GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND A - state.gov

House Document No. 120

GOVERNMENT, THE UNIVERSITIES, ANDINTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: A CRISIS

IN IDENTITY

L E TTERFROM

THE CHAIRMAN, THE U.S. ADVISORYCOMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL

EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRSTRANSMITTING

A SPECIAL REPORT ON "GOVERNMENT, THE, UNI-VERSITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS: ACRISIS IN IDENTITY," PURSUANT TO SECTION 107

OF PUBLIC LAW 87-256

By Professors WALTER ADAMS and ADRIAN JAFFEof Michigan State University

MAY 11, 1967.-Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs andordered to be printed.

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

65-011 WASHINGTON : 1967

__ __

L

-

I90th Congress, Ist Session

LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL

U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSION ONINTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS,

May 4, 1967.Hon. JOHN W. MCCORMACK,Speaker of the House of Representatives,Washington, D.C.DEAR MR. SPEAKER: Transmitted herewith, in accordance with

section 107 of Public Law 87-256 (The Fulbright-Hays Act), is a

special report to the Congress.This report was prepared by 'a member of the Commission, Prof.

Walter Adams, of the Michigan State University Department ofEconomics, and his colleague Adrian Jnffe, professor of comparativeliterature at Michigan State University.The Commission sends forward this report for the consideration of

the Congress because it believes that the issues raised in it deservewide discussion.One of the persistent problems of this Government's international'

educational and cultural programs, as this Commission has noted inother reports, concerns their integrity. Recent revelations of the covertsupport of similar programs by the Central Intelligence Agency andthe use of educational institutions as weapons in carrying out thegoals of American policies, have dismayed the Commission greatly.Thus we are pleased to note in the body of this report as well as insome of the material referred to, constant references to the importanceof maintaining the integrity of these programs and the instrumentsin the private sector chosen to carry them out.The Assistant Secretary of State for Educational and Cultural

Affairs emphasizes for example, on page 13, that international educa-tional and cultural programs are likely to be embarrassed and conm-promised when they are too closely and visibly associated withprograms of information and propaganda. We agree. This is not tosay that the latter programs are themselves wrong or unimportant tothe Nation. It is to say, however, that, just as educational and culturalprograms must be divorced from any taint of their use as instrumentsof intelligence, by the same token they must be divorced fromprograms devoted solely to information and propaganda.We commend to you and to the public this report of Professors

Adams and Jaffe.Sincerely yours,

HOMER D. BABBIDGE, Jr., Chairman.III

U.S. ADVISORY COMMISSION ON INTERNATIONAL EDUCATIONAL ANDCULTURAL AFFAIRS

Homer D. Babbidge, Jr., Chairman; President, University of Con-necticut.

Roy E. Larsen, Vice Chairman; chairman, Executive Committee,Time Inc.

Walter Adams, professor of economics, Michigan State University.Lather H. Foster, president, Tuskegee Institute.Rufus C. Harris, president, Mercer University.Walter Johnson, professor of history, University of Hawaii.Arnold M. Picker, executive vice president, United Artists Corp.Joseph R. Smiley, president, University of Colorado.Miss Pauline Tompkins, general director, American Associat'on of

University Women.* **t

James A. Donovan, jr., staff director.Iv

GOVERNMENT, THE UNIVERSITIES, AND INTERNA-TIONAL AFFAIRS: A CRISIS IN IDENTITY

"A university is not outside, but inside the general social fabric of a givenera * * * (It is) an expression of the age, as well as an influence operatingupon both present and future."-ABRAHAM FLEXNER"* * * a university should reflect the spirit of the times without yielding toit."-JAMEs BRYCE

By

Walter Adams, Professor of Economics, Michigan State University,and Member, U.S. Advisory Commission on International Educa-tional and Cultural Affairs

and

Adrian Jaffe, Professor of English and Comparative Literature,Michigan State University

V

_____

GOVERNMENT, THE UNIVERSITIES, AND INTERNATIONALAFFAIRS: A CRISIS IN IDENTITYBy Walter Adams and Adrian Jaffe

I. THE MALAISETHE PROBLEM OF IDENTITY

Psychologists tell us that identity is the nucleus of the individual'sbelief system, which serves, in turn, as 'his blueprint for relating tohis physical and social environment. When it is lost, the individualfinds it difficult to live with himself, or to adapt to 'the reality aroundhim. If he is ever to function viably, he must find the answers tothree related questions: (1) "Who am I?" (2) "What is'the nature ofthe society and of the world in which I live?" (3) "How can I relateto it?" The restoration of lost identity is of crucial importance topersonal survival.1.Organization'hs ' and 'social institutions also ire'quire a clear sense ofidentity. Without it, they can no more function effectively than canindividuals; If they are to play a puirposeftl rle in conjunction withothers, if they are to relate meaningfully to society and to otherinstitutions, they must preserve their identity by keeping intact anunambiguous system of beliefs. They must, in short, know who theyare, and they must have a continuing commitment to an integralsystem of values.

IDENTITY AND THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY

The loss by'the American university of a sehse of itsidentity reachedserious proportions at the time that it became, in Clark Kerr's felicitousphrase, a "multiveriity.: But the 'prcess had been going on for a longtime, and many of its aspects' were inherent in thie nature of the insti-tution itself: an'organization of individuals whose primary purpose isto intera inin orderto change each oth6e', thestate of knowledge, andsociety itself, The u'niversity-"a community that thinks," as RobertHutchins put it--rests on the assumption that society requires anorganization which'is 'engaged in a continuous search and conversa-tion "aimed at truti;' 2.As 'early as the''18th;centuij,: however,; men like Thomas Jefferson

and Benjamin Rush recognized that'education must serve the coin-munity in practical ways, and that the university could not be anivory tower removed from the world of action. On the 'contrary, sinceanything worth thikinkg about has consequences in the practical order,the uniyersityr had' :to be involved in the world, andnioit separate.This understanding, and coniictiotn Was shared I the 19th centuryby uhniVesity. ' presideittsi' such' as' Eliot of Harvard and Gilman ofJohns Hopkins, as well as by' their colleagues in the State universities

' e M1laton. Rokeach, "TheTeCIhtire0rists f Ypsilanti," New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1904, pp. 19-36,311-18. o ..'"Tbe University of.Utopia," Chicago: Unlyorslty of Chicago Press, 1963, pp. 41, 66.

1

2 GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

anrd the land-grant colleges, and in our own time by John Deweanid Alfred North Whitehead, who insisted that "celibacy does ncsuit a university. It must mate itself with action."

THE CONSEQUENCES OF INVOLVEMENT

In its effort to "mate itself with action," the American universityhls displayed organizational skill and operational flair. It has offere(itself as possessing certain special attributes which serve to make it:services attractive to potential clients in Government and industryTurning its unique characteristics to advantage and losing sight of th(original role of the communityy that thinks," the university proclaimed its "capacity to move swiftly, flexibly, and imaginatively Intoa new area of critical need: the power to arrive at a disinterested, ob-jective appraisal of a situation free of political, influence; the freedomto engage in controversial activities; the ability to experiment-in anunfettered manner-arnd if need be fail; and.finally the capacity forsympathetic personal attention to the variety of human problems thatbeset our increasingly dehumanized world." "The university convertedits natural mandate to participate in society into an eager solicitationof clientele, and in the process not only became a "multiversity,"but began to forget what it Aws, what it served, and what its beliefsystem consisted of. .,

In its increasing reliance upon "outsiders"' to buy its services andto support its projects the university found 'an effective means ofcementing its organic integration into contemporary society,, butthis was neither painless nor free from serious cost. Ancient bondswere broken, traditional relationships were shattered, and customaryfunctions were transmuted. The need to ser'e 'many clients oftenresulted in the neglect of the original clients, the students; the primaryconception of the university as an "instrument of rationality * * *dedicated to reason" became blurred under the weight of conflictingpressures.' The introduction into the university, of .new systems' ofvalues was confusing;. the natural dualism of the university's role,instead of being a source of strength, became a source of ambiguityand hence of weakness. ;The continuing sense of selfhood was lost,and with it there often came,'as in human schizophrenia, a franticdenial of the old symbolI and a baffled, random .and ineffectiveassumption of a large and unsatisfactory range of ahoc roles;.

As it began increasingly to relate to coordinate but divergent,seg-ments of society, the university tended to abandon. its traditionalguidelines without finding new ones of relevance. "Wavering betweenthe profit and the loss, in this brief transit where the dreams cross,"the university moved toward a future of greater, not lesser problems-problems of identity. In the words of John Gardner, "** * as indus-try and government, with their huge research and education programcome to look more and more like universties, and as the universitieswith their worldly interests come to look more and more lik ethe restof society, we shall achieve a condition in. which no one will be quitesure what is university and what is nonuniversity, and no one willhave the faintest idea what is organized around what," .

* p. Carnegie Corp. of New York, Annual Report, 19 p. 7, In re noovernmental torganliatons.See e.K., George O. Stern, "Myth and Reality in the American College," AAUP Bulleti,'Deoember

*John W. Oardner, "The Future of the Unlvernity,'" Stutday Revew, vol. 46, Noi. 2,1963, p. 46.

GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND 'INTERNATIONAL' AFFAIRS 3

The illness which Gardner predicted htts already infected the patient.We can call it "crisis of idenritt; ": hih i tcetainly is; it is useful,however, to examine som e 'symptom.

JI. THE SYMPTOMS'THE BEGINNINGS

'The criisi of identity, like so many ilhiesses, had innocent .,andunderstnlidable .origins. Although it 'has 'brouighlt about a seriouscondition at present, the relationship,, between Government and theuniversities, in it's early form,,waI of formidable bciiefi' to both.No responsible'educator can fail to acknowledge the enolllmous debtwhich universities lave tob Government for their growth, their abilityto provide education to iicreasingly'l'a'geo' inbers of stiideiits, andfor their capacity to engageiin. inlortapt research. Nor would anygovernmental offiti;l' ish;tbo'deyi :tlie great etent to ivhih univesistycooi)'eratibli lhas beip 'berinficiale'tt 'the county's interets'. iAt the 'cose of World 'War II;thi'deiie of the universities actively

to engage in the practical world coincided-with the needs' of Govefn-ment to a remarkable degee.' The 'Government wished-to avoid build-ing laxge ih-ihouse facilities for research; it wanted to 'farm it out 'tofisc.ly' r^,onaible in titutio'fWsw.ih'hiad existing facilities, d denmon-strafed capFbilities; it wanted .glve thi.eetasks tbo .jloprftit non-contrbVerial organizations which would help it to avoid congressionalcriticism."Forftheir'part, 'theuniversitiess (did not want -the Governriehtto build in-house facilities; chj:'h'iitt 'compete with themoir' dritalent fr.omithe.oampuse, ; they 4id, o., want university; tlei, to flowinto governmental organizations like Rand, from -which there would ibeno direct feedback to the"'iistictbional programs. In addition, theuniverities Iwanted a.source of: fnnds for ,thekind of basic research'which theyknew hbad.to be done, but which ,could not be supportedfrom relafivyeeafge r iDhterxl;:resources.:.It was, i short, mari6egof almost:pOrfeo.t convenience and ione which has worked remarkablyvelltproducgpftln.psectacuar,.t,.

e:re atio9nh b~etuwei. v'v4erpliuet ian^44 i1verst1i, o^',ver,grew in a topsy!-urvy, fasinhion h brought about :sone fundamentalsproblems 5and'highl'ighted some points of dangerr; Many of these havebeen identifiedl'y respodsible critics" bf the Governmentun4eîtycontract system and may be regarded, in this context, as syiiptomaticof the organic disease. Although they differ in scope, all of the criti-cims have common the implicit confusion of beliefs temsand ,theconsequent infusionn of roles btein'mg Iboth partners. The criticismsfall into a numberr of general'patterns, ;

:,: ::.;.:.'' (; ,; , ),, ' ...2..

.,;,,· ;. .THE COMPLIANCEB,0F THEU NIVERSITIESIf te e'qoertiihmefnt 'l;a offered .various blandisinments ',to the

uniiveritiesfoi, eing'e',-,in c'h'trActi'; projects; the u;liversititS, likeBarkisihia Ve'feeni"wtihln.'Tli,'eWehh pht' it *e l .ierathi,"chose que 'platt est A demi vendue," but even more suemi.ct ; thislimeritk .rtten,' b"vrDon K. Price;'dean of the John F. KennedySho6l ,of G6overnment 'at,HIarvar

-,1 .i ".' ' .''

II. Doe 120, 90-1-2


There wa a youtngildy frop Kent,Who said that she knew what It meant,When men took her td dineGave her cocktails and *ine

She knew what it meant-but she went.În the salne vein, Richard M. Mdrse, professor of history at Yale

University and chairman of its Latin American studies, underscoresthe essentially passive posture of universities in responding to extra-mural Government initiatives. Morse writes:American universities, often ensconced on coiifortable land grants;,ha've b6cii

singuflarly dloclle in taking leads from the 'Fderal Go'verliinnt. They nieveF bitethe hand thht feeds; at best they glower'befoir' beating. They dutifully produceatom bombs and Tagalog speakers. When thb chill winds of lMCarthyism blonvfrom VWaihington they philosophically hunch: their shoulders against them.When the calls to New Prontiers and Great Societies are issued, they respond withcautious symlnpathy.7This receptivity to outside stimuli-this willingness to become,' a

Federal grant universityis especially marked in the internationalfield; As John Gardner told the American Council onEducation some8 yearsago: .',- : ', .

Wherih Government agencywith money tb spend approaches a univerAity itcan usually pureha'se almost any se'vie,'itwantse * *..When.thle IhternationlCooperation Administrat-iq'p began to: iwtoe contracts, yWith ;the ,univYritle.froverseas erVice, It"oneeivtd the relationshjp, as' basically a puiohasefit services,and unfrtiinately manyuihniversities 'acuie'cied A good many 'of 'tlietiniv'eitibsdid notaskwhetherr the activltiein question: * * ;were a.wise!expenditure ofeffort in terms of the tot mnisiQnf.ofitheliuigevlty, whetlhef:they would 4eovean inorement of growth for the istito 'I..se.If. ,,

One may criticize het'IIA for Usling .thbe in'versiti'a'i thlis;asliori 'ut, along as the unilveistlis hasee no conceptih df, thesiielve othet thA' 'the sUptg-market: conception, they will have tO remn.themselves to the fact! that peoplewill walk id off the street, buy a box Of .heattie, and, walk out8 1 i: ,;

This relationship between il interdsied'Government and a compliantuniversity results not so much,' as many fear, in Governinent controland 'domination, as in Government influence;: As ClarkA Keirj untilrecently president of the' University of California, expresseddit,'"tThe real problem is not one of '6deera controll buto, FeArl'ik enic.'3 AFederal' agefny offers a probc6t. Th' iniiversity i'eed not e'ebt, but' as a prac-

tical matter, it usually does * * . Out of, this reality have f6llowed'many of theconsequeuces'of Federal aid for.the univerrtlea; and ,they: have been subt^tiao.That they are subtle, slowly cumulative, 'and gentlemanly makes: tm: al ,themore potent.',

THE UNIVERSITY, 4 ,MENDICANT

These criticisms direct' afttetiiloh o 'tbe' generali"passivwlliinghfiesof universities to dccenit atw isi'o6ffird to' them,' buit thisPt iirtS ismatched by an extremely active;jiogram'of seeking d'ut gra'its1 Aidprojects. As a seeker of grants the university, like commercial firms

it.h products to'sell, uses aggressive advertisemenit n the promotionof its wares and in some cases has not only a series of, professionalpromote ,on; campus, bu)t an omfce nM.Wasnmgton a9Swu,,Th.epreS,-dent of t'ie Urmiiersity of Rochester, w. Aien Wali,, observes, inthis' ,o~nntirjt-i(?h -S.thfj~t-Tr., it!;ii *; i~e ) ! , ;.4)<ti .'' t '..) li l.}.1. Ii fw 1-I I

*Qmted bi Cfj K' "!i.tO'Tstihe ,e i"ird tU Pio.t Paper, prentdiit Coifetene on Foreign Liue, .nq'rea Studim ,Prince. n Aniv.ersity, Dqcem-her 17-18, 195; reprinted In "Internatlonal EducticrthtPut Pient,/P blifi'i Proicta,'t)HuaeDocunwnt No. Q2, 89th Cong, 2d se., 196, p. 171 (hermnaftr cited M "Bradenum Compendium").

* 'The Untvyerity in Our Civilization," reprinted in "Bmdemas Compendium," pp. 41, 44.* Kerr, ot. clt., pp. 57-M,

GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL' AFFAIRS 5* * '*'univehitiee, b:eides tryiSng toservee their traditional rolej;'have be-

come Important' wheelers and; dealers in affairs' large and? small) They accept,indeed sek, ;assignments (if; a!eonddanied by find) from businesses, govern-ments,;foUndatiOhst ofitidividuall to carri out specified missions on stated sohed-ules. At times they even'agree to keep the results secret, for the exclusive benefitof the client. Only, a ltit.money they accept:* * is for purposes as broadas those traditionally a6bioated with' niveritie.10o

As a result,. cocludes Wallis, the university's role is 'inl dangr ofbecoming something like that of hotelkeeper for transient scholainsand projectt',,"Thezea!loQs puirsiit ofgritss by; the mendicanti university has

anlothlr;,U;ifortunate, result: the dIyelopment on, tihe, camnpises,.ofmargipl Ieronlel, distinct, rrom the traditional faculty, whose ex-clusive,sklls are in the .grani h(ixdlijng, processes a d who, frequentlynegotiate contracts and commit their institutions witholutthe involve-ment or the consent, and often without the knowledge, of the facultydirectly and professionally, concerned. The lack of faculty involve-nent in the phases of contract negotiation explains why, on mostunivemrity :campuses, Governiment'projects are almost totally segre-gated from; the 6ademic' enterprise;f the university, .to which theystand in' the relationshiip of: a sideshow. Paul A. Miller, former pres-.dent of the Uhiversity of West'Viginia, and nw 'Assistbant Secretaryof Health, Education,:ad .Welfare, remarks, for example, that-'

*i'* the neWtprgramsi ifiinteinatdtioal affairs tend' t e designedd tdodiscteteand recently established units''+ *,* Technical assistance 1rojeote, while drawingon de4prtrnental competeeoe, are negotiated, contracted, staffed, and evaluatedby special offices and personnel, , ,., .

Apart from the inappropriateness,: on campunesb Iof this ne\ anid,ex-tensive, clss ,oft ancillaries, they pose ;another serious problem Whilewithin theb academic(profession it is notidifficfult to:distinguish betweenthe professional and.,the .nonprofessiotial,. theie'distinction .iis seldomcleaj to persons in, other ,fielp,yiho assume, ,qittenudersand ably,that, everybody on a campus is.,part of tle "fwculItyI and doing aboutthe same sort of thing.!This assumption is made more likely when_the 'safitfitle ' arti ranks 'ai shared by all,' re'gai'dless 'of imaryfdlnctro. It 'thius'often'hapJienl tha 'Government, for exampAle, maybe under the impression that it has the approval of. the entire univer-sity, and: its' nwlholbhe'aitdsit ort, when' infant itiiay' have ithe

approval'6'f bil' b al'ao6ip adinhistrati e,of"ofi1c ' Wh6o"eherkno nore ises 'of thpofess1 staffi-the ldersense' of tfletei',Sicli', a fiitiatiori serves no't onilvto makee reo-able dial'haI'i;,'it'oftenprodhices'acute eilbarrnasstientf'and eriofismisufdertandifik. :', - i:'i.,,:. :-i.z,:;i.;,-.

Rob0ert M.' RbIizWiq,:'fc dsoc^tt deri 6of' the ' 'duate,divisiid atStarif6idUhiitv i ll' 'aiedf thismsittioii,we'ie 'f'th' dimals[]t~ in:'ifiecanin igh dt/ication/" ie it^ 0. ': ". ¢ ,tLf/itr)J.KO'if/~',;1iit::?il'lif:ti)-,. f!,ftiie;'..-' : :., , ,!',!'.:;is thna~o,at. misratm oratmb"nK(otr cPnotrac4 for wirk w;hIm oe not emergefim't ft;e'rTduTth uSlt4t of tistiy terrfse .id'lbîd t,6 ^ 'af, lltry eroida dirsdud iditd eemo'dary line ofinterest; or, frantic effort to secure nonfaeulty plbrednnelito meet the contractualobg:ons,;Apong tie,it..tpusl.ig' peots of suqh arTngemnteias,,t.iefao

·o "Ceiitrilpetl ad CentrifuluI Forces In UnlIerslty Or)iiritAtilo," iI Rob4ie 81;iMorrison(.)i .The'ContemporarytUlverlty.Unv y U..A.," Bostol: Ioughton MIffln, 196, p. 41. ....-

tI"h Rol i te. lvortlty in oevlopilng Worl.d Commuity ," repl. ntiedn .rm.lemi.Comp.ndiuni,p, 8;?.: -, - !-te.. .

n.....*t

( GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS,

that GoVernment agencies have permitted and even encouraged them, Not onlyare they harmful to the universitie-w-.lwhoh i nnot; of course, the Government'sprime concern-but they insure that the Government will not get what it ispresumably buying; namely, the ntelleotual and ,technical resources of theacademic community. It is simply a bad bargain all the way around."Dean Romenzweig might'hive goie ohit'. poii oui tihat many of

the nonfaculty personnel who are this recruited end up with facultyrank, making it impossible tliereafter to identify or to distinguishthem. This may be one of tlie reasons why Government seems to haveencouraged this sort of arrangement; while it certainly is Goverhtnent'sconcern that universities should not be harmed, it has no reason toquestion the internal operation of a university, nor does it have theknowledge or the vocabulary; if it is fooled, it is no more so than thelarge numbers ofpeople who assume that he who wears a white coatis a physician.

THE SHORT-CHANGING OF GOVERNMENT

Since it is only seldom that external projects become an integral,and coherent part of the academic community, the Govrnment does:not get what it thinks it is buying,'and what it often pays for mostgenerously: the technical and intellectual resources which 'the Umiversity, in theory, is supposed to supply. It is, to put it blunil,short-changedi and' no. one who has:the country's interestsiat heartcan look at thi without regret and alarm. The eageIaiess of uiv.*sityadministrations to lmdertake stylizd, Government-financed pr'6i-thas caused a decline in self-generated 'comnmitinents tb school rlypursuits, has produced baneful effects on the academic mission of ouruniversities, and has, in addition, brought forward some bitter com-plaints from the disappoirned' clients According to one reliable report,the Agency for Interhational Development claimS that-

*' * universities hav: often acted irretponiiibly-sending 'third-rate personnel

overseas, hegleoting the netds of the host'teointry while they concentrate on whatthey want to do, engaging in aggressive tactics toi get contracts, taking on tasksthey ae not equipped to do.* * * Some AID officials add that no U.S. universityever willingly terminated a contract program, no matter how valid the reasonsfor doing o.4 'Some of these chargees ar exaggerated and, the denunciation is too

sweeping; yet they Itend to suggest t at from'tohe Govermnent's pointof view, tthe university contract system,,as present operated, isnotb'yany means tlh most satisfacory way for an agencyto accom-plish its mission and to, discharge!its. responsibilities. W"illam TJ..Nagle, former Director o f e fthe c External Reearoch of theDepartment of; §tate, finds the Goveiaiuent-universi' con t'ra tys-ten a:,defective,'.strnent frsri-thBeagth needs,irerjof Gp'i, -ment or of the total socifty. IeOoksrvêsaô 8ingue^ r, tee4,cy on;part of Americann social scientists to peilit operatioiai to donmat.puriosaind 't4i :for act, iieopifoonftracts,;f r,"reapo be.zbo oriwason QV.0p17rfment4(p11bUefpIA"sthem .- willing or uhable -to dhaJlengl conventional widomn. or to:questiBntsoeie 'of th, Miythi on 'hih':some aspects of p6li.yiiih.be based. Nagle puts it this way: . -

'I "'Un'veirstid a'diti'he FritiiRA.lsttince Pitogram," Journal of Hiigher Eduction, Ootxber .1l4O re-prlnte'd ln"Bradeinm CoitnDendhitm'.J.12 ' '

t John W. (ardner, "A.I.D. and the Unlverslte," Wahlngton: Agency for International Development,April 1904, p. 5.

GOVRiNM"INT,; iUNIVERSITIES,' AND INTERNATIONAL iAFFAIRS 7Although I spant my,3 years' at; Statee in' s 'incere andn ometimes.$pirted

defense opo, ,6urIy ; itPd o0 other agpnies' qontrac reseaep. prpga^p ,. 4tadmitt.at t.Le're were,vyry few of te, more than 40 studies contrted duringniy'tetire thire that really'proved 'very iiuf8ii to tie Deparhiens'' poli'yiikesaor even to the 'Departmenint'f' researhers *')* *' Mit' coitraot kes~a;icheri'*hos'products came acrosss my desk: failed to 'meet itbei standards and fiees't of tieGovernment or the academy. * * * I began to worry that I, a contract researchadminisrAttrt was infadt' odntliHbting veryilittle either to'the needs of Govern-ment 'or t the larger soodety's pliriuit of knowledge and truth.1.Nagle reports that hi disappointment, and diseichahttment with

the contributions of academia was shared by some of thehmo't! in sitiieand' ca .able officials itn W'iasigton.Danlel P. M'drthihan,' n archi-tect, when he was Assistant Secretary of abor;of eabo t domestic. Great.Society programs, 'was most unhappy at thepoverty of ideas from theuniversities. Richard Goddwiri before leaving thie White House, was;disheartened by academia's answers t6 the "crisis f'Americian piublilife."; And Arthur; Barber, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense,devoted an entire speech to the Washiington chapter of the Interna-tional' Studies Association to '"the failure of American intellectualstb' contribute 'new\ ideas to 'American 'foreign policy. I believe thepotential for courageous, intelligent intellectuals concerned' with'political affairs * * ihas never bbeen greater, but the response hasbeen inadequate to the challenge." 16 What Julien Benda: called the"treasoh";of tlhe intellectuals 'may be taking the form, 35. years lte'r,of thfftSiltire" of the academic community. r

( . ,!:* .: :·''- . tHBEiTH ICS OF SPONSORED RESEARCH

It is largely, buti'niot exclusively, in projects involving, overseasresearch; that: an ettical. problem'alre and int!udes. Questions ofethics are. often swept under th theg tey have a way;ofCcomingout again in the course of time, and iProject Qamelot is a casein point.Camelot -was, ,,$0 , million' research, project sponsored by the, U.S,Army .under tha aegis; of, an accredited American university. It in-volved the highly flammable subjects of cotntcrrevolution and .cpun;-teriiisurgency in Latin America, and was, in 'effect, an effort to use"software" research in support of, or as' substitute for, "hardware"systems.

In response, to criticisms in. the. Department of State, the Congress,and the academic community, Secietary of Defense McNamaraeventually; canceled'the projectt. The reasons for, the cancellationare less important than the qiidstion' which the project raised of thepropriety, ,in the first Rplace, of the acceptance by a univeIrity of- anassignment' under. the specified conditions and terms. Prof. IrvingLouis HIrowit2, ofi Washington University,' reports: : .

On: of the": cloudiest aspects to Project Camelot is the'e o6i f'(the;natiatiiguniversity$. It' aotualf upevilsidn of the contract appears to have bgu and endedwlth th,25:percent/1oerhead on,th'oe: parts of th; contractthat a university receivycs; on most Federlghan*it:* I*. ,Fzm the outset, thIeoseems to have been a"gqentl mais agrerient'ih ot'to 'initire ori.itefere'in Project Cam/elot, but' sim-.pryi" sBr'4asm. coi-tiofca'mol. ;'t:

'.('..t'- l ; l r * lt / j,-" 't ....i; ',i *'i '. '. ;j ii '. ;i, ' ; '" ''-'ht ,te relationship, between sponsors and reseachers was notone' of, iUat i iuf"rathr one )of superordmate nmiie ry needs and

A4dlSU toom.otlisIi:ternafinaliStudtes, AAsoditi, Wayne 'tate ,Unilt'ritt;M, ,May :, 1; rniriodIn"da Comphdlum," .' .................

" Cited ibidi., p. 17. . ...""The Llb arid Death of Project Camelot," Trans-Actlon, Novomber-December 1r*lizirt4a 'In"Brademas Compendium," p. 298.

8 GOVERNMENT 'UNIVERSITIESI, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS

subordinate;academic roles" did not appear to trouble the iontrabthuniversity nor cause it pny 'cise econscience. That the AryFtirepedtful anid pro teotive of frie eoxploioni'seeihed to be a s'i i

oondition- for undertaking the contract. Nonetheless, in Horoitview/ this left a fundamental ethical question unresolved: I;Th propriety of the ;Army to define and dlimit all questions, .whii 'baMiel

should have had a right t.o exanmn9, as never placd in'doubt., This i , tragprecedent; it reflects the arrogance of a consumer o{f Intollectuaiil mercchandi3iAnd this' relationship of inequality cdrripted the lines of authority, and prcfou4dly limited the autonomy of the social solentists' involved. It be0are, cleathat the sooial scientist savant wa,tot somuch functioning as an apple doiascientist aS he 'wa supplying inforiiation to a powerful client' * *. The sponsorship of a project, whether by the U.S. 'Army or by the Boy Scobtsl of Amerioa, iby Itself neither good nor bad, Sponsorship is good or bad only insofar as:thiintended outcomes can 1be predetermined and the parameters of those intendecoutcomes tailored to the sponsor's expeotations.1In fact, the issue is pragmatic as well as ethical. A project which

lacks inherent intellectual or scientific validity is not worthy of auniversity's effort; but at the same time the results of suoh a projectwill fail to give to its sponsor the value he paid for. The Governmentis shortchanged, and the universityis compromised. The corruptionand'impoverishment of society's value system is not only deplorablein itself; but quite in Vain.,The gist of these criticisms can be found in the conclusion of Clark

Kerr, that American universities have "always,responded, !but seldomso quickly as today, to the desires and demands of external groups-sometimes for love, sometimes for gain, increasingly willingly, and,in some cases, too eagerly.'9 And however eager or willing the re-spnse may have been, it has been' ;scl: as to call the wholeb relatidn-ship of Government and universities into questions to :cat' doubtupon the integrity 'of some ins'ttutitios and their faculties, to openthe educational functions 'of Universities to the arrows of Philistines,and to suggest the possibility to a world-never adverse to prej-udice-that academic honesty is no less marketable than a box ofdetergent on the grocery shelf;

III. DIAGNOSIS

PRAGMATIC VERSUS IDbALtSTIC INSI'ITUtIONSThe failure of the universities to continilee their traditional functions

and to reaffirmtheit traditional ideals has 'led to an unusually keensense of despair,'in gdod measure becailse obfthe general appreciationof the fact tbat they are special kinds ;of institutions, idealisticratherthan pragmatic. It offends us that.they should selll Lheinrserices-an,.. .erhaLp.-.te:lve.. ;t'":' ,...;.,t, ,.:iI ..;k'"i (.)Mostistiutiotnsa are necessarily pragmatic, devoted to tite achievement; of certain irmportiant, pltotrpes--the 'piodiuct ofo- fti o6odsY the-'dfsfueeier'thgowi- the rVisio nofmoeicalt roAs at1,institfiions th 'maya be judged .in'r: 4ia. ce,Ow;;el ylyithey Coerate. If they fail to provide wait hey are designed't,a;.,pr_',Prow'"lil e

Which does not; "Pragmatic" is not, however, a pejorative adjective:I, adop..*..: MS' 1t.:p.N.

GOVlRNMENT, UtJNIVfRSITIESI AND "INTERNATIONAL''AFF$AIRS )9

pragmatic institutions function to make possible the "environmf ntin which 'people live; they are the operative structures of socialorganiiztion'. - ,

'

Some institutions, though, aye :designed to accomplish,anotherorder of result, an 'brder which relates to ,a transcendental system ofvalues.' These institutions, notably the educational and their religious)are concerned with another part of the! dream, thatwhich:offers asthe purpose of life something more than survival: the search for truthand the pursuit'of happiness.::The: presence of these' two classes of institution-the pragmatic

and the ideal--reflects a dichotomy which may be eeniin all societies;but it is more critical in our own. Historically, American culture hasprized two contradictory sets of values: self-reliance and initiative onthe one hand, cooperative goals on the other. The assumption thatmaterial success brings spiritual rewards has exacerbated the' atbi-guity'of the American de'am. As a result, wish to' accomplishpolitical ends wbutals6 wish to be loved for doing so;wed are impelledto act in 'one kay, biut to offer justification for our action i another.We have a tendency to apply contradictory sets of standards to'o'Wbehavior, and we often suffer as a result. It would be seftil to considerrthat instead of continuing to see the dichotomy as inevitable, weshould think of it as a set of complementary values, going hand inhand.

TUNVERSITIES AS 'PEdIAL BODIES

Universities' are 'not 'esentially ipragimatic institutions. They !aredevoted 'to tlie pursuitttand 'tatlnsiission of knowledge, andt'they arefounded'upon the convictionn tht hat they do: hbs 'moral rather thairexpedieiit value.:They are thus measurable by their ideal 'rather thanby the iimmiediate'ffect of what they do.; Their special position is wellrecognized"in society:.universities are freely 'and'generously. supportedby tat moribys ;and in many States given constitutional auton6'iy.They'aIte iro''fashioned tob produce'profit in 'ihonetaiy terms: theyiaremelht to 'co'int: their profit ln the enrichment of life and ,in the presler ationi of id ails; ; ::! ; 1, .Giventhisi special 'character 'of 'universities, 'it seems' only natural

to c'niidltde thati they are outside 'sodety,. exempt from'i the need, toprovid 'fi' thie general' as well as' the. special,'welfare: The6l pfofeisoroften draWs Up'iip s'gown whenever he'ees a danger that practial, miidmight' splatter' it'! he-often s'eeshimself as isolated in' a tower, insulatedfrotistreet'n6in ,'helplefss in affairs of the worldd' Such :a& conclusionis false, and it is misinformed to think that universitiescan, ir4 shobiild;operate outside society. Moreover, once we recognize that Governmentis the fens et caput of social:organizatibnt; wwe must also recognize thatit is proper for Government to draw upo. the resources of otherinstiutit6ni ii' sciety- i'6luditg tlie, uiversitids.': ''\'2

'i

.'.PRiPOk BiLiieS Ui kRSItii.i ;

Thus, it is misguided to argue that universities shouldireimainraloofand shouildl iettveir 'enter' the ;marketplace or the 'legislative hallsJ It·is misguided'ii' the !fnamnee of! "'purity;ti to suggest'thit' universitiesshould withfibld, from 'oiet3 '/the contributions "they (arl!iuniqilyfitted to.make,


First of all, .this kind of isolation is in any caso impossible. Uni,versities are composed of men and women who have lives in society-'who are as political, economic, and active as anybody else. The bellwhich tolls for society tolls ,as loudly for them, and theyirnay notrenounce this basic responsibility ,for; the character of their times,Second, universities exist in, andl reflect their societies; and tleycannot disenttngle themselves from the social fabric in which theyexist. The special place; which universities have in society dops notilmply separation; it inilies freedom from any restriction on theirability to carry out their special funcltio. T'llis is more than, aheo-retical demand. Without this freedom, universities cannot sui'vive.

UNIVERSITIES AND GOVERNMENT

As a special body, therefore, the university must have a speciirelationship to government; one which reflects its idiosyncratic tfeahires but which does not isolate it. The university cannot and shouldnot engage in any governmental activity which will compromise,modify, or destroy its special functions.. As a corollary, however, itmust and should engage it governmental activities which do none ofthese. Freedom hias tle other face of responsibility; unwillingness toaccept one will surely destroy the otller. Neither a university, nor anyinstitution, nor anry indlividlual can have it both ways.

It is therefore proper for Government to make use of universityresources in the pl)rsult of national aims; but it must understand, whenit does so, that'it is not nierely adding another governmental organiza-tion to its existing structures. It has certainly been pleasing to theGovernment to find in universities the tables of organization andcadres which the Army admires, and to see in them the answer tourgent needs. It is convenient to draw upon organized concentrationsof experts, and no government can be blamed which delights in this.

This governmental delight, however, has been matched by squealsof joy in the academy. The motives are varied, but among them canbe noted the fact that government service provides a prestige Whichcampuses do not; that the professor may get the feeling which uni.versities tend to depress, that he is in the center of things; that theslow ascent of an upward mobile may be accelerated into exhilaratingflight. If the Government tends to use the professor, the professor isoften deferential, glad to be of use, willing to swell a scene or two.And so are the universities-for profit, for prestige, for the oppor-tunities to orbit deans around the world.20 They should not be blamed;a little bit of this is in all ofus..

THE INHERENT DANGERS

Comprendre, say the French, c'est tout pardonner. This may not boapplicable in this instance, for the consequences of thoughtless anduncontrolled governmental use of universities areserious-for Govern-ment, for universities, and hence for the society of which they areimportant.parts .

Ifiuniversities are put to goyerimental use inan unlimited fashion,there can only result a tragic diminution of their. special functions,which will no longer be carried out. When universities become merely"See e.g., Water Adams and John A. Garraty, "Is the World Our Campus?" East Laniung: MIdhlgan

State Unliverlty Press, l960.

GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 11

an arm of Government, they begin to dispense conventional orthodoxyinstead of pursuing free inqiliry; to serve as advocates rather thananalysts, to accept ritualistic answers instead of grappling withdifficult questions; above all, to abandon their necessary and naturalfunction as counterweights to the pragmatic evaluation normal inGovernment. When this happens, their occupation, like Othello'sdisappears, and the whole society is impoverished. Then, Governmentbecomes monolithic, expedient, motivated only by its own empiricalmomentum. And; society's pluralistic fabric is irreparably damaged.An extreme example is the degradation of the Nazi state and the

willingness of the German universities to-give moral and intellectualcolor to the pragmatic programs of the leaders: they clothed apes indoctoral gowns an'd blessed them with their diplomas. By convertingthemselves from homes for philosophical diversity into propagandacenters for an official doctrine,21 they legitimized a 'ttalitarian, mono-lithic regime and drained the moral'and intellectual lifeblood from theGerman nation. And, after defeat, this depleted society was almosttotally devoid of the leaders who could help rebuild a moral order.The example is extreme, but the lesson is clear: the collapse of univer-sities can mean the collapse of a whole society, and since Governmentgoverns a whole society, it loses in the long run when it forces rolesand functions to become blurred.

Neither expediency nor pragmatism implies, however, the absence ofmorality. It is a question of degree and emphasis.'-Universities can func-tion most usefully by devoting themselves exclusively to their properdomains. In doing so, though, they may quite properly be helpful inother areas. What is required more than anything else is an honesty ofpurpose and an honesty of aim, on the part of Government and theuniversities together.

TPE DEEPER DIMENSION OF THE CREDIBILITY GAP

In recent years, under the many pressures of modern society, wehave witnessed a persistent degradation of values through their use forulterior and expedient ends. The cynical use of values from one systemto justify the purposes of another system can only result in the ultimatedestruction of the values themselves, which cease to move men, andwhich are no longer capable of acting as guides to conduct. More im-portant, this misucuseauses a fundamental credibility gap.The term "credibility gap" is most often u3ed to express the dis-

tinction between what is said and what isrue: it restson the circum-stance that when, 'in a given situation, false or partial information isimparted, the conclusions cannot be believed. The cure for this, ofcourse, may rightly be sought in the fill'disclosure of truth, and whilethis may not always'be easy to accomplish, it is nonetheless a sover-eign remedy at hand. With respect to' the expedient use of values,however, the meaning of "credibility" changes. Instead of beingrelated to the distance between truth and falsehood, it reflects adishonesty of another kind, that which' is an inevitable concomitantof any justification by moral principle of a program whose ends are,tRobert Hutchinsuihderusu y'.ihe basi'o Inoomiatbiiy betw free univsities 'and "omogeneous'

societies: "Educational systemsanid universities n countries that havemilitant official philosophles maybe able to cope with Industrialliation and specialization 0* *. But they cannot cope with philosophicaldiversity. They cannot allow It. They have to take the view that the last word has been said, or at leastthe last important word, and that to pelt the addition of another Is to promote error and endanger theunity and safety of the state." Op. cit., p. 67.


only pragmatic and direct. It is no longer a matter of "truth," but oattitude,The implication is not, certainly, that expedient ends are wrong o

undesirable. It is rather that expe(lient ends should be justified iiterns of themselves, not in terms of larger, universal principles. Th1elimilnatioll of disease, for example, may be justified in terms of moragood; it may also have the practical effect of producing a more efficientsoldiery. If the purl)ose of the Government is to produce the efficientsoldiery, that purpose should not be concealed under the allegedhumanitarian aim; when this happens, the ostensible reason is seenas false and the Government runs the risk of being considered hypo-critical.

Unfortunately we have sometimes missed this point in designingour assistance programs. Often, we have come to be accused of sub-stituting cant for candor; and, to our loss, timeo Americanos et donaferentes has become a pervasive slogan. Yet, failing to recognize theessence of the problem, we have frequently ascribed the weakness ofsome programs to the garb in which they were clothed, and have thenchanged the packaging rather than the l)roduct.

THE ULTERIOR CAN BE OSTENSIBLE

We may take note that other nations, such as France, equally con-cerned with their national interests, can pursue them withoutadverse criticism and without adverse results. They project, althoughthey do the same things, a different image.The French have for many years, and openly, subsidized educa-tional and economic programs all over the world. They have neverdenied that they have expected benefits to accrue to France: in thewords of M. Jean Basdevant, Director General of Cultural andTechnical Affairs at the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs, "Franceintends to encourage the spread of the French language, that incom-parable means of expression" and to assist in the "training of a foreignintelligentsia and cadres," and in the "spread of French culture in allits forms." 22 Two aspects of this program deserve special attention:(1) France expects to advance its national interests and to maintaina certain dominion; (2) France believes that the inherent values ofits own language and civilization, without distortion, are such as toattract the permanent admiration of all who come in contact withthem.As a result, French overseas programs are within themselves beyond

reproach: their educational standards are equal to those at home incurriculum and staff; those who engage in them are integrated intothe regular French educational organizations and are not put intothe subsidiary categories which our overseas professors often occupy.Tile differeice.between the French experience and our own lies nattitude. Where the French believe in the values they proclaim, weare ambivalent toward our own.The ambivalence is not that of Government servants too often

made into whipping boys: it is the fundamental ambivalence of our""Franee's Cultural Action Throughout The World," New York: Ambaoade de Frane, Service do

Preas et d'lnfomaton, August 196.

GOVERNMENT, UNIVEISITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 13

society.23 Since we see books at home as "useful," we see them inthat light abroad; since we think at home in terms of images, weselect our overseas materials accordingly. The holdings of the aver-age American library abroad are not only small; they are, to put itbluntly, dull. Moreover, they reflect the basis of choice, showing notAmerica as it is, but America as we would like it to appear. Sincein our valuo system the concrete is more important than the abstract,we devote scant appropriations to books, heavy appropriations totangible aids. Ideas, seen in many segments of our cultllure as objectsto be manipulated, are exported, along with their professorial vehi-cles, as so many items. The typical bill of lading, says the cynic,contains one scholar, one set of texts, one trunk, one idea on thevalue of democracy, one insight, and two dependents. The ulteriorbecomes ostensible when we begin to believe in what we say we believe.

THE PRAGMATIC ARGUMENT AGAINST CYNICISM

What American universities and professors accomplish abroad, forthe interests of their country, is not a specific task, but a general oneof reflecting the values of the United States in their persons, theiractions, and their attitudes. With due respect to other nations, thesevalues are not inconsiderable; we have much to belproud of. Indeed,we are better than we permit ourselves to seem. When a professor, asan individual or as a member of a university team, is subsidized toaccomplish a specific political goal, he not only fails, but traduces hisreal role at home and abroad. The recent involvement of a majoruniversity with the Ngo Dinh Diem government of Viet-Nam is sadlyto the point. Foreign policy belongs to Government, not to univer-sities; it belongs to officers of the State Department, not to depart-ments of political science. A blurring of these distinctions results in adouble failure: the professor fails as professor, and he fails as diplomatas well. The Nation gains virtually nothing.Cynicism thus means failure. Success requires, at a minimum, an

abiding belief by Government and the universities in what each isdoing. University programs must therefore be impeccable in them-selves, and not subject to modification to fit expedient ends. Universityprograms cannot be used to implement transient policies unless thesetransient policies are in accord with their primary aims of advancingknowledge and alleviating distress.24 The pressures on the Government,being largely pragmatic, may cause it to approach universities prag-matically. Government should not be criticized for trying, but itshould not always be encouraged to succeed. The officer of the Govern-ment and the university administrator must each judge his activitiesin terms of his primary adhesion to organizational goals; if he doesnot, he is ineffective. In short, the two roles, and the two functions,affairs gre .traridflat.'r:.tiit Wly 'rni. th'd tble restand heni6 witht-i 1it jri~Bgtg s: iiaWh`t7 6togi.s with tei ueofei .hether orand heei66'*tlitIk'Utlar ah o S;g ^not otigo1 til¥iint[at: rSti .era"klis'aldasorda kind ottoiiftilaoneipmanship.There !i'8hi-'ays8 acofinfl ih ' e iaireinour xpr dr desire toiit understandingiet ng/ and our under-

tPace,Undbt derstandng,and Edii0catloVtrhtidin'qJ3i4|du iip< 9'|Omt

4 Ch'reFraloPesr'.sr-IohIt.h:.JBnrstanIYf.tl.As.Antrof Statetor Edt't"catloi"flodCiitldAlffa tihiiairsktai^' 'jdone sidle and.educatiion(1, unid`.iUlttieonthii6otierèach Vodlttohst(eonilxod^ i'fktnt s1 iuit thattiY hfi(oJnflfijti6vrW ram'-tiends toe'i i arFandctdi.ia;prograin.whe(t s tooc:lolyai. vJiblyassociatedwIithi.orte central.cotminiitient ofIan Inormiatbi:o'tral'i .q.iite properly t'th U;8 foreigpoli of themoment,'acceptod as given,whtlethe comitnItmoent or an eoucationl and eultralprogr. n is to op6 endo inq quir;, the free exchange ofopinions, and the search for a common ground for ftiutualunderstanding." "The Neglected Aspect of For-eign Affairs," Washington: The Brookings Institution, 1966, p. 33.


must be kept apart, which is not to say that there can be no complementary area where both can work in harmony without loss. AfteJall, wherever he works, every citizen is part of American society. Hiwill contribute best to its welfare by doing his own job as well as h4can, with respect for htiat others are doing. And, what is true foiAmericans as individuals is equally true for American institutions.

THE SUM OF THE ARGUMENTS

It is to thie advantage of both Government and the universities thattihe distinction between their activities be kept clear. The societywhichlo lonIaer hlas an alutoriomous iiiversity function within it haslost its lluralist strength, and is therefore a poorer society. Universities,however, cannot function without the pragmatic activities of Govern-ment, so that, in effect, each needs the other, and each profits from theother. Attempts to make universities into arms of political policy blurthis distinction and thus weaken the entire society.

In addition, however, such attempts have also been pragmaticfailures. We stand today at a curious point where morality and ex-lediency, often mutually exclusive, in fact go hand in hand. If there

is no excuse, from a moral point of view, for an immoral program, thereis even less excuse for an immoral program which does not work.Motive is less important than the actions it brings about: even; forthose who have no wish to be pure in principle it is sensible to be pureas a matter of practicality. The interests of the intellectual communityand those of the Government in fact coincide: by hewing to an honestline, both how to an effective one. Honesty is good; but, in addition,honesty pays. In short, it is possible to have the best of both possibleworlds.

IV. THE PRESCRIPTION

GOVERNMENTAL COMMITMENT TO INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION

In recent years our traditional commitment to the ideals of educa-tion has been enlarged by an international dimension. PresidentJohnson articulated the new commitment eloquently and persua-sively-first in his Smithsonian address of 1965 and later in his specialmessage to Congress on February 2, 1966:"Education lies at the heart of every nation's hopes and purposes," said the

President. "It must be at the heart of our international relations * * *. Inter-national education cannot be the work of one country. It is the responsibility andpromise of all nations. It calls for free exchange and full collaboration; We expectto receive as much as we give, to learn as well as to teach. Let this Nation playits part."The congressional response to this challenge wan prompt and'nmis-takable. The Internationl Education AAct of 1966i endorsed' the com-mitment, and provided the framework for implementing it. But itwastonly tHtefirst step. It left'a crucial question unanswered: whetherwe would: tolerate, as in international education efforts of the past, aglaring gap between the expression of ideals and their realization-agap sometimes so large as to impeach, in skeptical minds, the sincerityof the commitment itself.

Clearly, it is time to make reality conform to ideal, to allow "con-duct to be an unspoken sermon," and to make practice congruentwith precept. The manner in which a nation allocates its scarce re-

GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS. 15

sources, thle manner in which it spends its public treasure, is the mostrecrealing index of its values and priorities-the clearest reflection ofthe relative importance it attaches to the things in which it believes.If we mean what we say,, therefore, if we adhere to the values enunci-ated by President Johnson, we must translate that conviction intothe unambiguous dollar terms of. governmental budgets. We mustprovide significant, massive, and comprehensive financial support forinternational education in its broadest sense; and this means supportfor American higher education on a scale unparalleled in history.Some profess that universities cannot maintain their autonomy

unless they have nothing to do with governmental activities. This iserroneous. In fact, universities' independence is greater when fundsare available which enable them adequately to carry out their tasks,and few universities today have the requisite private resources to do so.

CAPITAL AND SUSTAINING GRANTS

In order to strengthen the universities for a role in internationaleducation, the Government should change the character and shiftthe emphasis of its financial support from mission-oriented projectgrants to sustaining capital grants. It should provide stable, long-range,continuing, and predictable funding for research and instructionalprograms in international education, so as to build up the universities'fundamental academic capabilities for discharging their internationalresponsibilities. It should make an investment in the universitiesrather than merely buying services from them.The idea of capital grants is by no means revolutionary. The Gov-

ernmnent has already made modest gestures in this direction with thenew institutional grants of the National Science Foundation, thegeneral research support and facilities grants to medical schools by theNational Institutes of Health, the sustaining university grants of theNational Aeronautics and Space Administration, and the Office ofEducation grants to universities for buildings and equipment. Themodel exists; it remains to be elaborated, generalized, and sys-ternatized.Unlike the "overhead" support from mission-oriented projects, a

system of institutional capital grants provides "an economic andfeasible way of enlarging the international competence of highereducation in the United States" and gives "society at large a muchgreater reserve strength for its international commitments in the longrun." 25 Such support is aimed at the central nervous system of theuniversities-the academic and the scholarly. Such support does notrequire that universities change their roles or their belief systems, northat the universities 'transform their character in order to qualify.Such support' inhibits the growth on campuses of administrative unitswhich merely. ape their governmental counterparts. Such supportslows the proliferation of administrative sheep in academic garb, anddiscourages the appearance of academic floorwalkers who pace theperipheries of the university world without knowledge or interest orconcern. Instead, such support contributes to the growth and enrich-ment of intellectual disciplines, which have inherent. validity as wellas potential usefulness, such as international politics and diplomacy;comparative government and economic systems; population andpublic health; international trade and economic development;:

Miller, op. clt., pp. 09-70.


languages and linguistics; human development, education, and chiludevelopment.

It is this kind of support which the Congress envisioned, witlcommendable breadth of understanding and principle, in the International Edlucaltion Act of 1966; it is the kind of support which wilmake it possible for universities to be the places they should be-where it is possible, in the words of William Nagle, "to dream, tcthink, to act as intellectual gadflies in our society, to qtiestion * * *." 2tSuch support will make the university commentator and critic,thinker iand innovator, which can engage Government in that kind ofdialog which brings al)out progress.The country deservess no less. Whatever formula is finally adopted

for allocating capital grants among the universities,27 this basic in-vestmene t in education is far better in prinIilple than the use of stylizedcontractual programs designed to ac(oml)lish specific, short-term aimsan(l (ontail)ing within them the seeds of serious liabilities. It is alsofar superior in l)ractice.

CAPITAL GRANTS AN) THE COVETOUSNESS OF UNIVERSITIES

The belief is not uncommon that in Government-university rela-tionships it is the university which has been corrupted by deliberateand seductive blandishment. Such a belief is only partly true, andoverlooks the fact that few seductions are successful where there hasnot been a similarity of values. A bait is refused which is not con-sidered delicious. certainly Government has attempted to makeparticipation its programs attractive to the universities, but' itfound a most ready willingness on their part. In some cases not muchwas required: the offer of access 'to an Embassy soda fountain haslured many a scholar from his lore; the vision of an expanded juris-diction has entranced a score of deans. The fact is that universitieshave coveted what the Government has offered, and so long as theycontinue to see profit-in funds, buildings, enlargelment or presige-in Government programs, they will continue to covet them. The systemof capital investments reduces this covetousness to normal proportioinsand channels it into constructive lines: where the major profit will bein terms of fundamental academic values, there can be no objectionto a desire to have it.

It would be naive to suppose, however, that the capital grants wehave proposed will eliminate completely the system of nission-oriented project contracts. This means that a mechanism must bedeveloped :which will provide the necessary safeguardsagainstpotential-ab.use. Criteria must be spelledoutt-o gide government andthe universities in their contract relationship. External checks mustbe established, on both Governn.ent and the universities, to achievetwo basic objectives: the dimniiltion of academic covetousness onthe one hand, and the desire of Government for a precipitate satis-facti6n of immediate and transitory needs, on thie other. Only througha selective application of these checks can a climate be created inwhich' project contracts make a tuseful conltribiition-without com-promisiig the Government-university relationship.W .Nagle,opclt., p.317. ;*':~' :.'. ..,... ... .... t

One rklbiltyis the or la'prow in heMiller bl(I 87, th Cong.), Another alterhit veIl toteot the capltl grants to the size of an Instittlion's research budget the number of tiindtrgradtiates Ittrains, and the number of advanced degrees It grants over a 5-year base periol. Some allowance of course,wold have to be made for "smaller" fnstltutlois and for "newcomers' to the field of intefratiorlal edu-cation.

GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS 17WHAT THE GOVERNMENT MUST DO

1. Every project suggested for implementation by a universityshould, in the first instance, be submitted to a professional panel(drawn from national associations such as the American EconomicAssociation, the Modern Language Association, the American HospitalAssociation, and the like.2

2. Each such project should be examined by the panel in order toldtermine:

(a) whether the project is inherently valid in terms of profes-sional criteria;

(b) whether the project, even thoughprofessionally valid, issuitable for a university to undertake; and

(c) which universities have the requisite resources in facultyand facilities to assure the probable success of the project.

3. Any project deemed unsuitable by the panel, for any of theabove reasons, will be abandoned by the Government insofar as imple-

ellntation by universities is concerned.4. Any acceptable project will be offered by Government to the

universities suggested by the panel in order of their competence forthat project. Under these conditions the Governmeint will know thatit is apl)roaching the "right" university; tlie university will havereasonable assurance that the project is professionally sound, and tliatits involvement will be free from reproach, taint, or ambiguity.

5. The Government will reimburse the university only for directcosts. There will be no overhead.

WHAT THE UNIVERSITIES MUST DO

'l'he absence of overhead funds will, of course, have been offset1)3' the extensive capital grants from Governlment which we haveI)roposed. The "no overhead" rule, however, will produce anotherdesirable result: it will weaken the university's temptation to applyother than academic standards to projects sSiggested by the Gov-erlnment. To put it unambiguously, the profit will have been taken outof the contract system, and the munificent fringe benefits will nolonger be operative as attractive inducements. The university willthen do what it must do:

1. Consider each project in the light of its own intellectualstandards and capabilities.

2. Compute the cost of the project in terms of the diversion ofstaff and resources from its on-campus teaching and researchfunctions.

3. Evaluat hethre'-opjedt in terms of its internal value system,its intellectual priorities, and its multiple responsibilities.

4. Estimate the long-range contribution that the project islikely to make to the strengthening of the university as aneducational institution.

5. Reappraise the value to the university of the contactpromoters and project salesmen-and encourage these now-redundant mountebanks to seek more compatible climates.

"The riitlinale of tslggesI rSts 6n rthe beloithat theprofession s are anImporanl safegua rd againstorganizational ldurteaui'ales; lh'] 'bilt of g6ve}iiTfeit.i As Johh- W? Orldner polits but, !Tle loyalty oftlteprofessional ninl is tohils professiontd not to the organizatloi that mnay house hlm at any given mo-ment * * '. The men the chemist thinks of as his colleagues are not those who occupy neighboring officesbut his fellow professionals wherever they may be throughout the country, even throughout the world.""Self-Renewal," New York: Harper & Row, 1964, p. 83.


Ill short, tile absence of overhead will collmpel tile universities tomake their ''cost-leneffit" analysis of proposed projects il real termsrather than money terms.

V. THE PROGNOSIS

GENERAL EFFECTS

This suggested prescription may be defended in terms of principle;it. mayl also be defended as practical. Universities would be the greatbeneficiaries of such a change in policy, for in retirnifoir giving up thlleobvious and immediate advantages of overhead support, they wouldlay rightful claim to a support far more meaniligfiil: financial backingfor their real work in the form of general, capital investment grants byGovernment. By puttilig this money to use in the strengthening of theestablished disciplines and in the encouragement of new and imagina-tive fields of inquiry, the universities would reap genuine, not spurious,renown. By expanding intellectually rather than in tlie size of empire,tile universities would divest themselves of unattractive personneland come closer to a realization of their identity, The graduates of suchuniversities would be better equipped to serve their country, in or outof Government. The universities would retain their autonomy andyet recognize their responsibilities to society. American pluralismwould be reinforced-to the general benefit of all sectors of society,pragmatic and theoretical. And, in a world tending so greatly to fallunder the sway of monolithic governments, a pluralistic America,with free dialog, and proper separation of functions, would stand asan important and powerful example.

SPECIFIC EFFECTS

In the course of time, the number and scope of contract programswould tend to diminish, and those which remained would be carefullyselected. A certain number of programs, especially those unsuitablefor universities, but necessary for Government, would have to beundertaken either by private or by governmental organizations; inany case, by appropriate organizations. The Government wouldreceive full value from universities and not be shortchanged, throughthe circumstance of "buying" from them only that which they arefitted to "sell." The links between the professions and; the Govern-ment would be streinngthened, with a corresponding increase in under-standing of the different standards and values. Graduiates of univer-sities would be better equipped to serve and our overseas programswould be increasingly free from the dichotomy which we have men-tioned. A period of administrative readijuimet 'would ensue, butalong with it would come a reassessment and a reaffirmation of values,a clarification of identity, an openness of purpose, afid an end to theambiguity which has only served to createmisunderstanding and toobscure the fact that most men, if given the: chance to know and toappreciate who they are, are men of good will. A democracy' an askfor no more to achieve success.

0

Documents

GOVERNMENT, UNIVERSITIES, AND A - state.gov