title of the course was
"Second-Year Course in the Study of Contemporary
Society." In fact, the course was so demanding that
the students would well have floundered badly in the
readings without Shils as a guide. (Credit for the qual-
ity of the course is also due to another instructor,
Gerhard Meyer, who, overcoming difficulties with the
English language, ably handled its technical econom-
ics content; Shils always felt his lack of training in
economic theory.)
About a year before his death, a College classmate.
Dr. Clyde Miller of California, and I paid a two day
visit to our old teacher in Chicago. Before we left, he
insisted that we call upon a high University official
and confirm his recollections of the achievements of
the Hutchins College, especially of the careful thought
that had gone into the curriculum and the outstanding
teaching. "We were, of course, glad for the chance to
oblige him. And considering the two fme meals that
he had prepared for us, we could hardly do less,"
It was entirely in character for Shils to caution
against the shortchanging of students who had not the
gifts or the inclination for a career in scholarship (as
he never did),
[The scholar] will not treat his students as if they
were children, even if he cannot treat them as
scholars. Otherwise, he forgets his obligations
EDWARD SHILS: A LAST HARVEST / 77
to the advancement of knowledge, an advaiice-
ment wliich depends in the long run on the sym-
pathetic understanding of a great many persons
who are not themselves scientists and schCjlars
but have at least some appreciation of what it is
like to be one (Education, p. 127 ).
Shils predictably is an unabashed, and truth to tell,
dogmatic defender of the "canon" in liberal arts stud-
ies. "There were not many modem authors as great as
Plato and Aristotle or Horace and Virgil, and the study
of the contemporary recently living great authors of-
fered little in the way of an exemplary pattern ofjlife
in accordance with which a scholar could hope to form
and live his own life," (Civility, p. 307)
To me, the least persuasive essay in Education,
though perhaps the most frequently cited, is ifThe
Claims of Caesar and Their Limits" (1979)—an at-
tack on the federal government for its treatment of
universities since World War II, By Caesar, Shils se jms
to mean only the federal government, though qom-
pared with the states, it is still a minor player ir the
support of higher learning. The vehemence of th<; at-
tack on Caesar is surprising since, with no adminis-
trative experience in his career, Shils never had to deal
with the bookkeeping on a federal grant. He is incensed
that federal officials and judges have the temerity to
interfere with the appointment process that is so !bru-
cial in determining the quality of a university; and he
repeats the universal complaint of administrators that
Caesar does not bear a fair share of university over-
head when he contracts for research and training pro-
grams, (There is the question why, if federal contracts
are so unfavorable, universities enter into them.) S hils
is on firmer ground when he points to the unset ling
effects on universities of the faddish nature of rr uch
federal funding that complicates the problem of l ng-
term planning.
One can easily assemble much anecdotal evidence
illustrating the foolishness of the federal authoij ties
in dealing with universities over the years. (Ask any
department chairman who has had to fill out an ffir-
mative action form in order to make a junior faculty
appointment, even a summer school appointm nt.)
However, only a small part of the blame for the chaiges
that Shils deplores can be traced to Washington. The
great majority of these changes (e.g. acceptanc,? of
poorly prepared minority students, student evaluat ons
of faculty, a watered down curriculum) were devised
by the universities themselves. The caustic criticism
of Shils of the federal government's role in educa.tion
is simply puzzling.
78 / SOCIETY • MARCH/APRIL 1999
On the expectation imputed to Caesar that univer-
sities shall undertake to promote social and economic
equality Shils speaks with an uncertain voice. He pre-
dictably objects to the imposition of such a mandate
to the extent that it interferes with what he never doubts
are the fundamental functions of the university—teach-
ing and research. But the son of immigrant parents
from Philadelphia was no elitist. He has fulsome praise
for the G. I. Bill of blessed memory that was certainly
the most leveling social program ever enacted in this
country though admittedly it was not designed for this
purpose.
On the nuts and bolts of the higher learning in
America, Shils has little to say. He deplores the search
for research funds that borders on hucksterism and the
trivialization of scholarship, especially in the humani-
ties, that has come with the explosion of graduate pro-
grams. To my knowledge, Shils had no first-hand ex-
perience of the small liberal arts college, the
community college or the large state university. There
is no hostility or condescension to these institutions,
though he assumes what is no doubt often true: that
there must be a regrettable neglect of undergraduate
students in the giant state university. Shils was a man
of the research university of human scale—the clos-
est approximation to the ideal of Humboldt that the
present age allows. I do not know how he would have
reacted to Donna Shalala's assurance when president
of the University of Wisconsin: if the people who en-
trust their children's education to this university and
generously support it, want a winning football team, I
shall do my best to provide it. The Shils of these very
serious essays would, of course, deplore such a con-
cession. But then there was a pragmatic (and humor-
ous) streak in my old teacher that might have indulged
Ms. Shalala, Curiously, Shils is more tolerant of the
shortcomings of state and local government officials
in dealing with education than he is with those of the
federal bureaucracy, I suspect he saw them as more
conscious of their limited expertise—and more re-
spectful of the sensibilities of academics—than fed-
eral civil servants.
In the credo of Edward Shils, the teacher's moral
obligation to seek the truth is not confined to his life
inside the academy.
The academics who participate in public politi-
cal discussion have an obligation to these (lay)
persons, not really different from that which they
have to their students. In both cases, they are
addressing themselves to persons who presum-
ably know less about the subjects under consid-
eration than they themselves do. Academics who
address themselves in speech or in writing to a
larger public in a field in which they are pre-
sumed to have expertise should regard them-
selves as bound by the trust which their audi-
ence grants them as scholars or scientists. But
even if the audience has no special expectations,
the academics themselves still have the obliga-
tions which they accepted when entering the aca-
demic career (Education, pp. 107-108).
Shils had a remarkably fortunate career in three
universities that came as close to his ideal as the world
offers: Chicago, London and Cambridge, Neverthe-
less, he became increasingly troubled by the changes
in the higher learning that he observed, especially in
the United States. I expect that he was disturbed by
the intrusion of the State into university affairs in Brit-
ain since 1980 but the essays in these two volumes
have mostly the American experience in mind,
Shils feels that great damage was done to Ameri-
can society, and especially to its universities, by the
counter-cultural upheavals of the 1960s and early
1970s. Students are let off lightly. His anger is divided
between faculty who aided and abetted the subver-
sions of teaching and scholarship and the pusillani-
mous response of university administrators. His bit-
terness is understandable but, I think, a serious
over-reaction.
Eor those of us who saw first-hand the havoc caused
by the campus upheavals of those years, it was easy to
forget Edmund Burke's wise and comforting reassur-
ance that there is much ruin in a great nation. No
leading university, with the possible exception of the
University of California-Berkeley, suffered more dis-
ruption late in the Vietnam War than Columbia. Yet
my personal experience is that about the only lasting
effects were the advent of co-ed dormitories, the ad-
mission of women to Columbia College as well as
Barnard, a new University Senate with a few student
members and no budgetary powers—and a reduction
in the foreign language requirement. There was, of
course, grade inflation which was unsettling to older
professors but meant only that the grade received by
most undergraduates moved up from up from C to B
or B+, Graduate school grades at Columbia, as else-
where, have, of course, mostly been A or A - since
anyone can remember. Looking back, I think I did an
injustice to the Columbia administrators, who in the
time of the troubles, unheroically waited out the stu-
dent tantrums and resumed business as usual with very
few punishments when the passions subsided.
 EDWARD SHILS: A LAST HARVEST / 79

Shils believes that the events of the 1960s showed
the extreme fragility of the University, To me the evi-
dence indicates, on the contrary, that it is a very tough
institution. Universities, as Shils stresses, have what
the larger society needs, wants and, indeed cannot do
without. And since the value of universities lies in a
never well-organized group of scholars generally go-
ing about their individual businesses, they can soon
recover from a few student riots and building
trashings—and even a loss of life. The loss of civility
produced by campus upheavals is distressing and pain-
ful. But it fades as rioters grow affluent and nostalgic
about Alma Mater—and as the embittered faculty who
have seen their illusions about colleagues and students
destroyed pass from the scene. The ambitious younger
generation of scholars does not spend much time read-
ing history,
Shils was remarkably fortunate in his career oppor-
tunities. Without the inclination to create a place for
himself in any narrow specialty, he might have had
trouble finding an acadetnic appointment commensu-
rate with his talent and interests. Fortunately, chance
or the University's reputation brought him to Chicago,
Here there was a home for him in two unique cre-
ations—the Hutchins College and the Committee on
Social Thought. To add to his good fortune, in war-
time London he had earned the high regard of the refu-
gee scholar Karl Mannheim at the London School of
Economics. When Mannheim died unexpectedly in
1947, the School sought out Shils. He was to reta;n a
connection with Britain for the rest of his life (Lon-
don School and later Cambridge), But if Shils had g eat
good fortune in his career opportunities, there wa^ no
luck involved in what he achieved with them.
The essays in these volumes are vintage Shils
was also the editor of Minerva. Still, I finished them
on a note of regret. They are too distant. My old teac her
always edited too much of himself out of his writj ng.
Granted, much editing was necessary if his insistence
be
respected. For in conversation and the privacy of semi-
nars, the talk of Shils was wildly humorous and un-
civil—and often unrepeatable. I looked in vain for a
single jest or even wry aside in these essays. Nowhere
does his favorite epithet surface," lumpen inteljec-
tual"—his contemptuous denunciation reserved for
academics who, to further a political or social age ida,
betray their calling. These essays confirm again the
stature of Shils as a scholar of great learning anc, in-
sight. Unfortunately, only those of us who were his
students and colleagues will be able to remember the
unique man and marvelous teacher who was Edvs ard
Shils unbuttoned.
1
Donald Dewey is Emeritus Professor of Economii^ in
Columbia University. He studied with Edward Shils ds an
undergraduate at the University of Chicago from 1940 to
1942 and as a research student at the London Scho(^ I of
Economics from 1948 to 1949.

Statement of Ownership, Management and Circulation (Required by 39 U.S.C. 3685) 1, Title of Publication: SOCIETY, 2, Publication No. 0636-940
Filing Date December 1, 1998. 4. Issue Frequency: Bi-monthly, 5. Number of issues published annually: Six. 6. Annual subscription price: $54,00 7.
Complete mailing address of known office of publication: Transaction Publishers, 35 Berrue Circle, Piscataway, NJ 08854. 8. Complete mailing addr
of the headquarters or general business offices of the publishers: Transaction Publishers, 35 Berrue Circle, Piscataway, NJ 08854. 9. Full names i id
complete mailing address of publisher, editor, and managing editor: Publisher, Mary E. Curtis, 35 Berrue Circle, Piseataway, NJ 08854, Editor: Jonatl m
B. Imber, Dept. of Sociology, Wellesley College, 106 Central Street, Wellesley, MA 02181. Managing Editor, Andrew Mclntosh, Transaction Publish! s,
35 Berrue Circle, Piscataway, NJ 08854. 10. Owner (if owned by a corporation, its name and address must be stated and also immediately thereunder
names and addresses of stockholders owning or holding 1 percent or more of total amount of stock. If not owned by a corporation, the names i id
addresses of the individual owners must be given. If owned by a partnership or other unincorporated firm, its name and address, as well as that of ei:
individual must be given. If the publication is published by a nonprofit organization, its name and address must be stated. Full Name: Irving Louis
Horowitz, Transaction Publishers, 35 Berrue Circle, Piscataway, NJ 08854, Howard S, Becker, 1827 5th Avenue West, Seattle, WA 98119, Seymiur
Martin Lipset, George Mason University, Krug Hall 205, Fairfax, VA 22030. Mary E. Curtis, Transaction Publishers, Piscataway, NJ 08854. Scott B.
Bramson, 46 Riverview Terrace, Belle Mead, NJ 08502, 11. Known bondholders, mortgagees, and other security holders owning or holding 1 percent or
more of total amount of bonds, mortgages or other securities: None. 12. Not applicable, 13. Publication Title: Society, 14, Issue Date for Circulation D ta
Shown Below: 07/29/98, 15, Extent and nature of circulation: Average No, copies each issue during preceding 12 months: a. Total No, copies (Net Pr ss
Run): 8,871. b. Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 1,651. (2) Mail subscriptions: 3,781, c, Tc :al
Paid Circulation (Sum of 15b(l) and 15b(2): 5,432. d. Free Distribution by Mail, Carrier or Other Means (Samples, complimentary, and other free): 1' 2,
e. Free Distribution Outside the Mail: 9. f. Total Free Distribution (Sum of 15d and 15e): 111. g. Total Distribution: 5,543. h. Copies not distributed: 1)
Office Use, Leftovers, Spoiled: 2,417. (2) Returns from News Agents: 911. i. Total (Sum of 15g, 15h(l), and 15h(2): 8,871. Percent Paid andlor
Requested Circulation (I5c/15g x 100): 98%. 15. Extent and nature of circulation: Actual No. copies of Single Issue Published Nearest to Filing Di :e:
a. Total No. copies (Net Press Run): 8,314. b. Paid Circulation: (1) Sales through dealers and carriers, street vendors and counter sales: 1,750. (2) N- ii\
subscriptions: 3,663. c. Total Paid Circulation (Sum of 15b(l) and 15b(2): 5,413. d. Free Distribution by Mail, Carrier or Other Means (SampI ;s,
complimentary, and other free): 106. e. Free Distribution Outside the Mail: 2. f. Total Free Distribution (Sum of 15d and 15e): 108, g. Total Distributi n:
5,521. h. Copies not distributed: (1) Office Use, Leftovers, Spoiled: 2,769. (2) Returns from News Agents: 24. i. Total (Sum of 15g, 15h(l), and 15h('j):
8,314. Percent Paid and/or Requested Circulation (15e/15g x 100): 98%. 17.1 certify that the statements made by me above are correct and complete:
Mary E. Curtis, Publisher. jl