Non-NU Email Charles, Glen, Howard and all Yes, John was a wonderful colleague and friend. Always willing to review your paper with complete honesty and with an assumption that you were grown up enough to handle it. My future work will suffer because he is gone. There is another aspect or two of John that I have not seen in this thread. John had an extraordinary sense of humor not often on display. He was also a very knowledgeable baseball fan. Among a small group of, should I even say it, institutionalist baseball fans who frequently exchanged emails, John was always involved. From my perspective as a Cubs fan, John (a fan of the evil Cardinals) was a relentless defender of the Cards and detractor of the Cubs. I hate to admit it but I am a better analyst of MLB because of John. Still, he seemed amused and he did not begrudge my very expensive last minute trip to Chicago in 2016 to see game 4 of the World Series in person. John understood that I probably did not have another 108 years to wait for the next Cubs appearance in the World Series. So, I miss John not only as a good colleague but as a baseball buddy with a sense of humor. -----Original Message----- From: AFEEMAIL Discussion List <[log in to unmask]> On Behalf Of Charles Whalen Sent: Monday, October 11, 2021 9:21 AM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: [AFEEMAIL] John Henry **Warning: This email originated external to the NMSU email system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. I’ve just read the moving remembrances of John Henry in the Journal of Economic Issues, most written by those who studied or worked with him (and one by Geoffrey Harcourt, who offers memories of John’s days as a doctoral student). This message is to briefly share a few recollections of my own. I was never a student in John’s courses, nor did we work together at the same university. But that didn’t matter. And I’ve always been a reformer, while he was revolutionary. That didn’t matter, either. (Indeed, he generously provided a campaign contribution when I ran for Congress.) At the start of my career, John saw me deliver a presentation at a meeting of the Association for Institutional Thought. On the basis of that presentation, he decided I was serious about heterodox economics and took me under his wing. Of course, John always treated me as a professional equal. For example, he often asked me to comment on his papers, and provided a gracious acknowledgment even when I didn’t offer much help. But, in fact, he was clearly the mentor—kindly offering thoughtful research and career advice over several decades—and today I’m certainly a better institutional economist because of that relationship. John was an exemplary colleague. He provided vital encouragement and assistance in those early days when the hourglass was running out on my non-tenure-track position, even taking it upon himself to make inquiries on my behalf at Staffordshire University and elsewhere. Year after year, he was never too busy to offer comments on my papers and recommend where they might get published. And he always found time to have lunch or dinner with me at professional conferences. John didn’t merely teach about the important role of culture in the economy and society—he modeled it every day, throughout his career. I suppose that means I’ve actually been John’s student all along—one of the many of us fortunate to have participated in his tutorial on professional development. A classroom without walls, and a culture of mutual respect and collegiality: revolutionary indeed! I can think of no better way for us to honor his memory than to keep that tradition alive.