7 4

. r ft/i 

St 9

GOVERNMEN'

KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES

STUDENT VIEWS TOWARD UNITED STATES

POLICY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

Storage

H E A R I N G S

BEFORE AN

I AD HOC COMMITTEE OF MEMBERS OF TH E 

HOU SE OF RE PR ES EN TA TIVE S

NI NE TY -FI RS T CONGRESS

SECO ND SESSION

MAY 21 AND 22, 1970

ME MB ERS OF TH E AD HOC COM MIT TEE

PAUL FIN DL EY , Illino is, Chairma n

EDWARD P. BOLAND, Massach usett s VERNON W. THOMSON, Wisconsin

DANTE B. FAS CEL L, Fl or id a HOWARD W. ROBISON, New York

FLOYD W. HIC KS, Wash ing ton

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFIC E 

46-487 WASHINGTON : 1970
*

j

W

w
FOREWORD

Two days of hea rings were held on May 21 a nd 22 by an informal 

Ad Hoc Committee which included several members of the Foreign 

Affairs Committee, for the purpose of receiving student views on 

United States policy in Southeast Asia. So th at the full membership 

of the committee and other Members of the House of Representatives 

may have the opportunity to study and consider the views of the 

students who testified, the hearings are being made available in “committee print” form. This does not connote either approval or disapproval of any of the statements made by members of the Ad Hoc 

Committee or of the witnesses.

T hom as E. Morgan, 

Chairman. Committee on Foreign Affairs.

dm

*

C O N T E N T S

LIST OF WIT NESSE S

Thursday, May 21, 1970

Time Na me College or unive rsity Hom e of princi pal witness Page

9:00 Greg Ra mbo __ Kent Sta te Univ ersity, 

Kent, Ohio.

Zanesville, Ohio.. __ 4

9:15 Steve Kramer, 

Jim Nash, 

Steve Pa rker, Lane 

Langford,

Jon Conte.

Whittie r College, 

Whittier, Calif.

Phoenix, A riz _____ 9

9:30 Lon Williams__ Southern Methodist 

University, Dallas, 

Tex.

Dallas, Tex ___ 15

9:45 Robert Cha se .._ Da rtm outh College, 

Hanover, N.II.

Glenview, Ill 18

10:15 Thomas

Graves.

J. Griffin

Lesher,

Robert McDougall.

Columbia School of Internation al Affairs, 

New York City.

Fletcher School of Law 

and Diplomacy, Tufts 

Univ ersity, Medford, 

Mass.

Chevy Chase, Md__ 22

22

10:30 Russell Wise__ Central Connecticut 

State College, New 

Britain, Conn.

27

10:45 Danny Atwood. University of North 

Carolina, Greensboro, 

N.C.

Charleston, S.C 33

11:00 Thomas Pe tti ­

grew, Jr. 

Michael H. 

Zimmerman.

Chico Sta te College, 

Chico, Calif, 

do

Redding, Calif

Livermore, Calif .

37

38

11:15 Paul Wacker, 

Steve Valliere, Jim

Van Zee.

Marshall High School, 

McLean, Va.

Vienna, Va _ _ _ _ 40

11:30 Jack Berger___ Principia College, Elsah,

Ill.

St. Louis, Mo — 44

11:45 Richard W. 

Gunning.

University of Virginia 

Law School, Charlottesville, Va.

Springfield, Ill _ _ 47

12:00 David J. Mehlman.

Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Md.

College of New Rochelle, 

New Rochelle, N.Y.

. . d o

Chicago, Ill 51

12:15 Michele Bisson.

Marianne

Walzer.

Newport, R.I

Easto n, Conn _ .

55

56

(V)
VI

Tim e Na me

12:30 David T.

Anderson. 

12:45 Mark Weinstein.

1:15 Thomas L.

Gowen, Jr.

1:30 John D. Cooper.

1:45 Ka thy Grieb, 

Susan 

Griffith, 

Nancy 

Griffin, Dee 

Dee Kerswell, 

Bob Scheelen.

2:00 Wayne A.

Braffman.

2:15 Thomas

Griffiths 

Ellison, P.U. 

Dierauf.

2:30 David L.

Thomas.

2:45 Cally Lewis___

3:00 Murphy Davis, 

Miss Good, 

Carson 

Pease.

3:15 Neil Oxman___

3:45 Joh n R. Co ok ..

4:00 Dick Moss,

George Leifer, 

Larry Finn, 

Ivonne 

Hughes, Kenneth Wiseman.

4:15 Mark McCafferty, 

George Utz, 

Bob Halstead, 

Dennis Robinson, Bob 

Canning.

4:30 Andrew Feinstein.

4:45 Ken Kendler__

5:00 Norman Taylor, 

Ralph Jasper, 

Sheila Flemming, Anthony Godbodlt, Constance Proctor, John 

Banks.

College or univ ers ity

Wittenberg Univ ersity,

Springfield, Ohio. 

Queens College,

Flushing, N.Y . 

Ilav erfo rd College,

Haverford, Pa. 

Ham pton Institute,

Ham pton, Va.

Hollins College, Roanoke,

Va.

Hom e o f prin cip al witn ess

For t Lauderdale, Fla. 

Middle Village, N .Y 

Meadow Brook, Pa. .

Chestertown, Md__

Page

58

63

69

73

77

Brown University, Glen Ridge, N .J ___

Providence, R.I.

University of Virginia_______________________

Have rford College, 

Haverford, Pa.

Mary Baldwin College, 

Staunton, Va.

Mary Baldwin College, 

Staunton, Va.

Villanova Univ ersity, 

Villanova, Pa.

Kalamazoo College, 

Kalamazoo, Mich.

John Jay College of 

Criminal Justice, The 

City University of 

New York, New 

York, N.Y .

University of Delaware, 

Newark, Del.

Wesleyan Univ ersity, 

Middletown, Conn.

University of California 

at Santa Cruz, Santa 

Cruz, Calif.

Bethune-C ookm an 

College, Daytona 

Beach, Fla.

Scarsdale, N. Y_____

Homer, Mic h______

Flushing, N .Y _____

Wilmington, Del___

West Hartford,

Conn.

San ta Barbara , Calif.

82

87

95

100

102

108

112

116

120

123

129

133

w

*

«

9:00 Edw ard Lee 

Rosenthal.

9:15 Ted Najam ___

Friday, May 22, 1970

Rutgers Univ ersity, New Baltimore, Md--------

Brunswick, N.J.

Ha rvard Law School, Bloomington, In d----

Cambridge, Mass.

137

142
Tim e Name

vn

College or university Home of princip al witness Page

9:30 John Marron, Johns Hopkins Univer- Davenport, Iow a----- 147

9:45

Spencer 

Warren, Tim 

Kana,

Steven Buckingham. 

Michael F.

sity, Baltimore, Md.

Xavier University, Cin- Brooklyn, N.Y_____ 152

10:15

Ford, Bob 

Hubbard. 

Bruce W. T aycinnati, Ohio.

Rutge rs Univ ersity, New Heightstown, N.J___ 156

10:30

lor.

C. David KraBrunswick, N.J. 

Shippensburg College, Shippensburg, P a.— 161

10:45

mer, Merl 

Arnold.

Richard Ball —

Shippensburg, Pa.

Michigan Sta te Univer- Washington, D.C ___ 165

w

11:00 Jon athan C.

sity, East Lansing, 

Mich.

Ju niata College, Modesto, Calif. . — 171

11:15

Hun ter, Carl 

Kendik.

Robert Walsh __

Huntingdon, Pa.

Rhode Island School of Providence, R.I — 176

11:45 James W. DiaDesign, Providence,

R.I.

Brown University, Prov- 180

12:15

mond.

Terry Ea sto n__

idence, R.I.

Joh ns Hopkins Univer- 187

12:30 Eric Shafer __

sitv, Baltimore, Md. 

Muhlenberg College, Al- Wyomissing, Pa ------ 190

12:45 Ran dv Surlentown, Pa.

Wisconsin Sta te Uni- Minocqua, Wis_____ 193

1:00

baugh,

Robert

Jauch.

Mark D. Noversity, Eau Claire,

Wis.

Colgate University, Chicago, Il l. . — . 198

1:15

zette.

Sara Mrsich___

Hamilton, N.Y.

Good Counsel College, Mahopac, N.Y-------- 203

1:30 Peter Burling,

White Plains, N.Y.

Ohio Wesleyan Univer- Hartford, Con n------- 208

2:00

David Bowman, Rick 

Mellott. 

Lawrence

sity, Delaware, Ohio.

Mohawk Valley Com- Langley Park, Md — 214

2:15

Sutherlan d.

Stephen R.

nninity College, Utica, 

N.Y.

Colby College, Water- Hull, Mass. ---------- 218

*

2:30

Orlov,

William

Alfond.

Marc Lee

ville, Maine.

Johns Hopkins Univer- Williamstown Ma ss. 223

a 2:45

Krizack. 

Harold C.

sity, Baltimore, Md. 

Drew University, Teaneck, N.J 228

3:00

Gordon.

Cynthia

Madison, N.J.

Carlow College, Pittsburgh, Pa-------- 232

3:15

Pringle.

Greg Wald en__

Pittsburgh, Pa. 

Graceland College, Ann Arbor, Mich----- 237

3:30

Jack Rya n

John McNeal

Lamoni, Iowa. 

Marycrest College,

Davenport, Iowa. 

Williams College, Chattanooga , Tenn._

240

243

Wilson, Pete 

Harnik.

Bob Neal,

Fred Hollister, John 

Corless.

Williamstown, Mass.

Wesleyan University, 

Middletown, Conn.
V III

Tim e Na me

3:45 David

McKenzie, 

John Mason, 

Michael 

Kutzer.

4:00 Hans Sellge____

4:15 Mark A.

Kalish.

College or university

La Salle College,

Philadelphia, Pa.

Ohio State University, 

Columbus, Ohio.

University of Illinois, 

Champaign-Urbana,

Ill.

Home of prin cip al wit nes s Page

___________________ 247

___________________ 252

Chicago, Ill________ 255

AP PE ND IX

Statem ents submitted for the record by those studen ts whose request to

testify came after all of the time had been allocated:

Christine E. Fisher, Mills College of Educa tion___________________ 259

Jack R. Holt, Northea stern Illinois Sta te College_________________ 259

Theodore C. Agresta, Northe aste rn Illinois Sta te College__________ 260

Donald Girard, North Adams Sta te College______________________ 260

Jerry Baram, North Adams Sta te College_______________________ 260

James E. House, Ind iana Sta te University_______________________ 262

Donald Rauh, Northwestern University_________________________ 262

Tom Pe tty , Brown University __ _____________________________ 263

Rober t Julian, Patrick Parish, Anthony Tripodi, and R. Richard

Vogel, Utica College________________________________________ 264

Vickie Mitchell, Anna Marie College____________________________ 266

Anne L. Boedecker, Vassar College_____________________________ 267

Donald D. Blaustein, George Washington Un ive rsity_____________ 268

David A. Keene, University of W isconsin__ .____________________ 269

Pote P. Videt, Phillips Exeter Academy_________________________ 271

Rober t Polack, College Republican National Com mittee __________ 273

Mariann e Sollazzo___________________________________________ 274

Mike Myers, Xavier Un ive rsity________________________________ 276

Dave Kaiser, College Republican s of Minnesota__________________ 276

*
HEARINGS ON STUDENT VIEWS TOWARD UNITED 

STATES POLICY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

TH U R SD A Y , M AY 21 , 19 70

HOUSE OF R E P R E S E N T A T IV E S AD HO C C O M M IT TEE 

P A U L F IN D L E Y , C H A IR M A N

ED W A R D P. BOLA ND H O W A R D W . RO BI SO N

D A N TE B. FA SCELL FL OYD V. H IC K S

V ER N O N W . TH OMSO N

Washington, D.C.

The committee met at 9 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul Findley (chairman of the ad hoc committee) 

presiding.

Mr. Findley. Sixty-three young men and women are scheduled for these 2 days of hearings before this special panel. We will stay in continuous session today until half of them have been recognized, and follow the same procedure for the remaining half on Frid ay. At the door you should have received a registry form. If you wish to be notified late r as to the availability of reports of these hearings, fill out the registry form and leave it at the desk in the 

reception room across the hall. May I introduce members of the panel, in the order of the ir ac­ cession to it. I have the gavel only because I first had the idea of these hearings and acted upon it. Edw ard P. Boland (Democrat, Mass.), Appropriations, ninth term ; Dante B. Fascell (Democrat, Fla .), Foreign Affairs, eighth term ; Vernon W. Thomson (Repub­ lican, Wis.), Foreign Affairs, fifth term : Howard W. Robison (Re­ publican, X.Y.), Approp riations, seventh term: and Floyd W. Hicks 

(Democrat, Wash.), Armed Services, third term. Each has taken an active role in regard to policies in Southeast Asia, both as a result of his committee responsibilities and as an individual member. I am grateful to each for his participation. Each witness has a message for the Congress. Each has gone to considerable effort and expense to prepare and present it. Several have journeyed from the west coast for this specific purpose. Each witness must present 20 copies of his prepared statement to the committee clerk, Mr. Bob Wichser, in advance of being recognized. 

(1)
2

Tn order to be fa ir and considerate, we must keep as close to schedule as possible. Please do not applaud. This will serve only to take 

time from the witnesses.

Accordingly the chair will endeavor to be both precise and fair.

As soon as 10 minutes have elapsed the gavel will strike, and the 

time for the prepared statement will end. Members of Congress on 

the panel will be recognized in order for one question each until a 

10-minute question period has elapsed. Fu rth er dialogue with tha t 

witness cannot be considered until all other witnesses scheduled for 

the day have been heard.

Tn responding to a question, please be as brief as possible. You may 

be surprised how swiftly 10 minutes fly by.

We have scheduled four witnesses per hour. Tf all witnesses appear, 

we of course will run considerably overtime by the end of the day. 

I hope you will bear with us.

Before proceeding with the first witness, T want to thank all those 

who have cooperated to make this possible. First, the members of 

the panel. Also, Chairman Morgan of the Foreign Affairs Committee who has given permission for the use of the main committee 

room for the hearings, and the staff of the Foreign Affairs Committee for their assistance. Those who will testify are to be commended for the time, thought, and expense they have undertaken 

to prepare a statement and travel to Washington to deliver it. Tn 

many cases, the witnesses came long distances, at their own expense, 

to appear brieflv before this committee. A special expression of appreciation should be mentioned to all of those from colleges and 

universities across the Nation whose request to testify came too 

late to be scheduled. We are indeed pleased at the response, and the 

expression of support and encouragement received from all quarters. 

We all wish that additional time could be arranged so th at all who 

wished to testify could be accommodated.

Finally, on behalf of each member of this panel, we want to express our appreciation to our personal staffs, upon whom the extra 

burden of arrangin g these hearings has fallen, and who will shortly 

be faced with the monumental task of typing up the transcript of 

the dialogue which follows. Each of these staff members has his or 

her own regular duties, and this added responsibility has and will 

require many extra hours of work. From Mr. Hicks’ office: Jim 

Hansen, Dianne Church, Danny Locket. Shirley Puishis, and John 

Horslev. From Mr. Fascell’s office: John Buckley, Gary Brooks, 

Carl Freeman, and Clem Bezold. From Mr. "Robison’s office: Chuck 

Tngraham and Barbara Wallace. From Mr. Thomson’s office: Denny 

Dennis. From Mr. Boland’s office: John Walsh and Grace Glaser. 

From Mr. Mize’s office: Charles Freburg and Marilyn Smith. And 

my own staff, each of whom literally has done double duty during 

these past weeks: Helen A rthur, Madelyn Evans, Etta Fagan . Mariio 

Gorney, Gary Madson, Patty Milligan. Evelyn Pali, Vicki Terio, 

and Bob Wichser. To all of these people, T am personally grateful.

The purpose of these hearings is to explore the opinions of men 

and women of college age in regard to TT.S. military policy in Southeast Asia and related questions. The ramifications of this policy on 

college campuses and elsewhere have been amply demonstrated in 

recent weeks. All of us on Capitol Hill have been made aware of
3

the intensity of opinion in this area, and especially among young 

people. This can be explained partly because young people are those most directly affected by war. In my opinion, the reasons go much deeper. Many young people have begun to wonder whether our 190-year-old system of government really meets the needs of a modern society. Others who do not entertain this doubt still seriously question the domestic and foreign priorities which our Nation has pursued in recent years. These are certainly questions which need to be con­ tinually asked. They are like the questions which each member of this panel must answer each time he casts his vote on the floor of 

the House. As we enter into this unique experience in exploring opinion, let s keep something in mind, all of us. L et’s understand the difficulty of settling whether opinions are right or wrong. What is there to 

measure them by? Speaking of man’s search for tru th in an argument to a jury in 

1920, Clarence Darrow had this to say:

It is no t giv en to m an to be su re of th e tr u th . . . . Above ev er yth in g else on eart h, men sh ou ld clin g fa st to th e ir ri ght to ex am in e ev er y quest io n; to listen to ev eryo ne , no m a tt e r who h e is : to h ear th e spok en wor ds an d re ad th e w ritten w o rd s; b ec au se if you sh ut men ’s m ou th s and para ly ze t heir min ds , th en th e gre ate st t ru th th a t is ne ce ss ar y fo r th e w el fa re of th e hu m an ra ce m ay die .

That is what Mr. Darrow had to say, and I think good advice for all of us. Are there any comments other members of the panel would 

like to make at this point? Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think these hearings are going to be extremely useful and I am sure they will be beneficial 

to all of us.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly obvious from the size of the crowd the interest tha t these students have evidenced. It is not only an exercise, but I think also an excellent dramatization of the deep feelings tha t the students in colleges throughout the Nation have about not only the war, but other problems in America. Your presence here today is appreciated by all of us. I thin k tha t the very fact that you are here, and the very fact tha t Members of Congress are willing to listen, indicate that oftentimes the system can and will work, and we hope that we can make it work a little 

better for you.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Robison.

Mr. R obison. Mr. Chairman, I would like to extend my apprecia­ tion to you for the idea of making these hearings possible, and for bringing them to reality today. I am looking forward very much to the testimony tha t will be presented to us.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it has all been verv well stated, and I hope that we spend more time listening today 

and less in expressing our own views.

Mr. Findley. I would like to mention the presence of two other Members of the House, Mr. Frelinghuysen, of New Jersey, and Mr. Pucinski, of Illinois. You are most welcome.
4

The first witness today is a student at Kent State University in 

Kent, Ohio, Greg Rambo of Zanesville, Ohio. I believe Mr. Rambo 

has brought forward his testimony. Mr. Rambo, would you take the 

witness chair? You have 10 minutes Mr. Rambo. Please identify 

yourself and proceed.

Mr. Rambo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY GREG RAMBO, KENT STATE UNIV ERSITY

Mr. Rambo. My name is Greg Rambo and I reside in Zanesville,

Ohio. I am a student at Kent State University majoring in public *

relations. I serve as a counselor in an all-freshman dormitory 

complex housing approximately 2,000 students.

First of all, I would like to express my own views on America’s 

present Southeast Asia policy. Secondly, as an eye-witness to many *

of the events tha t took place prio r to my university’s closing, I 

would like to give what I consider to be an objective and factual 

account of what I saw. Also, T would like to make some observations 

about campus dissent in general, and offer some positive suggestions 

on how to cope with it.

My original reaction to the President’s Cambodia decision was 

strongly unfavorable. I saw it as a widening of the war in Indochina.

The fact that this was the prevailing sentiment among my fellow 

students served to reinforce my original opinion. Like many college students today, T failed to look or listen to the other side; in 

this case President Nixon’s reasons for sending American troops 

into the enemy sanctuaries in Cambodia.

After the closing of Kent State following the fatal shooting of 

four of our students, I have had the opportunity to talk with other 

students, do more reading on the situation, and to generally reexamine and reconsider my original position.

I now feel the President made a wise decision in sending American troops into these enemy sanctuaries. His principal objective— 

to protect the lives of American troops in Vietnam and to insure 

the continued success of the withdrawal program—was well served 

.by this decision. I now believe tha t it was imperative for the safety 

of our remaining American forces in South Vietnam and for the *

continued safe withdrawal of American forces that this action was 

taken.

T have come to this decision partly because of President Nixon’s 

promise to have American forces out of Cambodia by the end of *

June, and I deplore the attempt by some U.S. Senators to limit 

the funding of the Cambodia operation beyond this time.

Such action is an insult to the integrity of the President of the 

United States. Legislation of this nature should only be considered 

after the President has had a chance to keep his word.

This decision in regard to the Cambodia operation admittedly 

has been a factor in recent campus disturbances, but I want to emphasize tha t it was only one of many factors. This is particula rly 

true of the disturbances on the Kent State University campus.

This is best illustrated by a personal experience on the Sunday 

night before the fatal shooting of the four Kent State students. A
group of about 500 persons were sitting down in the middle of Main 

Street in front of the campus. I was standing beside a good frien d 

of mine, John P. Hayes, who was a reporter for our campus newspaper. He asked tlie leader of the sit-in, what their objectives were.

lie paused for several moments and answered tha t first of all, 

they wanted the curfew lifted from the downtown area, the National 

Guard removed from the campus, tha t ROTC be abolished, that 

complete amnesty be given to all students arrested up to that time, 

and almost as an afterthought, he stated tha t they opposed President 

Nixon’s sending troops into Cambodia.

I was, furthermore, an eye-witness to the shootings. Although I 

cannot say for certain whether or not there was sniper fire before 

the National Guard began to fire, I heard no shots before their ’s. 

Some minutes pri or to the shooting, the National Guards’ lives did 

appear to be in danger. At the actual time of the shooting, however, 

such did not appe ar to be the case, which leads me to believe that 

a shot other than the ir’s could have prompted their fire.

Speaking more generally of campus dissent, certainly there is a 

small group of hard-core radicals who seek to change society and 

close the universities by violent demonstrations, but even on the 

largest campuses, these never number more than two or three hundred. There are large numbers of students who remain blissfully 

unconcerned about world and university problems, but both this 

group and tha t largest group which is concerned but is not always 

vocal and never violent, show some tendency toward radicalization 

in the heat of crises such as w’e have seen in recent weeks.

Antiwar sentiment is of three basic types: A belief tha t war is 

immoral; a belief tha t this war is illegal: or a belief that this war 

is not in our best interest. Disagreement on the Cambodia decision 

is generally based on the idea that it constitutes an illegal invasion 

of another country, is a widening of the war. or, while sound militarily, was unwise because anticipated domestic repercussions should 

have been a higher priority.

Another cause of increasing radicalization is the growing feeling 

that only violence elicits institutional response. There have been 

some very serious problems of communication on many campuses. 

Many times the conciliatory word tha t would quell the mob is not 

forthcoming. “We will not be intimidated” has become as obnoxious 

a cliche as “We are never listened to.” Even when there is communication, however, bureaucracy and redtape often forestall desirable 

changes for literally years. Please understand tha t the concerned nonviolent which I spoke of earlier have many legitimate grievances 

which are not being dealt with adequately, and their frustra tion is 

building.

Despite all of this, the overwhelming majority of students remain 

committed to constructive nonviolent dissent, but there is a consensus tha t if the radicals choose to shut down a campus, it is difficult 

to prevent them. Witness the Ohio University situation where students and administration were united in an effort to keep the peace 

and keep the university open. The only answer seems to be—and 

there is a broad base of agreement here—that the hard-core must 

be isolated. This can only be done by the students. This isolated 

group must then be rendered ineffective. This is a job for the ad-
6

ministration and civil authorities, but a serious problem arises because the students have reached a state of distrust toward these 

two groups, and any act directed toward the rendering ineffective of 

the hard-core would at th is point in time suffer from a lack of widespread student support which is essential to such an operation.

But if (and this is our Nation’s biggest “if”), university administrations, State governments, and the Nixon administration can convince the concerned nonviolent tha t you are listening and are interested in what they have to say and show signs of being responsive 

(and none of this group expects to dictate national or university 

policy) then there will be strong support by this group for isolating 

and rendering the hard-core ineffective. I have some proposals of a more specific nature which I must 

confess have been difficult to arrive at. The first is the establishment 

of a student advisory council which would meet regularly and be 

made up of students of all political philosophies, not just young Republicans or “straight” or ’’conservative” types. The second is the 

establishment of a conference under White House auspices which 

would include college administrators, faculty, students and State 

legislators to discuss general university problems with an eye toward 

making general recommendations on ways to loosen the rigidity of 

present university structures. Again, a diversity of philosophy is 

desirable. Perhaps this could be more efficiently done on a regional 

level. The third is to send members of the Nixon administration 

to the campuses, especially Cabinet officers such as Secretaries Rogers, 

Hickel, Finch, Romney, Volpe and Blount, not only to address assemblies but to circulate among the students on campus. Students 

would be impressed, and I feel tha t this would at least dispell most 

of the criticism tha t the administration is not listening, and help our 

President’s goal of “bringing us together” a reality.

Mr. Findley. Thank you, Mr. Rambo. As I mentioned earlier, our 

procedure will be to recognize each of the six members of the panel 

in order for one question each. If any of the panel members wish 

to yield his time to another Member of the House present here, he 

may do so, of course. And if there’s time within the 10-minute 

period for other questions from those not members of the panel, 

we will certainly accommodate those requests at tha t point. Mr. 

Fascell will be first.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rambo, I get the 

definite impression from listening to your testimony tha t your observation is tha t as far as the discontent and frustration and violence 

on campus is concerned that if it has anything to do with Southeast Asia it takes a very low priority. And yet at the same time 

you suggest—and I admire you for your constructive and specific 

suggestion—you suggest we ought to show signs of being responsive. 

If tha t applies to us, the Congress, as part of the establishment, I 

just wonder, other than the President taking the steps you've specified here, which I think are good by the way, I think a White House 

conference is excellent on this subject—what do you suggest the 

Congress do to show itself to be more responsive to the problems of 

the campus if they don’t have anything to do with the war?

Mr. Rambo. As I stated before, there are a number of different 

issues on campuses. Like at Ohio State the 15 demands they pre-
7

sented were basically university demands, and what I ’m saying is things like this where the students can come before Members of Con­ gress and express their views are fine. But when I stated that on our campus it was a low priority, the Cambodian situation in South Vietnam was a low priority on our campus, and it just seemed th at there were students there who basically, the way it started, just wanted to cause trouble. And, of course, as the head of that group stated, he listed his demands and th at ’s the way I heard it.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. Mr. Rambo, you suggested that the administration

* should send particular officials of the administration to the campuses to discuss some of the matters the students are interested in, not alone the war, but they’re interested in a great number of issues; all of us applaud the students for that. What sort of guarantee

* can you have the students will listen on the campus to members of this administration? They didn’t listen to the members of the Cabinet of the last administration either. So really it’s not a question of par ­ tisanship. It’s really a question of some students just won't listen to people who go there who present views of the administration.

Mr. Rambo. I agree with you. I think tha t when we tal k about sending administration officials to campuses to listen to what stu­ dents have to say I think it has to be a 50-50 type proposition; not only does the administration have to listen but the students should listen to what the administration has to say, and if this can’t be done then I suggest tha t the only way t ha t this can be done would be possibly have the administration officials meet in smaller groups. Really I don’t think much good is going to come out of having Sec­ retary Finch or somebody coming to campuses speaking in front of a large crowd and just speaking. I thin k the thin g he’s got to do is speak in small groups and listen to what the students have to say in small groups. I think the answer lies in that.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks, would you grab the mike and pull it 

over, please.

Mr. Hicks. Mr. Rambo, what do you believe the responsibility of the student on the campus, K ent State University for example, is to cool it as it were, to keep tensions from reaching the point tha t they do? In other words, what alternative is there to what Gov-

' ernor Rhodes did ?

Mr. Rambo. Well, I know at our university, and I ’m a counselor in the dorms as I said, and I did a lot of work and a lot of the counselors did in trying to cool down at least some of the fresh­ men because they’re very young, you know, and they went out just for the excitement of it. A number of the students did help try to put out the fire at the ROTC Building and t ry to stop demonstrators from throw ing rocks. You can reach large numbers of students but this hard-core radical group—I feel they really don’t care about Vietnam or the Cambodian situation (if President Nixon pulled all the troops out today, they’d have another issue tomorrow), this is a group tha t has to be isolated and I think you can reach a solu­ tion. But I think it will be up to these students. I thin k now after the closing of so many universities, I think the students who are concerned about an education are not going to permit a small group of students to close down their university because we’ve seen what
8

repercussions occur from this, and I think if any good came out 

of this tha t the students who just sat around in dormitories and 

did nothing, next fall when they go back to school perhaps and any 

trouble starts, they ’ll be able to render this group ineffective.

Mr. Findley. Next question will be from Mr. Robison. But first 

I want to mention tha t there are six students here from BethuneCookman College in Daytona, Fla. They are not on the witness list. 

We had to decide upon a cutoff hour because we had so many requests. We made no effort to screen or sort out witness requests: we 

took those as they came in the order that we received them. Our 

schedule is just jampacked for these 2 days, so even though these students are here and have a statement, there is no way they can present 

it during this 2-day period. It may be the panel will decide to schedule additional days later on and if someone from this group would 

present a copy of the statement to Mr. Wichser over here on the 

left, we’ll make sure it is a part, of the hearing record. Mr. Robison.

Mr. Robison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rambo, you have 

made a very interesting and in many ways a most surprising statement for our leadoff witness. I ’d like to ask you a subjective question which might not be very easy to answer, but give us your best 

judgment anyway. How representative do you think your views are 

now of those other students at Kent State?

Mr. Rambo. After the shooting and some of the things tha t hap ­

pened, I came home and I was very upset and emotional about the 

whole situation. I blamed the National Guard, and as I said before 

my feelings about Cambodia, since I had a chance to think about it 

and get away from the campus, I ’ve been able to change my philosophy and there are a lot of students from Zanesville who go to Kent 

State and I have been in contact with a lot of Kent State students 

and afte r the emotionalism, the whole situation has blown over and 

we have had a chance to rationalize the whole situation. I think 

that since th at time a lot of students have had a chance to cool down 

the ir tempers, but I can’t say how representative my views are 

really.

Mr. Robison. Thank you very much for trying.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. Mr. Rambo, we’ve heard the term meaningful dialogue used very frequently in the past weeks. W hat is your definition 

of a meaningful dialogue? Sometimes we get the impression students 

think a meaningful dialogue is for Congressmen to listen and agree.

Mr. Rambo. I sometimes get the same impression myself. I think 

a meaningful dialogue is something like you and I talking, and you 

listen to what I have to say and I listen to what you have to say. 

Then perhaps we can come to a happy medium or at least understand what we’re talking about even though we don’t come to an 

agreement. I think this is a big problem, that students aren’t listening and sometimes the administration and Congressmen aren’t listening. But I think there’s a big attempt now and I thin k it’s fine. 

I think this is a big problem and it’s got to be a 50-50 thing.

Mr. Thomson. Thank you very much.

Mr. Findley. Ill yield my time for a question to my friend from 

Illinois, Mr. Pucinski, if you have a question.
9

Mr. P ucinski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rambo, in listening to your testimony one would get the impression tha t maybe we 

have now finally and hopefully reached an era when intellect will 

gain dominance over impulse on the university campus. But won t 

this, as your moderate elements take hold and try to provide leadership, really intensify and stimulate the radical elements to perhaps even increase the violence? We’ve had some examples of tha t 

in the last three or four days. How do you intend to deal with the small, albeit active, radical element tha t you say has been responsible 

for most of this violence on campus?

Mr. R ambo. Probably a lot of students might not agree with this— 

I don’t know, maybe this is a hard-line answer—but I know a lot 

of students on my campus (and I ’ve been talking to other universities) were there for an education. Of course, we re interested 

in other things too and express our opinions on a lot of things but 

we aren’t going to stand around and watch this small group destroy 

our university and close i t down. I think the answer lies, if someone is destroying property, noth ing’s wrong with nonviolent dissent but 

when they’re burning buildings, throwing rocks I think tha t whoever is doing this should be arrested, and I would be for the university throwing them out, expelling them from the university and 

perhaps the State not perm itting them to go to any other State 

university. I think something has to be done.

Mr. Findley. Than k you very much, Mr. Rambo, for tha t excellent presentation. The next witness is Steve Kramer of Wh ittie r College in California. Steve, you have a statement and copies presented, right? And you have several who are going to sit at the 

table, but as I understand it, you will be the only spokesman, is 

tha t correct?

Mr. Kramer. Yes. On my left I would like to introduce Jim Nash 

and Steve Parker, and on my right Lane Lang ford and Jon Conte. These gentlemen will be assisting me in answering questions. I ’m 

Steve Kramer.

Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY STEVE KRAMER. WHI TT IER COLLEGE

Mr. Kramer. A number of Whittier College students and 'Whittier 

community citizens are concerned about the direction our country 

seems intent on ta king and it is for this reason tha t they have sent 

us here to Washington to meet with our Nation’s leaders.

Students and citizens have had enough with a world gone mad. 

Our breaking point has been reached. For too long Americans have 

stood by and watched racism, war and poverty go by unnoticed. 

Inaction has served as a major contributing factor to the evils which 

all peoples of the world seek to end.

Most recently we were shocked and outraged by the invasion of 

Cambodia, the murder of four Kent State students, six black brothers in Georgia, and two more brothers in Mississippi. These senseless, 

brutal acts caused Americans to stand up and cry, enough, enough 

to human waste and inhumanity to mankind. Tha t is why our brother 

students went out on strike and that is why so many Americans have 

made a rededication to peaceful social change.

4 8- 4 S 7— 70---- 2
10

Social concern at Wh ittier over these last weeks has been centered around the concept of nonviolent social change. This tactic 

has brought together the largest number of students tha t have ever 

been active at Whittier. This dedication to nonviolence as a vehicle 

for social change and the joint dedication to the right of all people to 

be masters over their own lives, has caused W hittier students to act. 

They have united with college students across the Nation in restructuring society.

We understand that violence is perpetrated by long years of 

frustration and alienation. We understand only too well tha t students have come to feel powerless in contemporary society. This 

generation has watched those men toward whom they looked for 

leadership and wisdom, murdered in the streets of American cities.

Our generation was motivated, was first sparked to, idealism 

and social action by John F. Kennedy, whom we saw murdered 

in the streets of Dallas. O ur generation was first involved in political 

activity in the civil righ ts movement and we watched the idealism 

and brotherhood of th at movement killed with Martin Luther King, 

Jr. Our generation rallied around Bobby Kennedy, inspirer of young 

men and hope of the futu re and we watched him murdered in Los 

Angeles. Many of our generation watched their last hope for the 

political system, their last hope tha t the American system would 

respond to their needs and dreams, die with the defeat of Eugene 

McCarthy in spite of the ir efforts. They were affected by Chicago, 

bv the bloody confrontation between old and young, between the 

established order and those who sought change. Fa r too many students of this generation have had the ir campuses invaded by police 

and national guard. They watched the black struggle in America and 

they have seen a system that does not respond to the needs of the 

people and tha t does not listen to its people. Students have become 

disenfranchised and disheartened. Overall there is a sense of frus ­

tration and bitterness that things have not worked as they should. 

And so, more recently, it was these same idealistic and vitally concerned students who listened to President Nixon campaign and 

listened to him promise peace, only to watch in disbelief a secret 

invasion of Cambodia without the consent of Congress.

We have watched the struggles of blacks and chicanos against 

a system that does not respond to their needs, a system tha t alienates 

all men from it and from each other. And we have watched the idealism and concern of so many of our fellow students turned off by 

inaction and deaf ears. America has lost a great resource by making 

its students meaningless trainees in an industrial military oriented 

society.

Sadly and fearfully we look at our Nation and realize tha t this 

is the last chance for nonviolent, peaceful change. There are those 

who would advocate violent revolution. We reject tha t notion but 

we recognize that as more and more students become alienated, 

as more and more Americans look upon the political and social system tha t does not respond to their needs, the call to violence will 

fall on more and more receptive ears. Alienation, frustration, and 

the sense of powerlessness are the causes of violence. Only those 

in power can alleviate these causes of violence, for only they can 

move the system so that it responds to the people for whom it exists.
11

We assert, tha t as students, and as members of a society where peaceful dissent is an intrinsic quality guaranteed by the principles of democracy upon which our Government was founded, that our cries must be answered. We can no longer seek social change thro ugh the present legitimate Government channels if our voices of peaceful dissent continue to be ignored. .

Throughout the last decade we have strived to work within the existing framework of our Government and have sought to rectify our Nation’s socioeconomic blunders throu gh peaceful political per ­ suasion. We see little evidence within the present status-quo oriented leadership of this country as to a redefinition of our priorities. The situation in America is acute. If people, particula rly students, are no longer allowed to articulate their grievances through peace­ ful dissent and must fear violent repression because of the ir dis­ satisfaction; and when this right of dissent is guaranteed in the Constitution of the United States, and the political leadership and media of this country continue to suppress its existence and merit, then in order to prevent further political ostracism, what other al­ ternatives, short of violence, may students turn to in order to in­ fluence and implement change within our present governmental 

structures? This is the last chance for nonviolence. As concerned Americans who look to the future for a nonviolent just society, we call upon our Government to respond to the following: (1) to include immediately all disenfranchised groups in the 

political decisionmaking process, (2) to restructure the national priorities so as to begin to address the Nation’s financial and intellectual resources to the problems of 

war, poverty, and racism, and (3) to begin the systematic utilization of the intellectual and scientific communities in order to direct America along lines more 

humanitarian and more democratic. In spite of President Eisenhower’s warning, Americans have stood by and watched a military-industrial complex take control of Ame r­ ica. If violent civil war is to be avoided, America must begin to return the power to its people and take it out of the hands of the 

few corporate-military elite. Of first concern in the restructu ring of society must be an end to American imperialism and worldwide aggression. This by no means indicates tha t such national priorities as an end to war, an end to racism, and an end to violence are secondary concerns. While utilizing the brainpower of America, so much of which dies on foreign soil, to confront these national problems America, and espe­ cially her elected representatives, must encourage the termination of all American intervention in Southeast Asia and around the world. We call upon the President of the United States, an alumnus of our college, and urge all national Congressmen and Senators to recognize the following principles as a basis of this country’s foreign 

policy. (1) The Domino Theory justification for our intervention around the world is both ludicrous and unethical. Communism appeals to the underdeveloped countries of the world because of swift bene­ fits it provides during early stages of industrialization. Eventually
12

no system offers a people greater financial rewards than does our 

own. American action in competition with communism must be on 

a basis of benefits to a nation’s people and not on a military conquest. Americans must understand the need to spend for peace and 

a just world what they spend on war.

(2) America must withdraw supp ort from a government which 

is either unrepresentative of its people or dictatorial by nature. Any 

people who seek the establishment of a system of government responsible to their needs will receive the support of the United 

States.

(3) The United States recognizes th e necessity and will, as never 

before, of giving full support and energy to the establishment of 

a strong, meaningful set of international laws and will work for a 

stronger United Nations governing and regulatory agency.

We have not in these remarks dealt with specific problem areas 

which demand the attention of all Americans. We have not done 

so because the message tha t has gone out from Mr. Nixon’s alma 

mater is a plea to listen to our brothers on campus and in minority 

communities throughout the Nation.

Intellectual experts and our brothers who have been carrying on 

the struggle from the time of the ir birth s will address themselves 

to these problems. We warn, we plead, tha t the Nation and pa rticularly those in power, will respond immediately to the call of 

world-wide peace. For if this nonviolent search is lost, too many 

will resort to violence as the only tactic left to the frustrate d and 

the powerless.

Mr. Findley. Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Kramer, the objectives which are cited in your speech are certainly worthwhile objectives. What interests me is the seeming and apparent paradox. 

You keep talking about the system. This, I got the impression, 

doesn't even involve people. You’re going to restructure society; 

restructure the system: and eliminate the people who are not responsive. And of course the question crosses my mind—are you 

talking about, a minority or majority? If most people don’t agree 

with my point of view I get the idea pretty soon tha t I ’m in the 

minority. So of course T become frustrated. If one supports peaceful change, and I laud the opportunity for nonviolent change— 

political, social, structural, and other—and if one supports peace 

in the world; if as a philosophy, war is immoral and illegal and 

the United States by implication of your remarks should solve the 

problem of peace or war in the world by taking action unilaterally— 

why is it then that violence is justified to change views for the resolution of the problem?

Mr. Kramer. Violence is not justified from a personal point of 

view. Again, your statement speaking specifically of the system not 

the people, T disagree with because I think the people are the ones 

tha t are of prim ary importance. We must establish a rapport between 

the executives, the decisionmaking people of the country and the 

minorities as well as the majorities. My plea for nonviolence is 

one that I thin k all colleges across the country would agree with. 

It again involves the reorganization of our priorities, and speaking 

from a personal basis our priorities now are somewhat juggled in
13

the sense tha t we re directing financial and seemingly American 

lives to an unjust war in Vietnam.

Mr. Fixdley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. 1 yield to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you very much, Mr. Boland. As a 

member of the Foreign Affairs Committee I ’m glad to see this room 

is being put to such good use. I think the testimony so far has been 

very eloquent and articulate. My question to you, Mr. Kramer, would 

be with respect to the role of the legislative branch. You and many 

thousands of young people have been coming to see us or writing 

us in recent weeks. Do you feel we have an important role to play? 

And as a second question, a quick one, have you been in touch with 

your Member of Congress before the developments of the last few 

weeks ?

Mr. Kramer. To answer your first question, you have the most 

important role to play, because you were elected by the people. 

People have p ut faith in you to make the decisions which will govern this country. I have been in touch, I've tried to keep in touch 

with my Congressman prio r to this. And the reason we came to 

Washington, again, was to make it known to our Congressmen that 

we’re dissatisfied and concerned with many issues in the United 

States.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Air. Kramer, I want to 

ask about three points: No. 1, at what age would you say th at young 

people have the answers? Assuming tha t the college youth do, apparently they do at the University of California, for example, in 

determining what should be taug ht in the classes. Is it seniors or 

do we get down to the freshmen tha t have the answers, or do we 

move into the high schools, as we have in some areas? At what point 

do you say, you can listen, but we make the decisions? Th at’s one 

question. The other question, or the other part of it is, in your statement to “listen to us as to what the priorities arc but if you don't 

agree we must tur n to violence,” how’s that any different than the 

Communist groups, for example, operating within the area? And 

the third part of it is, in addition to trying to sell Congress and 

your State legislators on the fact tha t your priorities are the pr iorities that we should have—and I ’m not saying tha t I agree or 

disagree at this point—why are you not doing and why haven’t you 

in the past done what is being advocated and tha t is fan out among 

the people and do as Mr. Fascell suggested, get a majority among 

those that are over college age because certainly you have a good 

strong minority group. I understand there’s about 71/2 million college students around. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. .Ton Conte. Fir st of all, as to what age level has the embodiment of all wisdom, I think that we should move to the principal 

that if a decision affects an individual he should be involved in it. 

Obviously the younger you are perhaps the less weight you should 

have in the decisionmaking process. But when our parents decided 

to send us to college they asked us, you know, where we wanted 

to go and we were involved in tha t process. If you’re going to send 

young men to Vietnam, they should be involved in that process 

that sends them there. And as to question No. 2, if I understand
14

it, T think you misunderstood our statement by assuming tha t we 

were saying that if you did not listen tha t we would resort to 

violence. That is not true. We are here because we have taken a 

stand on nonviolence and tha t will be our stand for social change 

forever. We are afraid tha t if Americans do not begin to listen 

to each other then the voices which are calling for violence will have 

more and more adherence. So "when we say listen to us or violence 

will result, it’s not that we're going to participate in violence because we won't. But we’ve been involved nationally with students, 

and we know tha t those tha t are pushing for violence are winning 

more and more supporters because we're not listening to each other 

as Americans. And as to moving to the people, I think that students 

now as never before are tak ing the issues of Kent State, of Cambodia, 

to the people. At Whittie r we’ve been canvassing, we’ve been having 

tow’n meetings: and we’re here to ask you to listen to us and to 

listen to those in the community who are talking about these things. 

Mr. Findley. Mr. Robison.

Mr. Robtron. Mr. Kramer, you suggest to us among other things, 

and I ’m going to quote from your statement, “American action and 

competition with communism must be on a basis of benefits to a 

nation’s people and not on a military conquest. Americans must 

understand the need to spend for peace in a just w’orld what they 

spend on war.” I happen to agree with those words very strongly. 

As w’e come out of Vietnam—and I am one who thinks we are 

coming out, sooner or later, the sooner the better as far as I'm concerned—there are certain backlashes from this incident of ours, this 

unhappy experience, one of which seems to be a suspicion on the 

part of many Americans about the so-called foreign aid program. 

Let’s concentrate here for a minute, if you will, on the economic 

assistance portion of those programs. I'm receiving letters, for instance, from people opposing the Cambodian event, opposing the 

war and also saying now they are against anything for foreign aid. 

I ’m not sure whether they mean just the military part of foreign 

aid, or whether they’re also dead set against all foreign aid because 

they thin k that leads to futu re entanglements of this sort. Mv question is, do von think the young people of today, as represented bv 

you, would help those in Congress who support the foreign aid program, and that includes most of the Members of the Foreign Affairs Committee, would help them to make that program more effective in the vears ahead as an alternative to militarv conquest?

Mr. F indley. Iden tify yourself please. And make it as brief as 

you can.

Steve Parker. T, at present, would very definitely question the 

integrity and merit of our foreign aid, but I do think foreign aid 

should continue but not in the bureaucratic sense of the word. T think 

because of the underdeveloped nations all over the world and the 

nations tha t are impoverished and the deprivation which does exist 

all over the world, a country as affluent as the United States should 

continue to give these countries the aid that thev need to increase 

the standard of living, to feed the people, but not in the sense of supporting a military dictatorship which it does in so many countries, 

which does not respond to the majority of the needs of its people.
15

Mr. Findley. Thank you, very much, to each of you. I hope you 

can stay through the rest of the hearings.

The next witness is Lon Williams. Mr. Williams, do you have a 

prepared statement?

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT BY LON WILLIAMS, SOUTHERN METHODIST UNIVERSITY, PRES IDENT OE THE S.M.U. STUDENT ASSOCIATION

Mr. 'Williams. I believe in the United States. More specifically, 

» I believe in the principles on which this Nation was founded. I am

convinced that there is no other theoretical system which could b etter 

govern this country. Yet, I do not believe the Nation lives up to its 

philosophical claims. It claims freedom, equality, and justice as 

• requisites to its democratic system, but these ideals are not to be

found in practice in the America of 1970. Certainly, freedom has its limitations. One cannot use his freedom 

to suppress or enfringe upon the rights of others. But what of 

laws which require people to wear motorcycle helmets because they 

might save their lives; what of laws which deny people drugs because they are bad for their bodies; and what of laws which demand 

tha t men fight to protect not their own nation but corrupt military 

dictatorships on the other side of the world? Are these laws which 

exemplify the individual's freedom to make with his own life what 

he will? What of the blackman’s freedom? “Isn't he free to do w hatever he wishes so long as he doesn’t do it next door with somebody's 

daughter?’’ Is this freedom in America?

Yet, the fettered freedom in this country is eclipsed by the exceptions to equality. That “all men are created equal” was stated as 

long ago as 1776, and America’s people still wait for the tru th to 

become reality. Can America continue to brag an equality of people 

while blackmen carry garbage, Japanese till the flower beds, and 

Mexicans pick the grapes? IIow long must the United States wait 

for equality?

Hopefully, equality will not be as long in coming as justice has. 

Is it just tha t a farm er in Nebraska loses everything he owns throu gh 

a civil suit because he cripples a burg lar who is attacking his family? 

Is it just tha t Black Panthers in Chicago are exonerated of criminal 

charges while the police who attacked them go free? Is it just that 

students are shot and mutilated by helmeted, protected guardsmen 

because the students throw rocks? Is there any commitment to justice 

in America, or is it only, as in the case of freedom and equality, a 

part-tim e acquiescence?

This hypocrisy and dishonesty is the source of my frustration , disillusionment, and fear. Since my childhood I have been taught the 

principles of American democracy. I noticed incongruities between 

theory and practice but easily ignored them as being beyond my 

understanding. But as I have now reached adulthood, I can no longer 

ignore this blight on the American ideal. The Vietnam war is simply 

a manifestation of this hypocrisy. Being a postwar baby, I was indoctrinated constantly with the evils of Nazi Germany, which were 

illustrated with examples of how the people knew what the government was doing yet failed to stand up and be counted. Germany
16

was bad because it placed loyalty and pride in the Fath erland above 

even basic human considerations. I assume tha t most young adults 

of my age grew up under similar circumstances. Therefore, all I can 

say is that we learned our lesson well. We cannot sit back and support a war which we feel is morally and humanly wrong. We have 

been programed entirely too thoroughly to be silent or to stand 

united behind our President for the sake of America’s pride and 

prestige when those two entities disregard human lives. Maybe I 

am still too young to understand the reasons why it was wrong for 

Germans in 1940 to accept without question government edicts, and 

why it is right for Americans in 1970 to do the same thing.

I guess T also do not understand why the President reaffirms the 

withdrawal policy through an expansion of the fighting into a neutral country which did not request our a id ; or why the President expects a conclusion to resistance by the Vietcong afte r that expansion when he himself stated la st week th at “violence breeds violence.” 

I iust do not understand.

But because I do have faith in the system, T continue to respect 

the Office of the President and the Office of the Vice President. I 

admit that, perhaps, they do, in fact, know things tha t are not 

available to us. T admit also that I do not have a m ilitary mind and, 

perhaps, the actions of the Executive in the past several weeks are 

advisable in light of the situation. However, th at same system allows 

for checks and balances not only by the masses of the people through 

dissent from government policy but it allows for you as members 

of the decisionmaking process to be informed on areas of policy 

formulations and to exercise your constitutionality given controls 

to see tha t this country follows the proper course.

If you as our representatives in the established system cannot 

recognize the hypocrisy and dishonesty that our system has assumed, 

then T see no place else tha t I or people like me can turn to within 

the system.

Mr. Findley. Thank vou, Mr. Williams. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson-. Than k you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Williams, many 

centuries ago people were seeking ideals and we’ve been pursuing 

them in this country more successfully than most other civilizations. 

But you say you’re frustrated. I would hope that people in your 

category would think of the idealism of this country as Carl Schurz 

did, a German immigrant who came to this country more than a 

hundred years ago. I t was he who said tha t “Ideals are like the stars, 

y ou will not succeed in touching them with your hand. But like 

the seafaring man on the desert of water you use them as your guide 

and following them you reach your destiny.”

Mr. Findley. Ho you have any response to that?

Mr. Williams. No, sir.

Mr. Findley. I yield my time for questions to my friend from 

Kansas, Mr. Mize. Ho you have a question?

Mr. Mize. No, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Findley. Tn tha t event, Mr. Williams, suppose you were the 

Commander-in-Chief and were confronted with an unpopular war 

tha t you thought had to be terminated as fast as practical. Would 

you assume tha t the complexity of this task of withdrawing a half 

million men from the field would require that some extraordin ary
17

measures to make for an orderly withdrawal might be required, even 

to the extent of military action to keep the enemy off balance?

Mr. Williams. Yes, sir; ’if I had all the facts 1 might reach that 

conclusion. But what I might say here is tha t I would just be ask­ ing you gentlemen on this committee and in fact the President to consider very carefully whether the Vietnam war is really worth it, when you compare tha t to the situation here in the United States now, that's our domestic situation. Because his decisions, I th ink, really 

have caused this grea t rift. lie hasn't brought us together. I thin k he’s spread us far the r apart. And perhaps he is making the right decision in Vietnam but I'm just concerned as to whether it’s worth it when von balance that against the present situation here in the 

United States.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Than k you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Williams, you ve 

laid the basis here for broad philosophical discussion which is obviously the crux of the whole issue. I'm going to yield to my distinguished colleague, Air. Pucinski.

Mr. Pitcinski. T hank you very much. Air. AATlliams, as president 

of the student association, would you care to venture an opinion as to whether or not if the Congress extends the voting right to 18- year-olds, would this give them a broader base for nonviolent expression of their views and activities?

Air. Williams. I personally think that, would be a step in tha t direction, yes, sir. I think tha t we can't stop with tha t though. Aleetings of th is sort are certainly worthwhile, I think, in relieving some of this frustration as are individual campus visits by Congressmen, not on a broad speaking tour where a gentleman sits up on a stage or stands on a stage and speaks down to the students or speaks to the students, but where he actually gets into small groups and communicates with them, and the students with him.

Air. F indley. Air. Boland.

Air. Boland. I ’m puzzled at this statement comparing 1970 to 

1940. Do you really believe that the citizens of this country or a great number of people are accepting government edicts without 

question in the United States in this year of 1970 just as they may 

have done in 1940?

Air. AATlliams. Yes, sir; I do. Aly basis for this is, immediately out 

of high school I was an exchange student to Germany for a year. 

And so I saw a lot from first-hand information from the people who went throu gh that period, and T find comparisons every day from, just for example, the construction workers attack on the students 

in the streets of New York last week.

Air. Findley. Air. ITicks.

Air. Hicks. Air. Williams, I thin k that the statement tha t you 

made is the sort of statement tha t could lead us to have the type of discussion you’re talking about—any group of legislators—and probably for 2 or 3 hours. I want to commend you for your statement.

Air. Williams. Alav I say something? The real reason I came 

here was t hat I'm pretty much of a moderate. I come from a long line of conservatives, but I'm a little bit farther to the left than they 

are, but I definitely am a moderate. Of course we have our small group of radicals who are basically inept. But these last weeks we’ve
IS

seen a rapid shift from the moderates like myself on campus and 

even the conservatives to question very seriously the governmental 

process in this country and that’s what scares me so much. I just 

wanted to give tha t impression to you.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. I have no questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell, do you have a question?

Mr. Fascell. No.

Mr. Findley. Are there any further questions?

Mr. Pucinski. One question, Mr. Chairman, if I might. Mr. Williams, assuming tha t the Cambodian operation is as successful as 

the President has indicated it will be and there’s every reason to 

believe that it will, and assuming tha t the President can indeed 

effectuate some order to stop further shipment of American troops 

to Vietnam, do you thin k this would have a meaningful impact 

toward bringing about greater stability on the campuses?

Mr. Williams. I think tha t success is very important in bringing 

stability. It’s hard to argue against a successful campaign but it 

still doesn’t, I think, justify the action tha t he did take. I don’t 

see that real need there.

Mr. Findley. "We’ll have time for one more question from Mr. 

Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. "Williams, I ’ve introduced a bill to define the 

powers of the President under the Constitution with respect to 

tlie employment of troops abroad now pending before a committee 

of the Congress. Do you think a discussion, a dialogue, and a resolution of tha t issue if possible would be helpful?

Mr. Williams. You bet. I took a course on the President last 

semester and it became apparent to me tha t the President actually 

didn’t start out with tha t much power, but over the years he’s gained 

a lot of power from the Congress and the legislative bodies tha t 

you gentlemen have failed to take back from him. I think such 

a measure would be certainly worthwhile.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much, Mr. Williams.

The next witness is Bob Chase of Dartm outh College. Bob, would 

you take the witness chair. Mr. Chase please proceed.

STATEMENT BY ROBERT CHASE, DARTMOUTH COLLEGE 

The Strike Back Statement

Mr. Chase. In response to the suspension of classes for the week 

of May 4, and the increasing politicization of Dartm outh College, a 

group of students formed the Strike Back Committee. This committee has taken no stand on the issues which precipitated the suspension 

of classes. We have sought to insure that the campus remain an impartial forum for political debate, in which all sides can be heard.

This is not an unreasonable objective. Yet, it has been a most difficult one to attain. The leaders of the strike movement called a rally 

for the morning of Tuesday, May 5, at which they proposed to call 

for a vote by the student body on the question of the strike. The 

rally was held on the Hanover Green using a college public address 

system. The microphone should have been available to speakers
19

representing all views. Yet, when a student opposed to the strike 

requested of the strike leaders to be permitted to speak, th is request was flatly refused. The dissenting student had to seek the active intervention of the office of the president of the college so. tha t he could speak. When the student was finally granted permission to speak, he was subjected to verbal abuse by one of the rally leaders. Later in the rally, a “vote” was taken, seeking student approval of Dartmouth President Kemeny’s suspension of classes. Opinion was expressed by a show of hands, but no “nay” vote was called. Students opposed to a strike were not given an opportunity to vote.

* This is evidence of the respect which the strike leaders have for democracy and freedom of speech. A second vote was taken on whether students should meet on Sunday to determine if the strike

#

should be continued indefinitely. In this instance, vote was by accla­ mation, and a “nay” vote was called. Opinion was clearly divided, but a more definitive vote was not sought. The strike leaders decided, not surprisingly, that those in favor of a continued strike were in the majority. Is it proper tha t an obviously biased party should de­ termine the outcome of a voice vote? We think not. In fact, in this instance, a voice vote was not an effective means of determ ining the majority. We did not have, as does the Congress, recourse to requesting a ballot vote. Furthermore, individuals who are not stu­ dents or faculty of the college were able to vote. Such a vote, in which high school students and passersby could participate, is simply 

inconclusive, but it satisfied the strike leaders. The suspension of classes to permit concentration on debate on the vital issues of the day is a fine idea. But to implement a suspen­ sion of classes and, at the same time, to preserve the impartiality of the college, requires a delicate balance. This balance was not main­ tained at Dartmouth College. Of over 70 workshops given during the week, only one was in favor of President Nixon’s Cambodian policy. In an atmosphere so clearly weighted in favor of one side, it is impossible to have useful debate. The college, by suspending classes, in effect gave those opposed to the President a week in which to express their opinions, virtually unopposed. The idea of suspen­ sion of classes for a useful debate was a good one, indeed, many 

, legitimate activities, such as congressional correspondence campaigns, and canvassing of the New Hampshire-Vermont area, resulted from the suspension. All sides actively sought to avoid violence. Never­ theless, the suspension resulted in transforming the college from 

• a forum for debate to an active agency for political lobbying. The Strike Back Committee has contacted similar organizations on other campuses throughout the United States, all of which ex­ pressed the same basic policy as the Strike Back Committee, that a college or university should be a political forum, not a political 

agency. On Friday, May 8, the faculty voted to resume classes on Mon­ day for those who wished to continue their regular education. Spe­ cial arrangements were made for those who wished to leave the school to lobby in Washington. We applaud the fairness of the faculty resolution, but we fear tha t the college may have set a dangerous precedent by abdicating, albeit temporarily, its position as a forum for debate in favor of engaging in the debate itself.
20

Mr. F indi.ey. Thank you, Mr. Chase. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. I have no questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Robison.

Mr. Robison. Mr. Chairman, I ’d like to ask Mr. Chase how large 

a group of students would he involved in the so-called “Strike Rack 

Committee" at Dartmouth? What I'm trying to get, if we can, is 

some better understanding of the representative nature you have 

for instance as a witness, as we would like to know with respect 

to other witnesses.

Mr. Chase. The Strike Back Committee has been, since its inception, a minority group on campus as far as organized political 

activities went. The strike leaders started out sooner, had a larger 

organization, and had more students on their side. We tried to 

counteract not the idea, as I said before, of the education which 

went on but of the propagandizing. Now we have as far as the rest 

of the students go a good deal of sympathy on campus from people 

who were afra id that Dartmouth College was going to be closed 

down. This was what we were originally organized for, to make 

sure that the strike did not go on past Monday. It did stop, classes 

were resumed, and we were very happy with it. Many other students, 

who were considered to be fairly radical, did come over and said if 

this goes on past Monday, you have our complete support. What 

we are now tryi ng is to assure the impartiality of the debate.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. T homson. Mr. Chase, you have been in contact you say with 

similar organizations on other campuses throughout the country 

and they report similar conduct on the other campuses?

Mr. Chase. Ye«, sir. I'm not familiar with the details of our correspondence with groups such as Hofstra and UNH. But I know 

that we have been in contact, and they did have to form their own 

group in order to insure the sort of impartia lity to make sure the 

schools were continued in operation. But as for myself I wasn't 

in direct contact, just as a group.

Mr. Thomson. And what is the purpose of those who were striking and trying to close the school down?

Mr. Chase. Well, as Mr. Rambo said earlier, there was a grab 

bag of purposes. Some students were striking out of sympathy for 

the deaths at Kent State, because of which all of us were very upset. 

Some students were striking because of the President’s move into 

Cambodia. Some students were strik ing for the Black Panthers. 

This is the way the strike rally was held. Just about anybody who 

had any cause whatsoever got* up and spoke and gave it so that 

various workshops which were given were not just on foreign policy 

but also on the Black Panthers, on the ghettos, on the 'Women’s Liberation Front. There were a multitude of voices for this.

Mr. Findley. I'll yield my time for questions to Mr. Keith of 

Massachusetts.

Mr. Keith. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. T appreciate your contribution to this forum and concur in your feeling th at it is essential in 

any of these discussions held either on the campuses or in the Congress that there be a balanced presentation. You don’t reach any 

conclusions as did one of the witnesses who preceded you, Greg
21

Rambo. And as I ’ve caught up with what he had to say, I wonder, 

were you here at the time he made his contribution?

Mr. Chase. I came in while he was speaking, sir.

Mr. Keith. Do you recall his conclusions? His recommendations 

or proposals? He mentioned among other things tha t there should 

be a student advisory council which would meet regularly and be 

made up of students of all political philosophies, not just young 

Republicans, or straight, or conservative types. He goes on to say 

tha t he favored the establishment of a conference under White 

House auspices which would include college administrators, faculty, 

students, and State legislators, and further he suggested the Nixon 

administration send some of its members to the campuses, especially 

Cabinet officers, such as Secretaries Rogers, Hickel, Finch, and so 

forth. Have you any observation on that suggestion of his?

Mr. Chase. I thin k those would all be very helpful. And I concur wholeheartedly with him.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. I yield to my distinguished colleague on the Foreign 

Affairs Committee, Mr. Broomfield.

Mr. Bloomfield. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. H icks. Th ank you, Mr. Chairman. Is it your conclusion then, 

Mr. Chase, that the problems or the closing down of the universities 

across the country, if you will, results from genuine grievances, albeit any number of them and not any single grievance, rather than 

the result of some subversive group tha t has been able to get in and 

get control one way or another?

Mr. Chase. Well, I would say in at least some cases it is both. 

There are certainly genuine grievances here, and there are, as I 

think has been noted before, some very genuine radicals who just 

want to shut it down.

Mr. Hicks. Could you give some estimate of your view as to how 

much is one, and how much is the other?

Mr. Chase. I would say tha t it was a very small minority who 

were the radicals. I ’d say very small, but at the same time exceedingly 

vocal and exceedingly well organized. One of the things that bothered 

us during the strike week was we sent out a petition for students 

who just wanted classes to be resumed. Somebody on the strike 

committee got ahold of it, copied down the names and mimeographed 

it off with the heading, “Friends of the Strike Committee—Know 

Your Enemies—Convince Them The Strike Should Be Prolonged.” 

Now I don’t thin k the majority of students on campus approved 

of this sort of action at all. But the fact is tha t there were those 

who did, and they were fairly well organized, and they were certainly loud.

Mr. F indley. Thank you very much, Mr. Chase.

You will note tha t on the schedule a group from Brown Un iversity is scheduled next, but we have word tha t they have had 

to cancel their appearance.

The next witness will be Thomas Graves of Columbia University. 

Mr. Graves, if you're the spokesman please proceed.
22

STA TEM ENT BY THOMAS GRAVES, COLUMBIA SCHOOL OF IN TERNATIONAL A FF AIRS , ACCOMPANIED BY J. GRIF FI N LESHER AND

Robert McDoug all, fl et ch er school of la w and dipl omacy, TUFTS UN IVER SIT Y

Mr. Graves. Dear Members of Congress: We can only view with 

alarm the recent turn of events in Southeast Asia. The course of 

action we are embarking upon is contrary to the interests of peace in 

Indochina and risks deeper American involvement in a futile military operation.

We recognized the sincerity of the President’s intentions to end *

the war, but feel American policy is proceeding in the wrong direction. We base our opposition to the Cambodian incursion on fou r 

points:

P O IN T 1 : T H E CA MBO DIAN IN TE R V E N TIO N AN D V IE TN A M IZ A TIO N

We have been told that the Cambodian intervention is a means 

of buying time for the success of Vietnamization which is deemed 

indispensible for the withdrawal of American troops.

Vietnamization is essentially an extension of the allied strategy 

of obtaining a military solution to the war. We question whether 

there can ever be a military settlement to this conflict. The United 

States has been convinced that if we hang on long enough, the North 

Vietnamese, unable to carry on the war, will either give up or negotiate. The North Vietnamese, on th e other hand, appear to be equally 

convinced tha t if they continue activities in Vietnam, the United 

States will give up. The American war effort has certainly damaged North Vietnam, just as the North Vietnamese war effort has 

damaged the United States.

Our own losses have not been limited to the battlefield. Vietnamization is intended to reduce the military cost of the war to the 

United States, but it ignores the fact tha t military policies divorced 

from political considerations are sterile. Military success in Vietnam 

cannot be accomplished without popular political support. The 

Thieu regime cannot obtain this support. I ts repression has alienated 

not only the Buddhists—the country’s major religious denomination 

—but also strong anticommunist elements. Furthermore, its endorse- »

ment of American military involvement has lent credibility to the 

antiimperialist propaganda of the National Liberation Front. Building a popular base for the Saigon Government will require much 

more time than the few months afforded by the removal of the Cam- •

bodian sanctuaries. Does th is mean tha t afte r this period American 

or South Vietnamese troops will have to invade Cambodia again 

either to guarantee continued American withdrawal or the solvency 

of the Thieu regime?

Even within the South Vietnamese Army itself, discipline and 

morale are undermined by the corruption of the military leadership. ARVN cannot cope with the insurrection in South Vietnam 

without continued U.S. support. Given these considerations, Thieu’s 

announced intention to retain South Vietnamese forces in Cambodia will only overextend an already weakened army, increasing 

the probability of continued need for American forces to control
23

the insurgency in South Vietnam. Instead of enhancing the possibility of successful Vietnamization, the Cambodian offensive can 

only jeopardize it.

POINT 2 : WIDENIN G TH E WAR

AVe have been told that the operations in Cambodia involve little 

risk of widening the war. Yet if ARVN remains afte r Jul y 1, how could one argue that the war has not been widened? The offensive has served only to push the Vietnamese Communists north ward into Laos and west­ ward. The Communists have intensified their campaign in Laos to insure a continued avenue of resupply to the south. They have over­ run every Laotian province east of the Mekong, except one. In Cam­ bodia where the peasant majority has continued to support Prince Sihanouk, the allied incursion has bolstered the Khmer Rouge who can now invoke him as a symbol of the ir cause. Backed by the Viet­ namese Communists the Cambodians are also training and arming 

the Khmer peasants in VC-controlled areas. In addition, the Lon Nol Government has alienated large sectors of the rural population by its suppression of pro Sihanouk demon- onstrations. This further weakened the already tenuous supp ort for Lon Nol’s regime, making it vulnerable to a communist seizure. According to informed sources, the rebels are already strong enough to overrun the capital, but are concentrated instead on consolidating their support in the countryside. Despite its promise to adjure a commitment to the Lon Nol regime, the administration may well be forced to choose between underwriting a military dictatorship or 

accepting a communist one. If Sihanouk is reinstalled in Phnom Penh, a major setback in American policy will ensue. Dependent upon Hanoi and the NL F for his return to power, Sihanouk would be unable even to pro­ test Vietnamese Communist activities in Cambodia. In the past, Si­ hanouk had attempted to maintain the neutrality of his state. The return of Sihanouk would not insure the reestablishment of a neutral Cambodia. The Prince will be even more cooperative with the NL F and Hanoi, and any possibility for future allied moves into an 

acquiescent Cambodia will be effectively foreclosed. Even if this situation does not develop, American policy will have already suffered a strategic defeat. A prim ary desideratum of Amer­ ican foreign policy has been the containment of Chinese influence. The American operation in Cambodia has only fostered furth er con­ solidation of national liberation movements in Southeast Asia. Chi­ nese prestige has been resurrected by this opportunity to patronize 

Asian nationalism.

POINT 3 : INTERNATIO NAL REPERCUSSIONS

We have not been told of the effects of this policy outside of Southeast Asia—the assumption being tha t they would be of little 

or no consequence.

This tenuous assumption seems to rest on the even shakier notion tha t all the other nations of the world—or at least those that count— have absolute faith in American intentions and American goodwill.
24

We question the sagacity of the Cambodian action, not only within 

the confines of Cambodia and Southeast Asia, but also in the greater 

context of America’s world position.

While much of the Soviet and Chinese outcry can be regarded 

as propaganda, the height of the rhetoric and the duration of the 

protest would seem to indicate a growing concern over American 

activities in Southeast Asia. Yet we are reassured tha t neither nation will escalate its role in the Indochinese conflict. B ut upon what 

is this assumption based? Because they did not do so in the past 

is hard ly any guarantee that they will not do so in the future.

There is a point—a point we’re quite sure no one can define—at *

which one or both nations would feel compelled to increase its commitment to North Vietnam. Not knowing where tha t point is, is a 

widening of the war wise? We do not recommend sitting on our 

hands, lest the Chinese involve themselves, but given all the other *

deficiencies of this policy, the incursion into Cambodia seems to 

needlessly court escalation. If the policy offers only marginal gains 

in Southeast Asia it offers marginal loss and even greater risk internationally.

PO IN T 4 : ZMF.TTIOD OF CO NSU LT ATI ON

We have been told that the method of consultation employed by 

the U.S. Government prior to the military incursion into Cambodia was sufficient.

In our estimation, however, events prio r to and following the 

Cambodian action do not appear to support this view.

First, there appeared to be little or no formal consultation with 

members of the Cabinet and the National Security Council. We can 

appreciate the need for efficiency in decisionmaking, but feel tha t 

the exclusiveness of the process prevented adequate discussion.

Second, the new regime in Cambodia was not consulted by the U.S. 

and South Vietnamese Governments. This is obvious from the conflicting statements of Cambodia’s President of the Council of Ministers, General Lon Nol, and the Foreign Minister, Yem Sambaur, 

following the Allied move.

Third, the President’s decision circumvented the advice and consent of the Senate. On April 27, the Foreign Relations Committee 

discussed the Cambodian situation in a 2^ -hou r Executive session »

with Secretary of State William P. Rogers. Following the meeting,

Senator Fulbright told reporters that, members were virtually unanimous in their firm opposition to sending any military assistance 

under the present circumstances alluded to bv the Secretary. Yet, 

on April 30, President Nixon went ahead and sent the joint United 

States-South Vietnamese combat forces into Cambodia. The absence 

of consultation with various members of Congress prio r to the offensive illustrates the limited scope of decisionmaking durin g the 

Cambodian venture.

Fourth, the member states of SEATO were neither consulted nor 

informed officially of the United States-South Vietnamese inte rvention into the neighboring territory. In light of the importance 

of the Cambodian situation before April 30, indicated bv United 

States and South Vietnamese observations tha t Cambodian neutrality had already been violated by North Vietnamese and Viet-
25

cong troops, we feel that SEA TO and its protocol signators should 

have at least been officially informed of the assault on enemy sanctuaries.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much. I inadvertently passed over 

Mr. Fascell, so I ’ll recognize him first and go next to Mr. Robison.

Mr. Fascell . Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Graves, you have 

presented a very thou ghtful statement. You have raised very serious 

questions, all of which not only ought to be asked but ought to be 

answered if possible. You need not be apologetic. Logic should never 

take a back seat to any kind of expertise.

In your opinion what is the extent of feelings on campus for the 

frustration, discontent, or opposition to U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia? The second question is do you feel tha t students, faculty, 

and college administrations can resolve the problems tha t confront 

them on the democratic application of the ir ideals and the philosophy 

of their university ?

Mr. Graves. Well, I think first of all we came to discuss the issues 

of our foreign policy but in answer to your question, and I can only 

speak for Columbia University and not even necessarily for the entire 

university, I thin k there is growing discontent with American policy 

in Southeast Asia, and 1 think one of the primary reasons for t ha t is 

a lack of credibility. Prior to the incursion into Cambodia there were 

several statements and speeches, one 1 can recall specifically by Under 

Secretary of State Richardson in New York referring to a spirit of 

restraint, and there is an immediate turn about in American policy. 

I feel tha t students lack any faith in the present administration’s 

word. We, a group of students from Columbia’s School of In ternational Affairs, came down to Washington 2 weeks ago and met with 

various Members of Congress, the State Department, and the Executive, and we had been told tha t yes, they had underestimated the reaction within the United States to the Cambodian move and then, I 

believe, it was Monday night President Nixon’s first question at his 

press conference said “no, he had not underestimated this reaction.” 

How can we believe a President who’s contradicting what we have 

already heard from his top level advisers?

Mr. Robison . Mr. Chairman, I too would like to compliment this 

witness on a particula rly thoughtful and very carefully prepared 

statement. One of the things tha t did bother me as a Member of Congress with respect to the Cambodian decision has been pointed up by 

you, sir, at least insofar as we know the facts, and tha t was an indication that there appeared to be little or no formal consultation on the 

President’s part with respect to tha t decision with members of his 

Cabinet or with the National Security Council. Now, I saw with concern and disapproval, during the latter years anyhow, of the Johnson 

administration, what I guess you would have to call the atrophy of 

the National Security Council operation. I have been quite pleased to 

note the Nixon administration s efforts, and they have been real 

efforts, to revive the National Security Council, both as a staff operation and as an element of the decisionmaking process. I think you 

have pointed up here something tha t is of concern to Members of 

Congress, as well as to you. Let me ask you a question now; you 

don't address yourself to what you think should be done now. Would 

you like to do so very briefly?

46 -4 S7— 70 ----- 3
26

Mr. Lesher . Yes. My name is John Lesher. I am from the Fletcher 

School of Law and Diplomacy, Boston. As to what can be done now, 

I think a t this point a lot of us have made the decision that perhaps 

the most politically effective kind of action tha t we can take at the 

moment is to organize ourselves and to debate the issues. Now, we 

don't have a standard set of recommendations at the moment. This, 

in fact, is why we are getting together and setting up the Student 

Action Committee on International Affairs which we plan to make 

a permanent body, if possible, so that we have on-going analysis of 

the direction of American foreign policy. Now, I don't know whether 

or not I am addressing myself to your question completely.

Mr. Robison. Well, not completely, unless you are indicating tha t 

your group, or you as an individual, have not made up your minds 

with respect to such as the “Hatfield-McGovern-Goodell-Hughes’’ 

approach.

Mr. Lesher. Well, it was quite clear when we came down on th at 

Friday when there were a number of students in the halls of Congress, we had circulated petitions among eight schools, important 

schools of international affairs, supporting both the Church-Cooper 

amendment, as well as the Hatfield-Hughes amendment.

Mr. Graves . May I ask the Congressman, are you referring to what 

course of action we should pursue in Southeast Asia, or what course 

of action the Congress and the people of the United States should 

pursue in Southeast Asia? It seems to me tha t there are two parts 

to your question.

Mr. Robison. I had in mind what course of action the United 

States should pursue in Southeast Asia.

Mr. Graves. Well, I thin k that our group is unanimously agreed 

tha t it should be a withdrawal of American forces. As to the speed 

and the manner of withdrawal, I would not like to make any kind 

of statement. We are investigating that, and it requires something 

more than 2 or 3 weeks study.

Mr. T homson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Gentlemen, I notice or 

get the impression from your discussion of Cambodian intervention 

and Vietnamization tha t you think it’s designed for a military solution to the war. Are you familiar at all with the other programs tha t 

the American Government is carrying on in South Vietnam; for 

instance, in the field of education, in the field of food production? 

Are you aware of the fact tha t when the French left in 1954 tha t 

there were only 400,000 Vietnamese students in schools, and today 

there are over 2 million young people in schools in Vietnam as a 

result of America’s programs to build the schools, to train the teachers, to train the administrators? And are you aware of the Green 

Revolution tha t is taking place in Vietnam in the area of food 

production which is essential to any stable government? Are you 

aware »f that Green Revolution and the miracle rice tha t has been 

introduced by America? That isn’t a military solution. It’s a program 

to build a basic structure in that country. Now, isn’t tha t part of 

Vietnamization also?

Mr. McDougall. T think that America is addressing itself to the 

right kind of problems in South Vietnam with the pacification 

programs, the education, the miracle rice, but tha t the primary 

problem is th at the government in Saigon has been too corrupt and
27

too authoritarian to make these things viable or credible to the Vietnamese people. I feel, also, tha t there are some questions as to the miracle rice project itself in that it lends itself to economies of the scale such as crop dusting and mechanized harvesting which can only be afforded by the wealthy landowners, and this may controvert 

the recently established attempts at land reform.

Mr. T homson. Are you aware of the extent of land reform in the 

last 2 years in South Vietnam, the hundreds of thousands of acres tha t have been turn ed over to the peasants in tha t country? Tha t 

isn’t mechanization.

Mr. F indley. I th ink we have time for one more question. I ’m next in order; I'll yield to Mr. Dent of Pennsylvania. Congressman Dent, 

do you have a question?

Mr. Dent. No. Mr. Findley. Do either of these gentlemen have a 

question? Congressman Keith.

Mr. Keitii : Than k you, Mr. Chairman. I ’ll yield to Congressman 

Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen . What do you feel has been the effect of the 

stronger policy that Mr. Nixon has demonstrated militarily on the possibility of ta lks within the Southeast Asian nations toward a reasonable solution to this problem?

Mr. McDougall. Well, in the way of negotiations between the 

United States and Hanoi?

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Not necessarily in tha t area alone. You may 

have read Schulzburger’s column in the New’ York Times about 3 weeks ago in which he said by reason of the—[error in transc ription],

Mr. Findley. The next witness is Mr. Russell Wise of Central 

Connecticut State College. Mr. Wise.

STA TEM ENT BY RUSSELL WISE, CONNECTICUT STATE COLLEGE

Mr. Wise. First I ’d like than k Representative Findley and his fellow’ Congressmen for giving me and the other students the oppor­ tunity to speak to this committee today. I understand tha t it is the right and responsibility of concerned citizens to petition Congress on specific issues and that it is also the righ t and duty of Congress to seek and consider the opinions of their constituents on major ques­ tions. Nevertheless most students presently lack the power of the vote, although they are called upon to fight and die. So this opportunity is 

most welcome. Before discussing American foreign policy in general and Vietnam in particu lar, I ’d like to say a word about Central Connecticut State College’s participa tion in the nationwide student strike. Central Connecticut has approximately 5,500 full-time day students. It is largely 

a commuter school, and, up until now, has been, for the most part, politically apathetic. The invasion of Cambodia and the killing of the Kent State students changed tha t significantly. Although Central was in its last week of classes, over a thousand students showed up for an open meeting to discuss a possible strike and voted 3 to 1 in favor of such action. The strike was completely voluntary on the part of the students and professors. No attempt was made to shut the school down or to infringe upon the rights of those students and
28

professors who wanted to attend class. Following the open meeting, 

a faculty vote endorsed the voluntary plan. The faculty also voted 

to support the student request to lower the American and State flags 

on campus for the rest of the semester in memory of the Kent State 

students. The thrust of the strike since then has been to educate and 

inform the campus and the community of New Britain throu gh canvassing, teach-ins and workshops on the situation in Indochina. The 

response to the citywide canvass was overwhelmingly against the 

Vietnam war, and we also have the active endorsement of the New 

Britain Clergyman’s Association, including a past state and national 

chaplain of the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Throughout the strike, 

the principles of nonviolence and working through the existing political framework have been stressed. I might add at this point that not 

only at Central but at colleges throughout Connecticut and the Nation this has been the common practice. If Cambodia has done nothing else it has established the concerned bu t moderate student in the 

forefront of the peace movement, though the understandable frustration has led to the occasional violence of a few.

Most students concerned about the war have now moved beyond 

considerations of military strategy or the morality of specific actions. 

Invasion of Cambodia only served as a catalyst for student reaction 

to the more fundamental question of the entire U.S. involvement in 

Indochina. It is meaningless to debate whether or not a certain 

soldier was suffering from battle fatigue at the massacre of My Lai. 

What is more important to ask is whether tha t soldier should have 

been in My Lai in the first place. Vietnam is no different from dozens 

of other Asian and African nations. Its entire 20th century history 

consists of a struggle for independence from outside interference. 

For instance, during World War I, several thousand Vietnamese 

answered the call and came to France to work in defense industries 

or to fight on the Western front. Promises of Vietnamese self-determination were then reneged upon at the Versailles Peace Conference 

following the war. After further nationalist struggles in the 30’s in 

which Ho Chi Minh emerged as the most effective leader, and the 

French colonial powers jailed, exiled, or executed many Vietnamese 

nationalists, they were once again offered self-determination during 

World War II by Franc e and the United States if they would wage 

guerilla war upon the Japanese. In 1945, this promise was also 

broken as the Nationalist Chinese marched into North Vietnam and 

the British marched into South Vietnam and held it long enough for 

the French to regain control.

From 1946 until 1954, the Vietminh, again under the leadership 

of Ho Chi Minh, waged a war of independence against the Frenc h 

colonialists. One sad fact of this portion of the history of Vietnam, is 

tha t by 1952 the United States was supplying 80 percent of the 

Frenc h military costs to retain their colony. It might be pointed out 

tha t the United States at this time was very anxious to forge a strong 

NATO alliance in Europe with France as the key member. In 1954, 

came Dien Bien Phu and the collapse of the French military effort. 

The United States was not a delegate to, or a signer of, the Geneva 

Peace Talks. However, she managed to exert a considerable influence 

at the talks. The United States insisted upon partitioning Vietnam 

and delaying elections for 2 years. Once this had been accomplished,
29

the United States supported the establishment of the Diem regime in 

South Vietnam. Although the Geneva Accords clearly stated tha t the 

partition was only temporary and tha t the elections were to be held 

throughout Vietnam by 1956, the Diem regime, with the backing 

of The United States, declared the Independent Republic of South 

Vietnam and refused to hold nationwide elections. President Eisenhower has commented, in “Mandate for Change," aptly, that the 

United States could not allow these elections, for had elections been 

held, it is a conservative estimate tha t Ho Chi Minh would have won 

at least 85 percent of the Vietnamese vote.

We all know the history of the successive Saigon regimes since 

then, and I won’t bore you with th at. What is important to point out, 

however, is tha t these regimes have been drawn from the elite, largely 

French-trained, military officer corps, have excluded moderate popular civilian leadership, and have been insensitive to the needs of the 

average South Vietnamese citizen. Corruption at the province level is 

still as high as during French colonial rule, only the faces have 

changed, and not all of them. Significant land reform has not been 

accomplished, and oppressive taxation continues. The Saigon regimes 

have continued to align themselves with the large landowners and 

rich city-dwellers and do not enjoy the support of even the antiCommunist segment of the population.

The Vietcong and the North Vietnamese, the outgrowths of the 

Viet Minh nationalist movement, have naturally been much more 

able to sway the South Vietnamese peasantry. They have been considerably aided in this effort by U.S. involvement in Vietnam. Vietnamese tra dition places the ultimate value on the family and village 

unit. The concept of individual freedom, which we have been preaching for 15 years, is alien to Vietnamese life. Since the escalation 

and troop buildup of 1965, U.S. bombing and artillery fire and search 

and destroy missions have devastated and disrupted most of rural 

South Vietnam. American forces moving into an area looking for 

NLF forces evacuate civilian populations, destroy villages, and 

declare a free-fire zone. The result has been to dislocate some 25 percent of the South Vietnamese population and make them homeless 

refugees. Most of them wind up in refugee camps in the cities. Fitted 

for no task but agriculture, they have been forced into theft, blackmarket activities, gambling, and prostitution.

Now we see the same pattern beginning in Cambodia and Laos: 

The U nited States destroying villages, the United States supporting 

the military regimes in those countries, the United States overlooking 

the popular peasant movements. Where will it all stop? When will 

we learn ? As a Nation tha t reveres its own freedoms highly and looks 

with fondness to our own struggle for independence, we are now 

becoming known to most of the rest of the world, particularly the 

underdeveloped newly-emerging states as an antirevolutionary power. 

President Kennedy, although his administration was part of the 

chain of increasing involvement in Indochina, did warn tha t we 

would never be able to defeat Communism and win friends abroad 

by aligning ourselves with the wealthy right-wing elements and the 

military of another country. He urged tha t we seek out the moderate 

democratic socialists and stand behind them. We have failed to do so 

in Vietnam and in most other countries around the globe. I t is time
30

we as a Nation stopped basing our foreign policy on the need to 

cater to certain business interests and tlie desires of our military. Our 

foreign policy should be based on those very same high principles 

which we declare we live by at home and which we now wish to 

see the other peoples of the world adopt. It is time to stop injecting 

the United States-Russian cold war dispute into local conflicts and 

thereby raising the tension, decreasing the chance of peace and 

destroying tha t very stability tha t we say we seek to achieve. Vietnam 

is an excellent case in point. I ’ve already spoken about the disruptive 

influence of the United States presence there. It should be added th at 

even the more moderate Vietnamization policy of President Nixon is 

disruptive as well. For seeking to “have Asian boys fight Asian boys ’ 

can only serve to raise local tensions and ethnic animosities in tha t 

area and will in fact insure the continuation of the struggle even 

when United States forces finally withdraw, if, in fact, they ever 

actually do. Now, as Members of Congress, you gentlemen have a unique opportunity to do something constructive about this very situation this 

week and in the weeks to come. Before Congress are two amendments 

tha t seek to limit the military expenditures fo r the Vietnam war. The 

amendments in no way would deprive American troops of the protection they deserve while undergoing a process of orderly withdrawal. They do, however, p ut a limit on any presidential moves to 

expand or continue the Vietnam war. They also serve the very 

important function of allowing a Congress which has permitted itself 

since the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution of 1964 to lose its constitutional 

power to declare war and its check on the other two branches of 

government to reassert itself. I need not have to stress what th e freeing of Vietnam expenditures could accomplish domestically. We 

might perhaps be able to atten d to the long overdue problems of our 

cities, our poor, our polluted environment, and our struggling educational system. Tn addition, of course, a prompt peace in Tndochina 

would do much to heal the serious division and polarization in 

our nation.

In addition to the amendments, congressional leaders must assert 

their influence upon the executive branch to begin immediately to 

take meaningful steps toward securing a peace with North Vietnam. 

It astonishes me th at we have no high-ranking American diplomat 

heading our peace mission in P aris, while the North Vietnamese have 

a full delegation. It astonishes me tha t we have not brought the 

Vietnam question to the United Nations, the organization that we 

support and whose bill we largely foot. Finally, as a Vietnam veteran, 

it astonishes me that, while we can call ceasefires for Christmas and 

Tet, we cannot call a ceasefire to discuss peace.

Tn conclusion, I ’d like to quote a short passage from a pamphlet 

published bv a research seminar at the University of California at 

Berkeley which I think sums up the current situ atio n:

Th ere is lit tle of economic va lue in Laos and Cambodia and only a lit tle more 

in South Vietnam fo r the Am erican Em pire. Rut the Vietn am ese ar e the first 

people in the world to have fo ug ht th e Un ited St ates to a sta nd sti ll, no tw ith ­

stan di ng the fer oci ty of the violence dir ect ed ag ains t them . Even with all the 

economic, mi litary , and moral costs the United St ates has incu rre d which, with 

a eo mhle r’s ratio na lit v, sho uld dictate a speedy liquid ati on of the ventu re, the 

Am eri can mili tary is deter mi ned not to suf fer defeat. Th e Vie tnamese who have
31

been fighting a qu arter of a century for their independence are equally determined never to acquiesce to America’s continued control over South V ietnam. 

The war thus continues.

Mr. Dent. I want to compliment the present witness on a very 

well prepared paper. I thin k tha t you have probably touched upon 

the seed of the whole problem. That seed was sown many, many years 

ago, probably centuries ago. Because throughout our lifetime as a 

people some nation or another has been guilty of putting itself in a 

position of interference in the internal affairs of other nations. However, only history will record whether or not what we have done to 

date has added to the welfare of the peoples of Indochina, or whether we have, in fact, made a very serious mistake. Those of us who 

are Members of Congress are no better or no worse than the average 

American. That you must first get into your minds as the future 

American leaders. We are elected by a system of government that 

doesn’t pick and chose because of any other reason or cause except 

that the individual stands for election. I am particularly happy to see that you are now stressing the only 

means and the only method tha t your message can be brought to those who have the authority. Peaceful dissent is backed by every 

Member of Congress. Disturbances, we know’, occur. B ut I don't think 

any Member of Congress blames the whole student body of the 

United State s for those very serious, and sometimes very sad, incidents t hat occur. However, to win your point, the Chairman of this 

special committee has given you an opportunity to do what you 

should have been doing at the beginning of the dissention and not 

at this period. It’s not too late. If you will convince, as you can 

do, your fellow students tha t Congress is not above listening to your 

problems, because your problems are our problems. Most of us here,

1 believe, are parents, and I am a grandparent—with two gran dchildren in college.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Dent, may I intrude? The problem is, he has 

only 10 minutes for questioning.

Mr. Dent. I just want to ask you one question. W hat now do you 

recommend ?

Mr. Wise. Yes, I believe that was Mr. Thomson's question. And,

I was kind of chafing a little b it because I do see two or three things 

tha t wTe can be doing immediately, and I refer to them in my speech.

I think there are things tha t can be done regardless of what particular place you put yourself in the political scale, whether you’re a 

complete supporter of the Presiden t’s plan, whether you’re completely opposed to it, or somewhere in the middle. I thin k it is very 

serious, regardless of whatever the schedule or timetable of withdrawal is, I think it is very serious tha t in the time allotted for 

withdrawal we have not been making a serious effort to seek a peace.

T don’t thin k tha t all the blame for the failure to find a peace can 

be laid at the doorstep of Hanoi. I don’t believe that the United 

States has been completely straight forward about the way it’s been 

approaching the issue of peace, the resumption of the bombing, for 

instance, 2 weekends ago was a very poor move. The escalation into 

Cambodia was, I think, a very poor move, not only accelerating the 

situation in Vietnam, but disrupting Cambodia and Laos as well.
32

Mr. Findley. In order to give other panel members a chance, I ’ll 

interrupt at this point and announce tha t Mr. Hathaway of Maine 

has taken the place of Mr. Boland, temporarily, on the panel. And 

Mr. Frelinghuysen of New Jersey has taken Mr. Robison’s place. 

Mr. Hathaway is next with a question.

Mr. Hathaway. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Wise, 

assuming tha t we get out of Southeast Asia in the not too distant 

future, what do you think our policy should be towards Southeast 

Asia after that?

Mr. Wise. I think tha t we should work to support and aid economically, to answer one of the other questions tha t was directed 

earlier, those governments—those moderate, middle-of-the-road governments—that have the best chance of maintaining neutral states, 

developing them, giving them what nonmilitary aid we can give them, 

seeking to win their friendship. I don’t thin k tha t the continued 

support of right-wing regimes is the best way to pain t ourselves 

overseas.

Mr. Hathaway. What if a right-wing regime takes over? Should 

we deny them our economic aid?

Mr. W ise. I think tha t if it is demonstrated, and one of the more 

excellent examples of this is the Saigon regime itself, if it is demonstrated a government is doing things like keeping 25,000 of its opponents in jail and is rigging elections and is insensitive to the 

needs of its people, I think we have the obligation, as well as the 

right, to deny them aid. Yes.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. H icks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Directing your attention 

to Cuba. Would you say tha t there was an instance where the government was changed by force and we kept out of it. Would you 

say tha t force does not play a part in change of most governments 

of underdeveloped nations?

Mr. Wise. No. I think certainly, and this might be something th at 

could be pointed out. tha t throughout history—force definitely has 

played a part in political change. I don't particularly advocate it, 

myself, but its been a historical fact. I don't think tha t we’d have a 

complete absence of force were we to leave these countries to themselves; however, the important thing is th at I think tha t you would 

have a much lower degree of force. I mentioned this also in my 

speech that if we accelerate the amount of force so tremendously 

now in Vietnam, for instance, making any kind of a coalition government or a settlement impossible, disrupting the day-to-day life 

of most of the rural population of Vietnam, I am sure that there 

would be some kind of civil strife, there usually is when a government is being established: there was when our government was 

established even after the Revolutionary War; there was a good 

deal of difference of opinion.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Mr. Wise, in what sense would any of the 

three steps that you recommend be taken to be meaningful ? You 

suggest that there is no high-ranking American diplomat in Paris? 

T would suppose tha t everyone realizes tha t Ambassador Habib has 

the same standing as Averell Harrima n or Cabot Lodge. Are von
33

suggesting tha t because he doesn't have as big a reputation that he 

doesn't have the same powers th at his predecessors had ?

Mr. Wise. I am sure he has the same powers, and I didn t mean to slight him. I think, however, though tha t you put the finger on it. Its ’ a question of standing. I thin k tha t the man who should be there now is Secretary of State Rogers, our highest-ranking diplomat.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. But, in view of the fact tha t nothing’s hap­ pening in Paris, I would think tha t might tie up the Secretary of State in a way that would be far from productive. Your number two point was t ha t we could have referred this to the U.N. Back in early 1967 President Johnson had a very widely publicized appeal to the U.N. and nothing was accomplished. Wh at could be accomplished by referring this matter to the U.N. at this point except to stress the fact tha t this is a hot potato tha t the U.N. is incapable of dealing with? Do you really think it would be a meaningful step for us to appeal again to the U.N. or would it 

simply be grandstanding?

Mr. Wise. If it did nothing else, I think it would reaffirm our faith in the community of nations rather than the power of just one nation, and for all the negative implications tha t might be, I really do think the step is long overdue. And more than just a Presidential appeal, I mean bring it up directly through our Ambassador to the U.N., bring it actually to the floor of the General Assembly for debate. I t was done on the 7-dav war in the Middle Fas t with quite a bit of promptness and with a good deal of bitterness on both sides, 

and I don’t see why it couldn’t be done-----

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Your third suggestion was a ceasefire. Do 

you mean a unilateral ceasefire?

Mr. Wise. Yes.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Wise, we thank you very much for your appearance here. The next witness is Danny Atwood, University of North Caro­ lina, Greensboro. Is Danny Atwood here? While Mr. Atwood is sitting down, I once more remind the panel that in order to proceed we have to insist th at the comments of panel members be in the form of questions and that we restrict ourselves to one question each. I know it is difficult to do, hut I thin k it is in 

the public interest here.

Mr. Atwood.

Mr. Atwood. Yes sir. Considering that several statements would be made here today concerning the general scope of the actions that have recently taken place and tryi ng to avoid lumping every student into the student body, I chose instead to limit my statements to what has happened on the campus of the University of North Carolina in Greensboro.

STATEMENT BY DANNY ATWOOD, UNIVERSITY OE 

NORTH CAROLINA

Concerned Students for Peaceful Action

Mr. Atwood. As representatives from the concerned students for peaceful action at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro
34

and because we feel the need for us to voice our concern for the 

recent and long term actions of our government, we wish to make 

the following statement for peace.

As students, we have the availability of information from our 

faculty library, visiting lecturers, and a real opportunity to study 

the issues of our time. We take these issues seriously, therefore, we 

cannot stand by and condone the war in Vietnam, the action in Cambodia, and the deaths of our fellow students at Kent State and 

Jackson State.

Campuses all over the Nation have demonstrated their disapproval 

of these issues in a variety of ways; some of them violent, most of 

them nonviolent, but all desperately serious. The number of active 

students seems to be much larger than eithe r President Nixon or Vice 

President Agnew would like to admit.

The students of the University of North Carolina at Greensborosupport the amendment to end the war because we believe that making war in Southeast Asia or anywhere else in the world is not 

America's role. The United States invited itself into Vietnam for 

the alleged purpose of protecting Southeast Asia. The results of 

our protection have not only been the loss of thousands of American 

lives but the loss of thousands of innocent Vietnamese lives, the 

destruction of homes and property.

We are not speaking out against our country but in protection 

of it. We are not calling for the end of democratic government in 

the United States but for the reality of it.

It is hard for us as students to believe that America is fighting 

for freedom and democracy when we are faced with the facts. Such 

as (1) The United States is supporting dictatorships in Greece, 

Brazil, Nationalist China, Portugal, and Thailand. (2) The South 

Vietnamese Government is unrepresentative, unpopular, and undemocratic. All opponents to it are jailed and many outspoken students have been jailed and tortured. (3) The draft in this country 

is unconstitutional according to the 13th amendment. (4) And finally, 

the suppression of student opinion on the college campuses.

On the campus at U.N.C.-Greensboro we have been demonstrating 

our disapproval and trying to bring the awareness of the issues to 

the campus and community.

We have found a new communication with our faculty at the 

university. There has been an interaction between us that has never 

existed before. The faculty-student relationship has changed to become a real and meaningful experience-exchange. This has come 

from a common purpose, and a need to communicate our ideals and 

concepts, and has resulted in long-range plans. Our faculty passed 

a resolution allowing optional grad ing for the remainder of the 

semester, and they are also considering another act which would 

allow students a week off in October for campaigning. Also forums, 

seminars and other faculty-student participation is planned on a 

level aside from the regular course work.

As students we had little or no communication outside our academic community. We have begun to experience the community we 

live in. For the past 3 weeks we have contacted various community 

members and civic organizations. In the last week we have been 

doing extensive canvassing in shopping centers and in the city of
35

Greensboro with a petition in favor of the Hatfield-McGovern amend­ ment to end the war. It is this amendment we wish to see passed. The signatures for approximately one-fourth of the city total 5,316. We will extend our canvassing action in the summer and for the next academic year, or until the war is ended. We would like to close with a reminder that all those students who are actively particip ating in antiw ar activities today will he 21 by 1972. Listen to what your future voters have to say. There is no communication harrier because each is speaking very loudly. 

Yet no one seems to listen.

Peace.

Mr. F indley. Thank you very much. The first question is by Mr. 

Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Atwood, I notice that you say that the students will extend the ir canvassing into the summer and into the next academic year or until the war is ended.

Mr. Atwood. Yes, sir.

Mr. T homson. Does that mean tha t the war is perhaps the only 

interest vou have.

Mr. A' rwooD. No sir, that is not. We have extended our issues into areas that are peculiar to Greensboro, N.C., which would include racial issues. Also, we are planning a blood drive for July. We were in touch with the Red Cross and trying to have the blood that was donated sent to North and South Vietnam; and, we were unable to do this. However, the blood drive will be held.

Mr. F indley. T'll pass my question to Mr. Horton of New York.

Mr. Horton. I was interested in th is last statement that you made that there is no communication barrier because each is speaking very loudly, and yet you say no one seems to listen. The fact that 

you are being heard here does indicate, T think, that some people are 

listening.

Mr. Ai 'wood. Yes sir, that’s right.

Mr. Horton. T thin k that the young people here in America have had an opportunity to be heard, certainly in the last couple of weeks. You have also been in the community of Greensboro, apparently with a petition. What has been the response there?

Mr. Atwood. The response has been very favorable. We have been working only for a limited time, but it will continue. We are making plans now for funds which will definitely enable us to carry a much stronger and much more effective canvassing of the city. AVe have been working also in connection with Guilford College, Greensboro College, A. & T. University, and Bennett College.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Fascell. Excuse me, have you completed your 

response?

Mr. A twood. Yes sir, I just wanted to say that the canvassing so far has been on a limited scale, but as soon as school is out, it will be a saturation process of the community.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Atwood, your state­ ment indicates, of course, complete involvement of the university students at North Carolina in a majority of high prior ity current issues, mainly F.S . involvement in Southeast Asia. You have de­ fined a great number of actions which have been taken by them.
36

What I find rathe r difficult to understand is tha t the opportunity 

for political activity in the community has been available for a long 

time: and political activity in the halls of Congress has been available for a long time. You say people in the community are listening 

because they are signing petitions. Wha t was it tha t brought about 

a recognition of the inactivity by the students on the campus which 

resulted in a resolution which was finally adopted and which brought 

action by the students at Carolina?

Mr. Atwood. In other words, what originally brought about the 

stagnation among the people in the community in Greensboro?

Mr. Fascell. Not the stagnation among the people in the community, but the awareness that resulted in action by the students 

to participate in the political process of the community?

Mr. Atwood. The students at the University of North Carolina 

saw that there was a great amount of inactivity among people in 

the community. There were several people whom we felt did not 

have a complete issue of facts. We have compiled several fact sheets. 

They have not been one sided. They have been presenting both sides. 

We have tried to make this factual. We have had both pro-administration and anti-administration faculty members helping with the 

compiling of these fact sheets. And they have been taken to the 

community, and the community has made these decisions on their 

own. I t has not been a force-type thing. Also, we are leaving letters 

available for those people who are not at home, and numbers where 

they can contact the CSPA office if there are any questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hathaway.

Mr. Hathaway. I yield my time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. I Iicks. Do you have have any questions at this time, Mr. B urton? Mr. Atwood, you say that you don’t think tha t the people are 

listening. IIow would you characterize President Johnson's decision 

not to seek another term ? How would you characterize stopping the 

bombing of North Vietnam? How would you characterize President 

Nixon’s decision to start returning the troops? When you say they 

aren't listening, are you really saying tha t they don’t immediately 

capitulate to the students?

Mr. Atwood. In answer to that, I would ask—the escalation as 

far as the resuming of the bombing of North Vietnam—how do you 

characterize that? Also, how can the escalation—and it is felt tha t 

it is an escalation, not only by people of this country but by other 

countries as well—the escalation by the entrance of United States 

troops into Cambodia and South Vietnamese troops into Laos?

Mr. F indley. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. I have no questions.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. T homson. No questions.

Mr. Findley. Are there other questions? Thank you very much, 

we appreciate your appearance.

The next witness is Thomas Pettigrew. I understand he is sharing 

his time with Mike Zimmerman, so if you gentlemen will take your 

seats, please. Proceed, Mr. Pe tti gr ew , please.
37

Mr. Pettigrew. Yes. Rather than a long prepared statement this 

morning each of us would choose to make several concise points 

and leave more time for questions between yourselves and ourselves.

Mr. Findley. You are from Chico State College, Chico, Calif., 

correct.

Mr. Pettigrew. Tha t's right. I ’m Tom Pettigrew. I m president 

of the student body, and although I am not speaking for the student 

body, I am speaking, I think, for a number of the students there.

STATEMENT BY THOMAS PETTIGREW , JR.,

CHICO STATE COLLEGE

Mr. P ettigrew. Students differ from Mr. Average Citizen only 

in the measure and volume of their dissent—not in their dissatis­ faction with many Government policies. Students simply have less 

to lose. The current campus unrest has many problems at its base: War in Southeast Asia; poverty; environmental pollution; racism; and the endless rhetoric. None of these by itself would find any broad 

support on campus but the coalition of them together has brought 

many students into campus dissent. Cambodia was only the straw tha t broke the camel’s back—being 

told that 150,000 men will come home in the next 18 months in one breath and tha t we are extending the area of our armed involvement in the next breath made the “have faith in your leaders” a little 

difficult to follow. At least pa rt of the problem lies in the creditability of the information released to the public. In the past, the public (and stu­ dents) have accepted the Government’s news releases, but since the previous administration, the public no longer accepts news conference footwork as reasonable explanation of the facts used in the 

executive decisionmaking process.

Students feel a need for meaningful discussion, this is no longer satisfied by talk ing with each other or sympathetic faculty. There 

must be meaningful communication with people such as yourselves— 

and then not 10 minutes at a time.

We students are more aware of national and international affairs 

than ever before—we must have more real answers—a method of communication must be developed from the centers of Government 

back to citizens at all levels.

The general feelings of the average student:

1. He is lost, has no answers and gets double talk from politicians 

and a somewhat clouded view from the media.

2. lie hears mostly one side of the story on campus—and if this 

continues, it will soon be accepted as the tru th—the result is tha t 

he is easily manipulated into the street because of his frustrations. 3. He must be told the tru th—this can only be done through 

meaningful communication.

Many colleges are planning their calendars with time off before 

and during elections this fall. During these elections, students will 

affect “change"’ at the poles. Take time (and encourage your colleagues) to go to the campus this fall—you certainly will meet some 

hard-core resistance but the silent majority wants to communicate—
38

we want more than the Vice President's gross generalizations. Come 

to our campuses and talk to us—I extend this not just for my students 

but also for those at every other college and university in America.

STATEM ENT BY MICH AEL H. ZIMMER MAN,

CHICO STA TE COLLEGE

Mr. Zimmerman. The students of this country and the world are 

concerned aiid informed. Youth is not patient; nor are ideas or frustrations. Below are some statements and solutions:

Violence in America does have meaning. It is not merely violence 

for its own sake.

Cambodia is but one issue among many. We are angry about many 

things.

Students really have faith in the Constitution—it is men who 

abuse the Constitution in which we have no faith.

Youth in general have no one in Congress with whom to identify.

Today students are on the defensive; no one speaks for students—only at or against us.

We have never really known why we are in Vietnam. It is our dead 

friends and relatives that make us want to demand answers.

To students the war now seems to be justified by U.S. economics 

rather than “peace’’ or an “end to the communist aggression."

President Nixon is viewed as dishonest and sly.

Students see Cambodia and Vietnam as another instance of “stealing” the world’s resources for our gluttonous economy.

Congress seems powerless against the power of the President. 

POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS

Have President Nixon send all Representatives to their districts 

to discuss methods of being effective in writing, speaking, etc.

Put together meaningful legislation that is badly needed, that is 

population control, pollution legislation—anything tha t is positive, 

necessarv, and domestic.

Most important do all tha t is possible to end the war in Southeast 

Asia.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hathaway.

Mr. Hathaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to makeone observation. You say tha t vouth in general have no one in Congress with whom to identify, yet 75 of us, and maybe it’s 

more now, have endorsed the Fraser-Riegle resolution. Don't you 

consider tha t you can identify with those 75?

Mr. P ettigrew. These last couple of weeks have been very hopeful. 

I think a lot of students are really glad to see these things happen, 

and we are hopeful for the future in the next couple of weeks. As far 

as an individual person with whom to identify, what the debate 

among the different students, I, myself, don't really have anybody 

to whom I really look for and in whom I have great trust. I have 

general hope.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Well, I would like to yield to the gentleman from 

California, Mr. Burton.
39

Mr. Burton of California. Firs t, I would like to welcome both of 

you to Washington. Secondly, I commend you for your statement. 

Thirdly, I wish to note that it has been my feeling for a number of 

years that the issue is not what is wrong with the kids, the real 

issue is what is wrong with the country. T think that the students 

have made an enormous contribution to bring some measure of sanity 

to our foreign policy in Indochina, and if enough of us work hard 

enough between now and November, either we'll be out of office or 

enough of my colleagues who say we ought to stay there will be out. 

And, that’s really the name of the game. I commend you.

Mr. Pettigrew. Thank you Mr. Burton.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Pettigrew, 

you said that meaningful communication is needed but you have 

implied that it isn't available. Mr. Zimmerman has suggested that 

students don't write letters because they feel it's useless. To what 

extent have either of you, except within the past 3 weeks, attempted 

to communicate with your Congressmen or Senators? And, why 

do you feel it is useless to engage in that kind of communication?

Mr. Pettigrew. I'll first respond, and then let Mike. I think it is 

the feeling throughout the country, not just with students, that writing a Congressman may be a quick way of venting frustrations, but 

when the letter gets here to Washington, we hear stories about mailbags being weighed and “yeses" counted and “noes’’ counted. And, 

no one ever looks in the envelope to see if there are any ideas in the 

envelope. I t may have been a blank envelope. I'm really questioning 

whether if T write you a letter, you'll read the letter.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are you saying you don't get answers to 

the letters?

Mr. Pettigrew. No, I have written many times and not received 

answers to letters.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. That astonishes me.

Mr. Zimmerman. Sir, I'd like to respond to that. I myself try to 

write five letters a week; I average about two or three. I'm not 

speaking for myself on that, so many people have criticized me for 

writing letters, and I do get answers. And, I ’d like to see mimeographed letters, not handw ritten answers, tha t means somebody is 

doing something besides writing letters. I write letters. I think there's 

a lot of students who really feel it doesn't get anywhere. I think 

that if each Representative from Congress came to his district with 

extensive dialogue, as Tom pointed out, and really talked about what 

it really does, I thin k that students would feel that change within 

the system can really work.

Mr. F indley. Thank you very much, Mr. Pettigrew and Mr. Zimmerman. The next witness listed—Yes?

Mr. Horton. I 'd like to make a comment. I ’ve been in Congress 8 

years, and I want to address myself to this matter of communication.

I represent the 36th District of New York which includes the city 

of Rochester and part of Monroe and Wayne County. It’s been my 

policy ever since I ’ve been in Congress, when a letter comes in, to 

not only read that letter, but also to sign personally every answer 

that goes out. And I think that this is generally the attitude of most
40

Members of Congress. I read carefully the mail tha t comes into 

my office. I'm also careful to make sure there's an answer that goes 

out to each communication that comes in.

I just want to give you one example of how it can be effective. 

Recently, 1 had a doctor write to me, and he was concerned because 

he found that he was receiving mailings from periodical magazines 

tha t made it appear tha t because he had registered under the gun 

registration law his name was being passed around to people by 

their purchasing lists of names. I took that letter, and I found that 

was actually the case. I have been in touch with the Internal Revenue 

Service and have prepared legislation to prohibit this type of thing. 

Now I can tell you instance after instance in the 8 years I have 

been in Congress where a letter has resulted in definite action, even 

to the extent of an amendment to the anti-pollution bill tha t just 

went through this last year—a letter from a constituent with an 

idea. So, I say to you that your statement with regard to this 

matter is not accurate. It’s not true of all Members of Congress. It 

might be of some, but I think that the majority of the Members 

of Congress are happy to receive mail, tha t they read it, and they 

try to be very responsive to it.

Mr. Zimmerman. I thin k-----

Mr. Findley. I am sorry I have to interrupt. In fairness to the 

witnesses tha t have come great distances to be here, we have to stay 

on schedule.

Next are Paul Wacker, Steve Valliere, and Jim Van Zee of McLean, Va. Are these three here? Paul Wacker, I believe, is the 

spokesman. Paul, would you proceed.

Mr. Wacker. Yes sir, thank you very much.

STATEMENT BY PAUL WACKER, STEVE VALL IERE, AND 

JIM VAN ZEE, MARSHALL HIGH SCHOOL

Mr. Wacker. We have often thought how great it would be to 

have 1 day to talk to top Government officials about our foreign 

policy. When we were told we could speak here today the only 

thought tha t came to mind was—“You mean for a whole 10 minutes?”

As students at Fairfa x County's Marshall High, it must be understood tha t the views we are about to express in no way reflect the 

opinions of our school, teachers, family or even fellow students. 

They are strictly the views which we, as three students, possess.

By mutually writing this statement we have come to realize the 

difficulty of coming together on even general issues. Although all 

three of us basically hold the same views, we found ourselves arguing 

over even individual sentences of this statement and can now better 

appreciate the true meaning of negotiation.

Our objectives in Southeast Asia may be classified into two areas: 

(1) military, and (2) political. Rehashing the issue of why, why not, 

or how we got into Vietnam seems to be of no practical value. The 

fact still remains tha t we are there. Militarily we are attempting 

to protect the territorial integrity of the noncommunist countries 

of Southeast Asia. We are succeeding in this objective to only a 

certain degree. Our intention has never been to defeat North Vietnam. Whether this is right or wrong, we cannot say. But we cannot
41

help but believe that it is this fact that has been such a detriment to troop morale and public sentiment here at home. We are tired of this war and its seemingly senseless drain on our society. Because present and future U.S. policy will never bring about a military victory, we support a gradual withdrawal of American troops and 

endorse the Vietnamization of the war. Vietnamization of the war would simply place the burden of the fighting where it belongs—on the Vietnamese people. This will give the United States the opportunity to discover whether or not the South Vietnamese wish to be rid of the Communists. We must, how­ ever, continue to supply the South Vietnamese with arms, as they do not have the capacity to wage a successful war with their limited 

industrial strength. Politically, we went into Vietnam with the intention of helping the South Vietnamese and allowing them their own free choice of government. Whether the aggressor is Communist, Fascist, Nazi or capitalist is of no importance. The point is, aggression was and is beir^g inflicted upon a nation which has done nothing to provoke it except express a desire for a free choice in deciding how to govern themselves. There are many people who believe tha t Vietnam is an unnecessary war meant to protect American ‘‘credibility" and inte rests. But what is wrong with that ? Is there anyone here who believes that the Communists will settle for anything less than victory if given the opportunity? Is there anyone in this room who honestly believes that complete American pullout would not result in eventual complete Communist occupa­ tion of Southeast Asia? And even further—is there anyone who does not believe that the Communists want and are demanding world 

domination? True, credibility has played an increasing role in this war, yet not to the extent tha t we are there to preserve it at all cost. This, we believe, can be seen in our desire to Vietnamize the war. No matter what type of war is being fought, it is the responsibility of America to do everything possible to protect the lives of U.S. troops—it is the responsibility of the American people to see tha t U.S. losses are at a minimum. We view the movement into Cambodia as a means towards these objectives. It is obvious that this action is temporary. President Nixon himself, put the time limit on it. Much of the dissent on U.S. policy today is said to be attributed to the inequities and unpopularity of the draft. We are of the belief that although the dra ft is fair, elements that lead into it could be fairer. As of now, much is dependent upon whether or not the stu­ dent has the money to get into a college. Those who don't have it, 

often end up fighting the war. Put ting colleges on a competitive basis would allow every student an equal opportunity for education. This would not only put the sole responsibility on each student, but would also once again make col’ege 

the privilege that it used to be. There is much talk now in abolishing all student deferments. Abol­ ishing student deferments could senselessly deprive the U.S. of men who could develop extremely intelligent minds and make significant contributions to all societv in such needed fields as medicine, science, and general technology. Although man deserves equal rights, it must

46 -4 S7 — 70- 4
42

be taken into account that he is of differing abilities. You cannot 

mitigate all social class. We do, however, believe that a minimum 

standard can and should be met.

As an alternative to the draft, many suggest an all volunteer army. 

But, would that be practical? If so, wages would have to be competitive with civilian pay scales. Safeguards would have to be built 

into such a system to prevent the formation of a military elite in 

this country—one that could be capable of a military coup. For, it 

is the fluidity of men in the armed forces tha t keeps the military 

relating to civilians and vice-versa.

Which brings us back to the matter of U.S. policy. It really makes 

little difference whether it is a drafted army or a volunteer army 

that, is fighting a bad war—it will still mean the loss of American 

lives. It is of little difference whether it is a drafted army or a volunteer army that is fighting a war, good or bad—it will still deprive 

the American economy of dollars that could be used for other 

purposes.

Gentlemen, the wall of Vietnam and Cambodia stands before us. 

But when this obstacle is removed, will we get into a similar, situation elsewhere? Will it not be time for a reevaluation of foreign 

policy? Will we establish new goals or different ones?

Our final appeal today is that you men begin to chart a new course 

of foreign policy which will lessen the chance for a repeat of present 

dilemmas for future generations. By doing so, you will insure those 

future generations the safety and security of a united America. We 

thank you for the opportunity afforded us today to appear here.

Mr. Findley. Am I correct that Steve VaPiere and .Tim Van Zee, 

with you, had a part in the construction of this statement?

Mr. Wacker. Yes sir.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I believe that this is 

the first group that has appeared here today who are attending high 

school rather than college. I have no questions; I just want to commend these young men for a very thoughtful statement and one 

which I think speaks very well for themselves and the school that 

they are attending.

Mr. F indley. I'll yield my time to Congressman Dent, if he has a 

question, or Congressman Burton. Do either of you have a question?

Mr. Dent. I'd like to ask one. Would you expect that Congress 

would have the same differences that you expressed here with the 

other witnesses who have testified?

Mr. W acker. To a much greater degree, as a matter of fact.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Looking to the future, 

Mr. Wacker, also is as important as dealing with the present. If 

we're to avoid the mistakes of the past and the present, would von 

think it would be helpful if we in the Congress could address ourselves to the problems of defining the President’s powers under the 

Constitution with respect to the deployment of troops abroad?

Mr. W acker. I es sir, I definitely do. I feel that the question of 

going into Cambodia does raise a Constitutional question. However, 

with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution passed, it seems to have been
within the powers. It's the checks and balances tha t you do have 

right now, tha t makes this thing turn out all right.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hathaway.

Mr. Hathaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your 

statement. There’s one point, though, tha t I have some doubts about. As an alternative to the dra ft, you suggest an all volunteer army. 

Is tha t open for question?

Mr. Valliere. We are not specifically suggesting a volunteer army.

Mr. Findley. Would you identify yourself, please.

Mr. Valliere. I ’m Steve Valliere. We realize that there has been much talk about an all volunteer army, and I personally do not feel tha t I have enough information to give an intelligent answer as to whether we should have the volunteer army or no t.. But we feel tha t we would like to know whether this would be practical, and could such safeguards be built into a system whereby we would not 

create a military elite in this country?

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. I'll yield further to Mr. Hathaway, apparently he’s 

got another question.

Mr. Hathaway. Well, the point I wanted to make is tha t we probably wouldn’t be having this hearing this morning if we had an all volunteer army, because I think tha t the draft has served one purpose, and a very good one. It has kept the public involved in our foreign policy. Because either they're potential draftees or they’re the fathers and mothers of potential draftees, and for that reason I don’t believe tha t the volunteer army concept should be 

embraced.

Mr. Valliere. I personally do not feel a volunteer army is necessary. We mentioned the fluidity, and I think tha t is an important point. This is the same old song, but I cannot help but believe that with freedom goes responsibility. I don’t see how you can get around it, myself. I thin k it’s responsibility directed at the students.

Mr. Findley. The chair will recognize Mr. Horton who is now 

taking the place of Mr. Robison.

Mr. Horton. Mr. Chairman, than k you. I just want to say tha t I think this is a very well reasoned, very honest statement, and I commend each of you gentlemen for the statement you have made.

Mr. F indley. Are there any questions? Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. F relinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I, too, would like 

to commend these young men. I would like to ask you a brief ques­ tion. Do you think it is important at what age young people are 

allowed to vote ? Do von think, in other words-----

Mr. V alliere. Well, many people go on and like the idea that if a person is able to go through war at 18 or 19, he should be able to vote at the same time. Well, I personally agree with this. Because if a person is sent off to fight a war, he should be able to have a voice in the decision of whether the war should exist, should we carry 

on with it,

Mr. Wacker. I definitely feel tha t the 18-year-old vote should be enacted. I think tha t with the education standards tha t exist today, an 18-year old is fully capable of maturally handling the 

privilege.
44

Mr. Findley. Well, we thank you gentlemen very much for a 

splendid statement, well done in all respects.

Mr. Jack Berger of Principia College, Elsah, Ill. is next. Jack 

Berger, without solicitation on my part, I see th at my congressional 

district is now represented here because Elsah is a part of my district. Mr. Berger.

Mr. Berger. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the panel.

STATEMENT BY JACK BERGER, PR INCIPIA COLLEGE

Mr. Berger. Gentlemen, my name is Jack Berger. I am a 20-year- •

old junior from Principia College located in Elsah, Ill. I was selected 

by our student council and our school of government as a representative of our institution. On behalf of Principia, I should like 

to thank you for your invitation. It is indeed our pleasure to appear *

before this panel.

Your invitation indicated tha t the purpose of these hearings was 

to afford college students “a constructive, orderly and effective way 

to be heard on military and foreign policies, especially those relating to Southeast Asia.’’ In order tha t I might most effectively share 

with this panel the feelings and ideas of the students on my campus, 

the student council conducted a survey just yesterday. Out of a total 

enrollment of 750 students, we heard from approximately one-third.

This was not due to any disinterest but rath er the short amount of 

time allowed the students for completion of the form. Identical questions were asked all the students in the following six major areas:

(1) Withdrawal from Vietnam; (2) support of the Nyugen Van 

Thieu government; (3) powers of the President versus powers of 

Congress; (4) Cambodia; (5) the role of our educational institutions; and (6) the situation at home.

Concerning the question of United States’ withdrawal from Vietnam, those voting in the survey had confidence in President Nixon’s 

“Timetable’’ for withdrawal by a vote of 2 to 1. When asked the 

question. ‘“I)o you favor immediate and unilateral withdrawal from 

\ ietnam by U.S. troops ?”—The vote was approximately 2 to 1 

against such action.

This is obviously not to be interpreted as an endorsement of 

troops in A ietnam by our student body. The overwhelming majority *

of the students who voted did not want to see U.S. troops in Southeast Asia. This idea was further supported when the students responded to the second major area of the survey: Support of the 

Thieu government. By a 4 to I majority, those who responded felt 

tha t we should definitely support the Thieu government in South 

Vietnam. However, only 18 students out of the 250 voting, felt 

that we should support this government with U.S. troops. The vast 

majority indicated that they would be in favor of supporting the 

government economically and politically. They also supported the 

sending of U.S. arms and other military supplies to South Vietnam.

In the area of presidential and/o r congressional power, it was 

generally felt by our student body th at the President of the United 

States, as Commander in Chief, should indeed have the power to 

deploy our troops throughout the world. It should be noted however, that more tha n three out of eight students felt that the Presi-
45

dent should not have this power solely. At the same time, it was felt 

by two-thirds of those voting tha t the President is not usurping 

congressional auth ority by deploying troops. The student response 

indicated tha t the McGovern amendment was acceptable to about 

one-half of those polled.

It would seem then, tha t our students feel tha t the power of the 

President to act as Commander in Chief gives him the direct authority to deploy troops. However, the response by one-third of those 

voting, clearly showed that Congress should play more of a role in 

this decisionmaking process.

Dealing specifically with the Cambodian issue, the students felt 

that from a purely military point of view, President Nixon was 

correct in deploying troops. The faculty at our institution overwhelmingly agreed with the President's position. However, due to 

the repercussions at home, half of the students polled felt it was 

unwise to deploy the troops. Almost half, also felt that the Cambodian commitment was a definite expansion of the war in Southeast 

Asia. The students seemed to feel that military considerations must 

be weighed against domestic reaction. In the case of the Cambodian 

commitment, many who felt tha t it was a wise military decision, 

felt that overall, it was an unwise maneuver.

The most profound indicator concerning the situation at home 

was provided by answers to the following question: “Do you foresee the possibility of an actual revolution in the United Sta tes?'’ 

Nearly 50 percent of the students replied in the affirmative. The 

nexus connecting revolution at home with student unrest may be 

found in the insensitivity of the Nixon administration to the Nation’s internal crisis, 65 percent of our students considered the present admin istration as unresponsive. The intensity of student disaffection with the present administration was clea’ly illustrated by 

a concensus labeling Vice President Agnew’s remarks a contributing 

factor in the communication breakdown between Government and 

youth. In fact, more than one-half of our student body found the 

Vice President’s remarks a direct casual factor in the violent conflict 

at home.

The disparity between student support of the move in Cambodia 

and aversion to domestic policy can be attributed to two factors: 

(1) Supp ort for the Cambodia move was predicated on maintaining or accelerating troop withdrawal in accordance with a workable 

timetable, (2) concern for domestic policy pertains to the callous 

response to dissidence which emanates from the administration, especially the Vice President.

An important issue on our campus, as on campuses across the 

Nation, is: “Should the college be a center for political activity ?” 

Our campus was split on this issue almost right down the middle. 

For those who supported political activism, it was overwhelmingly 

felt that violence has no part on the college campus. The universities 

and colleges should provide information, and resources for all students who wish to constructively work for change. This could include 

lobbies, petitions, and letter campaigns, time off from school for 

political involvement, and course credit for political movement. This 

response indicates tha t those who favor political activism definitely 

felt tha t the college and university should offer some incentive for
46

the student who is willing to work “within the system.” It was felt 

that universities must be as aware of current situations as any other 

institutions. There are few opportunities in our society for such a 

complete environment for knowledge and understanding. Jus t as importantly the policymakers must be ready and willing to listen to 

our students, and faculty members.

In ad ditio n to thes e ideas, we believe th at active pr ay er , recognizin g the inherent goodness of all men, will be an effec tual aid in 

resolving the problems unsettling our Nation, and will result in 

creative alternatives and constructive action.

I am so honored to have appeared before you today. This type of 

communication is essential in overcoming the differences between 

the students and the Government.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do you have on your 

college campus a chapter of the National Student Association?

Mr. Berger. We are joining tha t organization. Yes sir. We have 

not an active chapter at the present time.

Mr. T homson. Do you have a chapter of the SDS?

Mr. Berger. No sir, we do not.

Mr. Thomson. I thought your statement reflected that. [Laughter.]

Air. Findley. Mr. Berger, in your statement you say the response 

by one-third of those voting clearly showed that Congress should 

play more of a role in the decisionmaking process which deploys 

troops. Mr. Fascell and I have both sponsored proposals which would 

impose a reporting requirement upon the President, which would 

establish a relationship between the Executive and the Congress afte r 

the fact in the event that military force is used by the Commander 

in Chief. Do you have any comments upon this proposal ?

Mr. Berger. T tldnk that the majority of the students who voted 

in our survey would definitely be in favor of this tvpe of proposal. 

I feel, however, the cry of the one-third cited in my paper was that the 

Congress of the United States should be consulted prio r to troop deployment.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Mr. Berber. I agree with that, of course. In the bill 

I have introduced I seek to define the Presidential powers and the 

role tha t Congress would play. My cosponsors and I hope that we 

would be able to define the powers or at least stimulate sufficient 

dialogue to clarify the situation; eliminate the areas of doubt as to 

the constitutional question and the role of the Congress. I commend vou on your approach: for vour thoroughness in surveying 

the college and making your views known to this committee. I have 

heard manv witnesses in this same room. Mr. Chairman, over many 

years. The testimony we have had today from students is remarkable. 

It points out, and all of us in Congress are very much aware of the 

fact—tha t students toda” nre we11 prep ared: they are articulate; 

they can make meaningful contributions; and they ought to be 

heard.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hathaway.

Mr. H athaway. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I iust wanted to 

join with Mr. Fascell in commen^^g Mr. Berger for an excellent 

statement and commending all of the students I have heard both
47

at this hearing and the one we held a couple of Sundays ago. Also 

I want to commend the numerous students who have come into my 

office in the past couple of weeks, and the ones I have talked to in my 

own district for making an excellent presentation of their case. I 

hope they continue to maintain the attitude that they have towards 

the problem which we are discussing.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Berger, were you here 

during all of the hearings?

Mr. Berger. No sir, I arrived a little late this morning.

Mr. Hicks. At least one, and I got the implication from maybe 

one or two others, that it was difficult for all voices to be heard on 

the campus. I take it that at your school this is not so, that all shades 

of opinion are reflected, and all have the opportunity to express 

themselves.

Mr. Berger. I might address myself in answer by saying that 

we’re a rath er unique educational institution. First of all, we are 

physically removed from the city of St. Louis by some 45 miles and 

from the city of Alton by 15 miles, which puts us pretty much in 

the sticks. |Laughter.] We’re an educational institution where all 

who are a ttend ing our institution have the same religious belief, that 

is Christian Science. W ith this common basis, we agree on a number 

of issues, obviously.

Mr. Hicks. Well, I commend you for your statement. Thank you, 

Air. Chairman.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Horton.

Mr. Horton. I just want to commend you also, Mr. Berger. I 

think this does demonstrate planning and research on the part of 

you and your colleagues at the college, and I think it is a very wonderful presentation to the Members of this committee. Thank you.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. I want to commend you also, Mr. Berger. 

The one statement about the questionnaire that astonishes me was 

tha t nearly 50 percent of the student body foresaw an actual revolution. In your opinion, what would a revolution accomplish, either 

in jogging th is administration or in other areas?

Mr. Berger. In my personal opinion, I don't feel that revolution 

would accomplish anything, but I think that the question as it was 

phrased in our questionnaire said tha t others feel tha t dissension 

and the frustration on large segments of our populace showed great 

polarization which could result in a revolution.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Berger, we are very grateful to you.

The next witness is Hick Gunning, Virginia Law School at Charlottesville. Is Mr. Gunning here?

STATEMENT BY RICHARD W. GUNNING. UNIV ERSITY 

0E VIR GIN IA LAW SCHOOL

Mr. Gunning. Distinguished Congressmen and fellow students, I 

have come here today to voice my opinions in opposition to the 

American involvement in Southeast Asia. I would, nevertheless, like 

to preface those comments with a few brief observations about the 

recent campus protests. It is of foremost importance, I believe, that
48

the general public be made cognizant of the views of a significant 

number of today's young people. For my part, until a short time 

ago, I, and many others like me—had been willing to accept President Nixon's seemingly sensible program for the deescalation of the 

war through gradual troop withdrawals and “Vietnamization.” Our 

reaction to the Cambodian incursion, however, heightened by the 

tragic killings at Kent State University, has compelled us to reevaluate and realign our position. We, the campus “moderates,” 

can no longer in good conscience subscribe to the President’s policies.

The pervading problem as I see it is that the views of the many 

are obscured by the rhetoric of a few. To believe otherwise is to be 

sadly mistaken and vastly unf air to the tenor of the majority of 

American youth. The only tru ly valid common denominator of the 

protest movement is the overwhelming student concern about the 

war. I certainly do not deny tha t there are those among us who 

espouse violent confrontation as a vehicle for total institutional 

change, but I sincerely doubt that their strategies will be persuasive 

for more than a small minority. Indeed, these tactics accomplish 

little more than the alienation of those who might otherwise support us, and the strengthening of the resolve of those who would discredit us. In short, I am merely submitting tha t responsible student 

protesters will not condone the use of violence, and in its stead, 

will seek to constructively reform the system from within.

Turning now to the war, I personally would favor the immediate 

cessation of all military involvement in Southeast Asia. In terms 

of practical politics and military necessity, however, I realize this 

is unfortunately tantamount to the impossible. The two questions, 

then, th at we—you as Members of Congress and I as a member of the 

electorate—must be willing to face are, first, how can we insure the 

most rapid disengagement from Southeast Asian hostilities, and 

second, how can we preclude the future recurrence of similar situations.

In considering the above questions, young people are distressed 

by several lingering doubts. First, the credibility of President Nixon 

is thereby threatened to the extent tha t it is arguably impeached. 

The President has repeatedly promised that American ground troops 

will honor the June 30 withdrawal date from Cambodia. Despite 

this, the major news services report tha t those in charge of the Cambodian operation have intimated that they may need additional time 

to complete the ir mission; and furthermore, the Department of Defense has stated that U.S. support troops and air power will remain 

in Cambodia with the Vietnamese Army past the appointed deadline. Such ambiguities often make me wonder if the number of 

troops withdrawn from the Southeast Asian thea ter is a valid indication of the deescalation of our involvement. Perhaps other 

factors, for example the number of countries in which the United 

States is militarily engaged, or the number of combat missions per 

week, would be a more reliable barometer which just might evidence 

an involvement in Southeast Asia more inclusive now than ever 

before.

Second, if that alone is not sufficient, the constitutional overtones 

of the Cambodian decision should prove conclusive. The draftsmen
49

of the Constitution saw fit to formulate express limitations on the 

powers of both the Executive and the legislature. They made provision for an intricate internal system of “checks and balances in 

which neither departm ent was bestowed exclusive jurisdiction over 

foreign affairs; the President received the power of being “Commander in Chief,” while the legislature was allocated control over 

appropriations as well as the warmaking function. From this it seems 

quite clear that the Founding Fath ers intended tha t these two 

branches of government complement each other in the realm of 

foreign policy, especially when the use of force which might lead 

to increased international hostilities was under contemplation.

In light of this context, President Nixon, nevertheless, has elected 

to ignore the prerogative of Congress in such matters,^basing his 

authority solely on his power as “Commander in Chief. ' This outrages me because the President, in so many words, is cloaking the 

basis for his power to act in the very document he attempts to circumvent. Even President Johnson refrained from such a drastic 

strain on the Constitution. But on one hand, President Johnson was 

aware tha t the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was acceptable to Congress, whereas on the other hand, President Nixon doubtless anticipated strong Congressional opposition to extending our Southeast 

Asian commitment to Cambodia, even for a limited period of time. 

This, of course, is mere speculation. I am sure, however, t hat such 

an action would have been less subject to criticism and more receptive to arguments of military necessity had the question been first 

submitted to Congress as the Constitution provides. What Pre si 1

'mt 

Nixon seeks, in effect, is to amend the Constitution by prac ice, 

vesting the Executive with a unilateral warmaking power. Who, 

then, is to say tha t the same rationale could not be employed with 

comparable effectiveness in Laos, or even Red China?

For this reason, if no other, Congress^ must now be willing to 

act affirmatively to reassert its constitutional responsibilities which 

have lain for the most part dormant for the past quarter-century. 

The blame for this dormancy, whether it be the apathy of Congress 

or its respective constituencies, is immaterial. The point remains, 

meaningful legislation must now be enacted.

The first step is to statu torily guarantee that the present Cambodian involvement cannot escalate into another Vietnam—a situation that it frighteningly parallels.

Here I feel the exercise of the power over the purse is neither 

premature nor unreasonable. It serves as the last viable resort to 

hold the President to his word, or to be more politically tactful, to 

make Congress jointly responsible for the removal of U.S. troops 

from Cambodia by June 30. Refusal to adopt such a proposal would 

seem to me to be an abrogation of the duty of Congress to uphold 

the Constitution.

Secondly, in the future, Congress should continue to make its 

voice heard in the field of foreign affairs. Before any actions like 

the Cambodian operation are undertaken, there should be a definitive colloquy between the Executive and his legislature. This 

is not to say that the President's hands should be completely tied 

in the area of foreign policy—some situations conceivably demand
50

rapid and decisive response. Cambodia, however, was not in this 

category, but even in “emergencies” Congress should specifically 

reserve the right to either endorse or censure the action. In this way, 

the President retains his “emergency” powers but is made as reluctant to exercise them as Congress should be in approving their use. 

This appears to be the wisest course to follow, as Congress will have 

upheld its constitutional responsibility.

Furthermore, should a President's “emergency” actions be endorsed, a base of support will be almost automatically established. 

The importance of this cannot be underscored enough in an era of 

limited warfare, where the resolve to pursue an objective is more 

easily defeated on the domestic front than on the battlefield-itself.

In conclusion, I would like only to note that the young people 

between the ages of 18 and 25 today will, in 10 years, be 28 to 35— 

a much more effective age from which to politically bargain. I warn, 

however, that age will not temper the impressions which are now 

being inscribed on our minds. You, the Members of Congress, are 

aware tha t we sincerely believe the U.S. involvement in Southeast 

Asia is a vast misallocation of resources tha t completely defies comprehension. Whether you heed our pleas is yet another matter. We 

do admit that the decision is within your control for the present, 

not ours. But, in this time of need, should Congress fail to act to 

reassert its voice in the realm of foreign policy, I assure you, that 

impression will be indelible.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much, Mr. Gunning. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Chairman, it's an excellent statement; I don't 

have any questions. I would like to use this statement just presented 

at the time the Foreign Affairs Committee holds hearings on the 

bill which I have introduced on defining the powers of the President and reasserting the role of the Congress in foreign policy.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Thank voit, Mr. Chairman. I would preface my remarks, Mr. Gunning, tha t I agree with a good deal of what you 

said. I have some doubts as to your ability to judge as to whether 

you will or will not change by the time you are 28 or 35 [Laughter]. 

However, my question is how would the people in your community 

respond to the type of letter tha t we get from certain numbers of 

people that say that in this time of crisis we all should join and 

stand behind the President because it immediately lends aid and 

comfoit to Hanoi, to the Soviets, to push in the opposite direction 

that we are trying to push on in foreign policy?

Mr. Gunning. Are you speaking of my university community?

Mr. Hicks. No, your home community, Springfield, Ill., Mr. F ind ­

ley’s district.

Mr. Gunning. I'm not really certain. I haven't spent much time 

in Springfield in 5 years now. I would tend to suspect that people in 

Springfield would almost—well I don't know almost, it would be a 

question of probably almost even division between supporting the 

President or denying the fact that he had the right to act in such 

a situation.

Mr. Hicks. Well, shouldn't you be there addressing those people 

equally as much as here addressing Congress then?
51

Mr. Gunning. Well, Charlottesville is a lot closer to Washington 

than Springfield, but I'm headed that way pretty soon, though.

Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Dent, do you have a question?

Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. F relinghuysen. Mr. Gunning, it's flattering to have so niany young people, and others, reminding Congress of its responsibilities in the field of foreign policy, and we welcome these allies. I'd like to ask you about this definitive colloquy that you think there should have been between the President and the Congress before the move into Cambodia. Of course, we feel sensitive that we were not even given a hint that there was such a m ajor move coming, but I would think tha t perhaps the most th at could be expected in such a colloquy would be a consultation and not a division of support or censure bv Congress. Do you think it would have been possible for Congress to decide immediately whether or not to support the proposals to move into Cambodia, and if we couldn’t, do you think that mere consul­ tation by the Commander in Chief would have been adequate?

Mr. Gunning. I assume you feel that Cambodia was of the emergency situation level?

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, you described it as such, and I would assume because of the conditions there, the weather-conditions, that 

it was an emergency.

Mr. Gunning. I didn’t think it was an emergency, and I tried to make tha t clear in what I said. What I implied in what I said was tha t I think that the situation in Cambodia has been before us for a vast number of years—at least since the beginning of our involve­ ment in Southeast Asia. I'm sure that Congress could have engaged in definitive colloquy that would have been of quite beneficial use to the President, in informing him of how people actually might 

react to such a move.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. I don't think this panel could reach a com­ mon decision as to whether to support or oppose the President if it were given the opportunity for such a snap-iudgment. T would think we might welcome a consultation, but I think it might be difficult 

for us to come to an immediate conclusion.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you very much, Mr. Gunning. We appreciate 

your appearance. Our next witness is Mr. David J. Mehlman of Johns Hopkins 

Medical School. Mr. Mehlman.

STATEMENT BY DAVID J. MEHLMAN, JOHNS HOPKINS 

UNIVER SITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

Mr. Mehlman. I have come here today to voice my concern about our Nation’s current Southeast Asia policies. I believe that these policies are ill founded and are the cause of growing domestic prob­ lems. While the President speaks of deescalation and “Vietnamiza- tion,” he has ordered our troops to widen the fighting on a new battle- front in another country. I am frightened that our President could take such precipitous action without first consulting Us Cabinet ad­ visers and our country’s representatives in Congress. The Preside nt’s claim that since the Geneva Agreement of 1954, American policy has
52

been to scrupulously respect the neutrality of the Cambodian people 

is plainly contradicted by the historical facts. Everyday tha t we 

remain in Southeast Asia we lose more American lives, waste more 

American money, and lose more prestige in the eyes of our European 

allies. The time has come to withdraw all of our troops without 

delay.

Our continued presence in Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos can only 

exacerbate the communications difficulty between our campuses and 

Government in Washington. Something is wrong when the President watches a football game while thousands of citizens gather 

behind his residence to protest his policies. Something is amiss when 

members of the administration purposely inflame the already tense 

college campuses. Something is awry when Government actions cause 

such a severe reaction on college campuses throughout the Nation 

tha t trigger-happy law enforcement officers are required to maintain 

order.

Sooner or later the administration will realize tha t increasing 

numbers of American citizens, including college students, are demanding an immediate reordering of America’s priorities. Both directly and indirectly the Vietnamese war is undermining our Nation’s 

important domestic programs. As military expenditures have risen, 

funds for health care, education, and urban problems have been 

severely cut. The Federal Government has yet to face seriously the 

problems of America’s cities. Those funds which have been provided 

the few authorized programs are minuscule when one looks at the 

needs of our urban areas.

The war and its associated increases in military spending have 

placed our Nation’s private universities in an especially precarious 

financial position. These institutions, depending for their survival on 

fixed endowment funds, are quite vulnerable to inflation. While war 

spending continues to increase the rate of inflation, the Federal 

Government has sharply cut scholarship and loan funds to both g rad ­

uate and undergraduate students. Furthermore, large cuts in research 

funds have placed furthe r strains on a university’s limited endowment as the university attempts to provide salaries and research 

funds for its faculty. One wonders whether the Government has 

cut these funds in an attem pt to punish and silence those in academic 

circles who have criticized the actions of our Government in Southeast Asia.

In the field of health care, the amount of money which the Fed ­

eral Government spent in fiscal year 1969 was $22.6 billion compared to $10.8 billion in 1966. But do not let these figures deceive you. 

Of the $11.8 billion increase in health expenditures between 1966 

and 1969, $10.1 billion can be accounted for by medicare, medicaid 

and Veterans' Administration programs. While the Government 

made grandiose promises to the American people concerning health 

research in the areas of heart disease, stroke and cancer, research 

funds increased from $1.4 billion in 1966 to $1.5 billion in 1969, 

which in the light of the continuing inflation is probably a reduction 

in total funds.

While acknowledging that the country needs more physicians, the 

Federal Government has severely cut back scholarship and loan
53

funds available to medical students. These funds are awarded to students on the basis of need. The medical school portion of the health 

profession loan recommendation appro priation for 1970-71 is $6,300,- 

000 for all medical schools. This represents a 20 percent reduction 

from the amount allocated in 1967-70. The 1969-70 allocation itself 

was a 44 percent reduction from tha t allocated in 1968-69. The 

medical school portion of the health profession scholarship recommendation appro priation for 1970-71 is reduced by 3 percent to 

$7,000,000. In both scholarship and loan funds the 101 medical 

schools will be offered a total of $13,300,000, a total which is 23 percent less than in fiscal year 1969-70. Thus in a period when the Federal Government has been encouraging medical schools to increase 

their enrollments and to accept more students from poorer economic 

backgrounds, loan and scholarship funds have been seriously curtailed. As students who need scholarships are forced to take Federal 

loans, and as students who need low-cost Federal loans are forced to 

borrow at high interest rates, the outcome is clear. Those medical 

students—and I assure you tha t there are many—who would have 

been willing and interested in providing medical care to the socially 

disadvantaged in relatively low-salaried positions will be forced 

into higher-salaried private practice in order to pay off the ir enormous debts acquired in the course of many years of higher education. In order to have a private practice with a large income, one 

must have patients who are able to pay fees. This prerequisite of 

necessity would preclude one from ministering to those who are not 

financially able. Thus the health care crisis which this Nation faces 

will be made more severe rather than ameliorated.

Largely as a result of the drastic cuts in Federal funds to aid 

medical students and to sponsor medical research, the John s Hopkins University School of Medicine in fiscal year 1969-70 had a 

deficit of over $1 million which had to be made up throu gh expenditure of endowment funds. The situation in fiscal year 1970-71 appears 

to be bleaker yet—projected figures show tha t the medical school 

alone will have a deficit of over $2 million.

Gentlemen, present military and foreign policies are causing grievous repercussions not only in Southeast Asia but here at home as 

well. It is quite evident tha t foreign and domestic policy are inextricably entwined. Nearly 20 years ago President Eisenhower said, 

“America is great because America is good—and if America ever 

ceases to be good—America will cease to be great.” The time has 

come for us to steer America back onto that path of goodness from 

which she has wavered. I ask that you representatives in Congress 

help to reorder our country’s priorities so as to achieve this goal. A 

major step in that direction would be the immediate withdrawal of 

our armed forces from Southeast Asia.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Mehlman. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think Mr. Mehlman 

you maybe made a mistake when you asked Congress to reorder the 

priorities: the truth of the matter is that in the present 1971 budget 

for the first time in, I guess, since the Korean war, the biggest percent of the Federal budget goes to human resources rath er than defense, for the first time in 20 years. Defense gets 36 percent of the 

budget, whereas human resources get 41 percent.
54

Mr. Mehlman. Well it may be that that is not enough. I ’ve quoted 

certain figures to show th at the-----

Mr. Thomson. Well, you’ve quoted figures relating to medical 

schools in which you are now a student, but maybe you have lost 

out to the environmentalists who are asking tha t a bigger share of 

the tax dollar go to the environment rath er than to the medical 

schools. Maybe yon had better make a better case before the Congress 

for the share of the tax dollar which you want. Isn't tha t perhaps 

your problem?

Mr. Mehlman. No, I think the problem is t hat Congress spends 

too much on military appropriations in total. There is enough that 

our Government can well afford to get the best medical care possible 

and also the best environment.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Mr. Mehlman, I ’m wondering if your thesis is tha t 

Congress is not responsive to constituents, and if you answer t ha t in 

the negative, that, “no, Congress is responsive to the constituents,” then 

while it’s well and good for you to come and talk to the Congress, 

shouldn’t you be doing what some of these young people say they 

are going to do—go into the communities and convince the constituency of the Members in Congress that these things should take place ?

Mr. Mehlman. I have worked in political campaigns since I was a 

senior in high school. I have worked in the community.

Mr. I Iicks. Would you say, though, that that’s what young people 

should be doing instead of blocking highways and burning down 

ROTC buildings?

Mr. Mehlman. Yes.

Mr. IIicks. Thank you.

Mr. F ascell. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. F relinghuysen. Just one question. Mr. Mehlman, you suggest 

there should be an immediate withdrawal—a withdrawal without 

delay?

Mr. Mehlman. Yes sir.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Does this mean tha t we as a country do not 

have a responsibility to concern ourselves with the consequences in 

the areas from which we would withdraw? In other words, should we 

do it without regard to the consequences in Vietnam of an immediate 

withdrawal?

Mr. Mehlman. I believe tha t we're remaining there right now 

without regard to the consequences of our remaining there, both in 

terms of our domestic policy and our foreign policy. I think tha t 

there would be some consequences in leaving Vietnam righ t now.

Mr. F relinghuysen. But, do you think we should do it disreg arding those consequences?

Mr. Mehlman. Yes, I do.

Mr. F ascell. Thank you very much, Mr. Mehlman. We appreciate 

your appearing.

Mr. Mehlman. Thank you.

Mr. F ascell. Our next witnesses are Marianne Walzer and Michele 

Bisson of the College of New Rochelle.

Miss Bisson. As a point of clarification, I am Miss Bisson and this 

is Miss Walzer, and we shall both be open to your questions.
55

STATEMENT BY MICHELE BISSON AND MARIANNE WALZER, 

COLLEGE OF NEW ROCHELLE

Miss Bisson. As members of the academic community, we are alarmed by the action of the President in extending the war into Cambodia. We are deeply concerned that the divisions caused by this war endanger our fundamental institutions. If any large seg­ ment of a nation feels itself to be disenfranchised and alienated from its leadership because of specific government actions, the country may be considered at a crisis-point; and i f th is group is the emerging intelligensia and the future rulin g elite of tha t society, one wonders if the entire existence of tha t society, as such, is not in jeopardy. For a foreign policy to be effective, it must maintain legitimacy on two levels. In order for a government to wage an undeclared war, it must communicate to its populace the fact tha t there are no other viable alternatives in tha t given situation. Furthermore, in order to mobilize its citizenry and create internal cohesion, tha t government must legitimize its policy on a political and military level. With respect to the Vietnamese war and the Cambodian invasion, the political and military explanations given by the previous and present administrations have been perceived as contradictory. Therefore, where mobilization was intended and needed, division has resulted. The second level on which foreign policy will be weighed as effective is the level of world opinion. If such a policy cannot produce inte r­ nal cohesion on a national scale, how can one expect this policy to be accepted or tolerated in the international sphere. The tradition al channels within the U nited States which have been institutionalized for effecting political change have been political parties and organized pressure groups. For the college student, wish­ ing to effect change in 1970, these traditional institutional means have been closed. Since an individual's voice is lost, students have been forced to choose mass demonstrations as the outlet to communi­ cate their protest. Because these protests have been ignored by the administration and thus have proven to be futile and meaningless, students and the academic community at large have realized that still another method must be found. Therefore, universities across the Nation have taken an institutional stand against the war in Indo­ china. Although one can see an inherent danger in attempting to politicize an academic institution, there was no other recourse. On the other hand, an academic institution must not be isolated from the political environment surrounding it, but it should not have to assume a political position on every issue, thus jeopardizing academic freedom and the learning process. However, this issue reaches far deeper than the mere politics of Southeast Asia, it is symptomatic of the desperate need for a reorientation of values within American 

society today. This reorientation of values cannot be achieved through a tem­ porary reliance upon a political institution merely espousing political values. The traditional channels must become responsive to the beliefs of the academic community or another structure must be organized. I t is our contention that provisions must be made for the enfranchisement of 18- to 21-year-olds and for the creation of an
56

effective lobby to convey the political opinions and judgement of 

those in our nation’s educational institutions.

Many political scientists have stated t hat world stability rests upon 

the continued superiority of the United States in the strategic balance. One wonders if stability can be maintained on the international 

level and within our own society if politics remains valueless and 

injustice is condoned.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you very much, Miss Bisson, for a very 

concise statement. I am struck by the necessity which seems to be 

implicit in all of the testimony, but certainly explicit in your case, 

that the only method tha t a student has available to him is identifying himself with his academic institution in order to bring about 

political change; and if he doesn’t do that, then, therefore, the system 

has to be restructured or destroyed. I don’t understand that, would 

you as a student explain that to me?

Miss Bisson. Well, it seems to me, Mr. Chairman, tha t since an 

individual’s voice is lost.

Mr. F ascell. Why is it lost? I don't understand that. Why do you 

feel it is lost?

Miss Bisson. Well, you can only enter into the political game. The 

academic institution as a whole wishes to be represented and wishes 

to be heard in the politics of our country.

Air. Fascell. Well, th at’s different, of course. The issue is whether 

or not you have a majority view. And the way you get a majority 

view is to create one. Now you choose your own method as to how 

you create a majority view, but tha t doesn’t necessarily mean tha t 

as a student you are excluded, unless you exclude yourself and insist 

upon identification either with a group or an academic institution or 

some other structure.

Miss Walzer. May I say something about that?

Mr. F ascell. Yes.

Miss Walzer. The College of New Rochelle took an institutional 

stand on May 6. The college suspended examinations. This was 

not a minority opinion. I t was presented by a majority of the faculty 

and students and the administration. The college did make exams 

optional for those students who wished to take them, but it opened 

itself up as the communications center in the eastern seaboard. There 

was canvassing for the Hatfield amendment. There was political 

dialogue, and an economic boycott was attempted. I think what we 

mean when we said an academic institution must take an institutional 

stand is that individual students may at any time go out and work 

for a political party, and many students, including ourselves, have 

done this. But it does not seem to accomplish anything in this, we 

feel, crisis situation. Therefore, we were hoping tha t if an academic 

institution would suspend business as usual and open itself up as a 

focal point for discussion and mobilization on either side of this 

question, that large groups of people could go into the community 

with petitions and other things to mobilize political opinion.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. I notice tha t you said tha t the traditional channels 

must become responsive to the beliefs of the academic community or 

another structure must be organized. What do you mean by responsive? Do you mean agreement?
57

Miss Walzer. I would say responsive in at least acknowledgment 

of the demands or petitions tha t have been made by college students. 

With respect to the present administration, I would feel that many 

college students on our campus have thought tha t any nonviolent 

protest tha t has been made by the college student has been disregarded and put aside in the terms of calling us “effete snobs” or 

“bums.” That kind of response we do not consider responsive. I t need 

not be agreement but it should be acknowledgment.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. I would like to say tha t I concur with much of what

* Miss Walzer has said. But when you talk about losing your identity, 

you don’t have to be a student in a college; you can be one of a few 

in the House of Representatives and feel that you are not accomplishing anything. I recall in August of 1965 when Congress voted the

* first funds for Southeast Asia in a supplemental appropriation s 

measure tha t three Members from California voted against it. I suppose tha t they felt very frustrated, but they can’t opt out of the 

system and don’t decide tha t they are going to block the Capitol over 

there and not let anybody get in anymore. But, I certainly concur 

with what you h ad to say about the institution lending itself to the 

rest of the community. I think that’s the finest t hin g tha t the students can do. If they have a position to make, make it in the community, and you will find tha t your Congressman is responsive. I 

don’t care on what side of the issue that he may find himself at one 

time, he’s going to respond to the community. Thank you, Mr. 

Chairman.

Mr. Fascell. I would say th at most Congressmen are receptive to 

reaction from the community. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Both you young 

ladies have suggested that the individual’s voice is lost; I assume 

you do not include the voice that you are expressing here among 

those being lost on the legislative branch? Your concern is with the 

executive branch’s apparen t disinterest in the protests and reactions 

of the young. Are you tarring the legislative branch with the same 

brush? If you are, have you been in touch with your Congressman? 

And what has been his reaction ? I would have assumed that most of 

us try to be responsive.

* Miss Walzer. I ’ll try to answer your question. With respect to the 

individual, I think that the first reaction of college students in the 

frustra ting situation was mass demonstrations. I think tha t really 

did not, although it might have brought headlines, did not do anythin g politically constructive, because there was no dialogue and 

there was no articu lation of certain demands tha t could be made in 

a mass demonstration. If a college student is on an individual basis 

writing letters to his Congressman, I thin k tha t you would need a 

great deal of letters to tlie Congressman in order for that to be 

really reflective of a large segment of the community tha t he would 

have to represent. Now, at our university petitions were made. 

There were 70 girls canvassing for 3 weeks, and we were getting, on 

the average 500 names for the Hatfield amendment. We encouraged 

people to write to the ir Congressmen. I personally have written to 

both my Congressman from Connecticut and to the Congressman

46-4:87— 70------ 5
58

from the State of New York. I have not, as yet, received any 

response.

Miss Bisson. The urban community of New Rochelle did respond; 

particularly the politicians within the urban community did respond 

to our opening up of the institution for study days and for an 

analysis of the problems. However, it remained frustra ting to the 

students and, as a feeling, ineffective and as merely just voicing 

something, not being able to immediately change things, but to be 

able to perceive the change coming about.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Following up on Congressman Thomson’s question, you say the traditional channels must become responsive to the beliefs of the academic community or another 

structure must be organized. W hat kind of a structure are you thin king about?

Miss Bisson. I think we mentioned tha t we were opting for the 

18-year-old vote and also the creation of a student lobby, or an 

academic lobby, should I say.

Mr. Mize. Thank you.

Mr. Fascell. Young ladies, than k you very much. We appreciate 

your appearing and answering questions and giving us your views.

Air. Findley. The next witness is Dave T. Anderson, Wittenberg 

University, Springfield, Ohio. I might say before the witness begins 

tha t we have been hearing witnesses for nearly 3i/2

 hours; and it is 

our intention to stay on schedule and to continue throughou t the day 

until all scheduled witnesses for the day have been heard. It may be 

tha t the quorum bells will ring, and you’ll see one or more of us 

disappearing momentarily. But w’e will be back, and we’ll find a way 

to stay in session no matter what happens on the House floor. Please 

proceed.

STATEMENT BY DAVID T. ANDERSON,

WITTENBERG UNIVERSITY

Mr. Anderson. I come to Washington today with a great deal of 

hope. I hope today because someone seems to be listening to the cries 

of youth. I hope today because we are able to confront each other 

with our mutual concerns for peace and humanity. I hope today 

because youth are still trying to be heard and still trying to work 

within the channels which have served this country for so many 

years. Fo r these things I am th ankful. I see today as a symbol of a 

new phase in American policy formation. It seems to be a phase in 

which there may be an end to the disenfranchisement of those who 

stumble beneath the steps of power throughout this Nation.

I feel tha t if I can do nothing else, I can remind you tha t Vietnam and now Cambodia have become a young people’s war. This 

isn’t simply because the youth are the one who are called on to fight, 

but it is because these are the youth who seem to feel a strong sense 

of loyalty to people which may, at this time in our history, be in 

conflict with our loyalty to Nation. If one were to drive on most 

any street in any major or minor American city or town, there would 

be little to remind one th at a war was being waged half-way across 

the world. The Nation exhibits few if any characteristics of a warwaging country. Instead of ration and sacrifice, the economy con-
59

tinues its run-away patterns and business and industry gain more 

wealth, while young Americans pour out their guts into Vietnam 

soil. This is the sense of urgency which now has taken root in the student movement and has turne d the silent moderate into an active, 

vocal, and seriously-paced student who can no longer listen to false 

hopes and dreams of war as being the way to peace.

This student generation is now not asking for only peace, as the 

President would believe, but rath er they are pleading for a re-examination of national priorities. Students discount the domino theory 

for Southeast Asia in favor of a more isolated policy which would 

w

call on this country to use its rich resources to make this Nation th at

which will take concern and care for the person and his cries for 

justice and equality in the American social system. If this country 

were to place a new concern for humanity and life as the basis for 

. new priorities, there would be little resources left for a war or for

large space extravagances. The student is asking to know that his 

leaders are thinking and feeling.

The student on toda y’s campus is apprehensive about the futu re 

which will be his. The student at Wittenberg also reflects this concern. He is alarmed by impending polarization which is cutting off 

communication to a point where students cannot talk or listen with 

others and where those who are entrusted with the responsibility of 

this country allude to the fact that this generation of intelligen t 

leaders is not really capable of leading and that their thoughts 

and desires can be discounted. Today’s Wittenberg student is very 

concerned about a war which has been given him and for which no 

one will accept the responsibility for control. This concern has grown 

to a point where it is affecting the life of the young person as a student. He no longer can be a student in the early sixties sense of the 

term. In these days, the student at Wittenberg studies and spends 

many of his waking moments analyzing his own position to his 

Nation and to other people, his fellow men. This concern is having an 

almost crippling effect on the student as a scholar. Its effects are 

showing up in counseling cases as being a major factor in the present 

turmoil which faces the student each day of his life. The student is 

asking to know tha t his leaders are thinking and feeling.

Students are beginning to realize also the fact that this war in 

♦ Southeast Asia is a very expensive operation. One estimate seems to

place the cost of fighting at $2.7 million an hour. While I talk here 

the United States will spend over $450,000 on the war alone. Students 

look at their cities, the pollution which has destroyed Buck Creek or 

- the smog which hangs in a violet orange over the city of Dayton;

the lack of substantial housing for lower income families. These 

students look at the Government allotment of almost $300,000 to 

Wittenberg by the Government for loans and scholarships and then 

see its actual money amount to less than $87,000. When domestic 

problems seem to be challenging the Nation so blatantly as the cities 

now do and as educational limitations seem to threaten, it is tragic 

tha t our present priorities are not in these areas. The Nixon administration has a dopted a policy in the dispersion of money toward education which will cut off public grants and Government loans to the 

lower middle class student. The effect of this on our campus seems to 

threaten a decrease of the middle of the student society in favo r of
60

those lower classes which can receive large amounts of financial aid 

and of those upper classes which can pay the ir own way. Education 

will then be even less based on those who really deserve an opportunity, but rather it will be based on this lopsided distribution of 

funds. The student feels these concerns and wants to know tha t his 

leaders are thinking and feeling.

In view of these last few weeks, I should emphasize the close 

connection between Kent State, one of our neighboring schools, Ohio 

State, another neighbor, other campuses, our own, and the war in 

Asia, especially the decision to go into Cambodia. This is the type of 

action, an expansion for expediency, which shocks and angers young 

people. This is the type of action which disillusions the young about 

their Government. The frustration which builds finds release in many 

varied ways and depending upon its intensity, this way may be 

violent. This doesn’t speak of a student group bent on destruction 

of the system and its institutions, but rather concern which has no 

vent. Concern wdiich is contained and which alienates people because 

of its visible futility. I n spite of their hopes, peace is still distant and 

death is still present. In this climate, the student is actually aware of 

real or imagined threats upon his own existence. The basis for this 

concern is alignment with other groups of this Nation which have 

not been heard, groups which are still disenfranchised, such as the 

migrants of California or the Blacks of most anywhere. These groups 

speak out, and current curbs on this freedom, whether real or 

imagined, pose a serious t hre at to students who can now line themselves up with these other minority groups. This Nation is in critical 

need of spending the same energy it now spends on peace throug h 

quiet, which is often interpreted as repression, in new areas which 

would open the forum of debate and allow students, Blacks and 

others to appreciate the same freedoms as our Government leaders 

enjoy. A t Wittenberg, p artly because we are students close to schools 

closed in turmoil, but mostly because we are students, we feel this 

closely aligned frustration as an outgrowth of the student status 

among the leaders of this country. We then want to know if the 

leaders are thinking and feeling.

While I cannot speak for each student, there are certain things 

which are being asked by the students on our campus. Foremost, 

students are pleading to get out of Southeast Asia. The question 

cannot be a question of only Cambodia, but rather it must be the 

larger question of fighting an undeclared war for a people whose 

idyllic life styles do not permit them the sophistication to decide 

between the rhetoric of two seemingly opposing government systems, 

democracy or communism. This is a war, which we cannot win by 

fighting in our present manner, but which we cannot afford to fight 

in such a way as to insure our victory. Further , war is recognized to 

be tha t which is against life and therefore it is bad. Its tragedy is 

furthered when there is little justification for such a war, when the 

resources spent in mainta ining the conflict so seriously sap our ability 

to fight threats to our own lives at home—threats of poverty, hunger, 

lack of education, and deteriorating cities—tha t we cannot stand up 

and seriously say, “We are fighting both now and we’re doing the job 

well.” When a war creates the fissure which is separating this country, if in no other direction than one of the leaders from the people,
61

then tha t w ar must be ended. Our pride as a Nation should be in our ability to make peace and to do so at home even more quickly tha n in the world. If this would be our credo, we would not need to fear world prestige. What students now see in the Congress is th at maybe 

their leaders are thinking and feeling. Students would elaborate on this immediate call to end th e war by asking tha t the Government rethink its program for the draft. It seems absurd that a Nation at peace, since Congress has declared no war, should draft its young men a t a rate of 20 to 30 thousand men 

« a month. This type of program discourages the young to use the initiative which they may have gathered in their formative years to give of themselves for their fellow countrymen. The response to Vista and the Peace Corps should convince the leaders that students

* are feeling a loyalty to this country which includes loyalty to human­ ity throu gh help n ot destruction. Students only ask tha t their leaders 

thin k and feel this also. Looking ahead, students want the Congress to realize the high need there is for national commitment to our cities, to education, to hous­ ing, to hunger, to jobs, and to pollution. These are those things which may destroy the quality of life as we know it. To th ink what kind of impact $500,000 every 10 minutes could make on the educational world, on the world of slum s! Repeatedly, students are to ld tha t some things do not rank high enough on the list of priorities to receive the immediate money. In view of all the possible constructive uses of money at home and in the world, how can war be the number 1 priority? As soon as money is cut off for Vietnam, it is imperative tha t this money not disappear, but tha t with the same vigor it be recommitted toward our own life styles. For this to happen our leaders must feel these needs for which the quality of our lives speak. In closing, I would add tha t there has come an end to complacency. It has become a sin more loath th an killing, for it has been the cause of the conditions to kill. The student population is feeling this end. At Wittenberg, the radical student is not involved in war protests or writing his Congressman, it is the moderate who can no longer watch this Nation continue on its path of no direction. It is the moderate student who feels the impact of Cambodia, Kent, Augusta, and .Tack-

• son, and who now looks to leaders of this country, of our States, and asks, “Are you listening? Are you thinking? I)o you feel what has happened?” Through panels such as today’s it seems that one could answer the students affirmatively, “Yes, we feel this turmoil.”

- But the key to the end of the present student-adult split will be whether having th at light, our leaders will speak out honestly of this 

and its related crucial issues.

Mr. F indley. Tha nk you Mr. Anderson. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. I have no questions.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. H icks. Tha nk you Mr. Chairman. As I listen to you I understand that you are not happy with the situation as it is, but we got to where we are now in Southeast Asia over a long period of time. As you look back, what in your view is the point where we should have stopped? Or are you saying that we should do nothing for anyone outside of the borders of our country? Or are you saying we don’t 

send any people anywhere outside of our country?
62

Mr. Anderson. No, I ’m not t rying to espouse a sort of isolationist 

policy. However, I think possibly with the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution 

the Congress gave away some powers to the Presidency, the executive 

branch, at which point perhaps it should have been more closely 

analyzed as to whether gettin g into Southeast Asia, we would be 

able to get out again. It seems tha t we’ve gotten into a condition 

now tha t there really is no way we can win the war over there 

because it’s a different kind of war style, yet we can’t afford to 

really declare war and fight the war so that we can win. I think this 

is the product of poor advice either to the Congress, or to the Execu- •

tive Branch when the decision was made to go in there. I think there 

are many things we can do in other areas of the world but I think in 

Southeast Asia we may have made a mistake going into this particular area. *

Mr. Findley. Mr. Anderson I have a question. When President 

Nixon took the oath of office there were a half million men under 

arms operating extensively in South Vietnam. He announced a policy 

for the total withdrawal of our ground combat forces. To what extent 

do vou feel th at as Commander in Chief he has a duty to take such 

action as required to protect the lives of those forces during the 

withdrawal period?

Mr. Anderson. I think he has very much authority to protect those 

lives during withdrawal.

Mr. Findley. Responsibility in other words?

Mr. Anderson. Responsibility. I think though the problem is th at 

the fact of the matter is we are not really withdrawing tha t many 

men, we’re still not pulling out from Southeast Asia. We’re expanding to protect troops who are still fighting in Southeast Asia. This 

expansion is really what’s making the moderate student speak out 

because he was willing, I think especially afte r the Moratorium in 

November and the promise of more troop withdrawals, to say “fine, 

we're getting out, the President is the Commander in Chief; there 

are many things about th e Southeast Asian situation that we do not 

know, which we will not know and cannot pretend to know.” However, any expansion such as we have now in Cambodia was almost 

like a stab in the back to many of th e moderate students who would 

go along with the President’s position. It is at this point where the •

students now wonder, the students at Wittenberg now wonder, how 

responsive the President is to this cry for withdrawal. If the expansion into Cambodia was necessary to protect troops during withdrawal then I think while certainly no student at Wittenberg would *

favor the idea of more killing, it certainly could be more understandable because of the long end. But the extension into Cambodia is not, 

as we understand it. an expansion for ending the war through withdrawal. but rather for protection of our troops while they are still 

in South Vietnam.

Mr. Findley. Are there any other questions? We thank you very 

much Mr. Anderson for taking the trouble to be here and for 

presenting your statement.

Mark Weinstein is the next witness.

Mr. Weinstein is from Queens College, Flushing, N.Y.

Mr. Weinstein. Thank you.
63

STATEMENT BY MARK WEINS TEIN, QUEENS COLLEGE

Mr. Weinstein. Respecting your knowledge and the technical 

assistance available, I have not come to speak concerning military appropriations or foreign policy, but rather, I wish to discuss student involvement as a member of that group and reflective of its views. During the past few years while attending Queens College of the City University of New York, I have witnessed and been an active participant in the most dramatic awakening of American college students since this country began. The privilege of dissent is no longer solely reserved for the radicals of Columbia or Berkeley, b ut now objections to our military involvement in Indochina have be­ come accepted in Alabama, Ohio, New Jersey and the rest of 

America. I ask you to consider, as I have, why students have become active in their objections to American foreign involvement. Our actions do not represent a sudden student response to foreign policy deci­ sions. Rather, we should have sensed th at the process of awakening which began some years ago, perhaps at Berkeley and Columbia, is 

now reaching all America.

In 1968 the repo rt of the Cox Commission concluded th at today’s college student was more intelligent and better informed than any other group of students in the history of the country. These state­ ments were echoed by President Nixon in his inaugural address when he described today’s students as the best educated and most politically conscious in the country’s history. The death of President Kennedy was perhaps the first of the many frustrations tha t affected the 

normal idealism of youth. Students in 1964 were the first to pick up 

the banner in opposition to American involvement in Southeast Asia. Early dissension took the form of “fasts for peace” and fund raising. No one listened or seemed to care. W ith the escalation of our involve­ ment in Vietnam greater numbers joined the movement on the campuses and although people did not seem to care, they had to listen; their voices were, stronger and more clearly articulated. This was the era of the peace parade. The government’s response was continued war escalation. Senator Eugene McCarthy’s bid for the Presidency offered new hope for the students and gave them an outlet for legitimate political behavior within the system. At last, someone in Washington seemed to be listening and the students again had hope. Robert Kennedy was assassinated. Eugene McCarthy was defeated by the regulars, while heads were broken in Chicago. All their campaigning and prim ary victories were ignored in back room committees. No one had listened—student protests became violent and 

leaderless. The War in Vietnam has again been escalated. Fru stration is at its peak. However, the student call is not to violence, not to destruc­ tion of property, nor a call for withdrawal or disillusionment. Stu ­ dents all over the country are mobilizing to constructively channel their efforts into the electoral campaign. With their numbers, with their knowledge and resources they are going to demand to be heard and demand th at the ir representatives be responsive to issues. When a representative makes a vague statement before a body of voters there will be a student there to demand that he be specific: “Are you
64

for or against the war?” “ You want withdrawal of American forces: 

are those combat forces only, or all American forces?” No longer will 

students stand by and let political rhetoric cloud the issues.

You may ask why are students today so concerned and involved in 

political action. Perhaps it is because students today have been 

brought up under the cloud of nuclear holocaust and with th e realization that the United States could now destroy all of civilization. This 

has made students concern themselves with other people. Perhaps 

it is mass communication which has introduced the student to other 

civilizations and other peoples—it is very difficult to wage war 

against a known enemy who sees, breathes, and feels, rath er than 

responding to impersonal newsprint. Perhaps it is because students 

have been educated about the problems of the day and cannot be 

satisfied with merely possessing this knowledge when they see the 

government of their country moving toward catastrophe. Perhaps 

it is because students were brought up at the conclusion of World 

Wa r II when the theme was “America could do no wrong.” They 

were brought up at a time when America and her ideals were: 

democracy, concern for the world’s peoples, involvement in the 

issues of the day, the asking not just of why, but why not. It is not 

sufficient to tell an informed person tha t America is fighting for 

“freedom” in Vietnam when the facts show tha t the Vietnamese 

government has 40,000 political prisoners, tha t they have closed all 

elementary and secondary schools and the University of Saigon for 

an indefinite period, that the runnerup peace candidate in the last 

election is now serving a prison sentence for his political involvement. It is not sufficient to justify the American Southeast Asian 

involvement on the basis of a vague containment policy tha t was 

addressed to a monolithic, Russian, European-oriented policy and 

not to developing countries experiencing anticolonialism and nationalism. It is not sufficient to refer to the involvement of earlier presidents when it is known tha t they pointedly qualified and limited 

the ir involvement and America’s commitment. It is not sufficient to 

call forth the SEA TO treaty when Vietnam is not a member. How 

does one respond to these inadequate jutsifications which take the 

lives of our brothers and friends and threaten our own? Students do 

not expect the value of a human life to be wasted to prove America’s 

right by force, when wrong in fact and value. Students are demanding the rights of any informed and concerned citizen—honest, educated, informed answers to their questions, not equivocations, vague 

and emotion-laden terms or simplistic rationales.

Senator Fulbright wrote: “No country has ever been great because 

of its foreign policy.” If a country is internally great and internally 

strong and lives up to proud and honorable ideals i t will of necessity 

have a strong influence in the world. Students feel th at the priorities 

are misplaced in American society. They are concerned with the 

issues of race and justice and the environment. They see their country 

bogged down in an unju st war without meaning and without justification and sapping the country’s vitality, its energy, which should be 

channeled toward the more important issues.

When we consider the student movement let us remember tha t 

the protesters are not only the older college students who will vote 

in the next election, but the anguish is equally intense among high
65

school and junior high school students. This is clearly evidenced by the tremendous influx of such students into “grass roots” political organizations in order to work for candidates viewed as supporting 

the peaceful aims of the student movement. At the Free University of Queens College we have addressed ourselves to construct a free and realistic alternative to the formal, closed educational system. We have brought together faculty, stu­ dents and concerned members of the community to interact and for ­ mulate political action groups. In our open structure particip ants attend workshop discussions as a viable addition rather than replacement for the conventional educational system. Mass media has publicized the student peace movement in this country as a violent operation. There is no doubt in my mind that the vast majority of students are diametrically opposed to violence as a form of protest, but there is a small minority of students who have indeed restored to violence as a means of dissent. They fear they have exhausted all nonviolent means of petitioning the Govern­ ment, and violence provides them the only medium through which their operations can be properly publicized. But they accept the possibility of nonviolent political change. In the past few days you have seen scores of young people come to Washington to lobby for peace. Prior to election day in November many of the universities will close their doors for two weeks and allow students to campaign and take an active role in Government. Fo r the moment we have seen the end of the peace march. Students will be going to the voter on the street, and try to influence the vote, not the media. The average student desires to work within the system. He is giving the system another chance, however, he is af raid the system will not work. Think for a moment, what are the implications if Government fails to 

respond to legitimate political action. My fellow students and I sympathize with the families of the dead soldiers, for many of the men who have died are our friends and brothers. Our goal is simple; eliminate the possibility of more tragic deaths. The end is not worth the cost. There are ample political and economic reasons for both involvement and withdrawal of American troops, but in the final analysis the possibility of more deaths must be the overwhelming force calling for the cessation of American involvement in Indochina. We must remember tha t Vietnamization does not represent the end to the killing. We perceive th e death of the Vietnamese peasant as a loss as the death of an American soldier. The war continues and m ortality figures rise. Almost every A meri­ can knows someone who has died in Vietnam. During the past year, the sentiment in America has been growing distinctly against these 

deaths and this war which causes them. My mother like many others of her generation, rejects the student peace movement as a worthless endeavor. They say: “War is inevi­ table, why not accept this as a fact?” Mv response is tha t students have learned to question the validity of this assumption. Who says there must always be war? Is that a statement like a geometric theorem, invariable and for all time? I plead with my mother and all people that they must understand tha t we can no longer accept the theory that wars are inevitable, for if they are, total destruction is within the realm of possibility in this age of nuclear capability.
66

Mr. Findl ey. T ha nk you Mr. We instein .

Mr. Fasc ell.

Mr. F ascell. T ha nk you M r. Ch air ma n. I th in k we all need, all of 

us, to q ues tion all axioms constan tly , so I wou ld certa inly agree wi th 

th at pro position . I do n’t know why some stu de nts exp ress fear of the 

po litica l syste m, or the sys tem s; or th at th e estab lishm ent won ’t respo nd to leg itima te po litica l action . Th e po int is th at if you hav e 

votes, you wi n; if you do n’t have th e votes , you lose. W hy do you 

exp ress th e sen tim ent , or leave th e im pli catio n of ho rror if the Governm en t fails to res pond to leg itimate po litica l action ? I don’t see 

how it could fail to res pond if those seeking cha nge are in the 

majo rity.

Mr. Weins te in. I t hi nk thi s com ing N ovember will be a very good 

indicatio n fo r the fu tu re of th is country. Stud en ts will be going out 

an d camp aig nin g fo r th e cand ida tes of th ei r choice. Th ey ’ll be wo rking wi thin the system. The y’re no t givin g up on th e system. In the 

com ing prim aries in Ju ne , unive rsitie s all over the co un try have students active ly involve d. I ’m sure ma ny of you are in prim aries or 

elections whe re stu de nts will be wo rking fo r or ag ains t you. You 

must realize , y ou know, stu de nts are a viable source m forc e politics .

Mr. F ascell. W ell, we all know th at .

Mr. Weins tein. W ell, stu de nts are working. Th ey came to W ashing ton last Novemb er and we ha d a Pr es iden t tel l us th at wh at we 

did was of littl e consequence.

Mr. F ascell. Oh, I see.

Mr. Wein stein . W e’re a gr ea t num ber. St ud en ts are willin g to 

change. Th ey ’re giving u p, say ing , “The Pr es id en t has tu rn ed us oil'; 

we’re going to forget the co un try; we’re go ing ou t an d bu rn bu ild ­

ing s.” We’re willing to tr y, we’re willing to work, an d we are 

working.

Mr. F ascell. We ll, I co ng ratulate you.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Hic ks.

Mr. H ick s. T ha nk you, Mr. Ch airma n. I concur and join wi th Mr. 

Fascell in his sta tem ent an d say th at it is very sim ple ; you con vert 

yo ur moth er and the res t of the stu dents do the same, an d Congress 

will respon d. Th ey ’re going to do ju st e xactly wh at t hei r constitu ents 

wa nt the m to do as they can best determine wh at th ei r constitu ents 

want. And those who do n't determine wh at th ei r constituents wa nt, 

do n’t ge t back here. It 's th at simple, and I ap plau d th e stu dents 

go ing out. I th in k th at w ha t you are say ing here , or at least I ga ther 

fro m the tone of yo ur voice, is th at Con gress be tte r tremb le a lit tle 

bi t if stu dents take to the hustings, as it were. But th at’s exa ctly 

wh at they should do. Th ey did it in New Ham ps hire; the y did it 

arou nd the country , and th ey j us t di dn ’t win. An d the fa ct t hat the y 

we nt to Chica go and go t t hei r heads busted is p robably because of the 

wa y t h at t hey wen t to Chicago. Bu t I thi nk i f the y do n't go th at way, 

th at they are are g oin g to be list ened to ju st as th ey ’re list ene d to in 

Congress. One of the Members was telli ng me the othe r day th at 

his college pe ople were concerne d because they couldn ’t ge t a m ean ing ­

fu l dialog ue goin g. You c an ’t get a m eanin gfu l dia log ue g oin g m arc hing dow ntown, screa ming obscenities and breaking windows and 

th en going out an d st art knockin g on doors. I th in k th at as soon as
67

they realize that, you are going to find that people are going to listen 

and that in due time if you’re righ t, you’re going to prevail. Thank 

you.

Mr. Weinstein. Well, let me say this. You know tha t we talk in 

generalities about the students, but there are universities throughout 

the country that have done away with grades and finals for the 

semester. But they have an alternative. They are working on something. You know, students are coming to class at my university— 

the name of my university is Queens College at the City University— 

we’ve changed the name of this university as a temporary measure. 

Students and faculty have gotten together at faculty meetings and 

student meetings. We are now calling it the Free University of 

New York. This is in addition to the regularly scheduled classes. We 

are holding workshop discussions. We schedule approximately 125 

workshops a day. Every evening we have a community action meeting 

where community members are invited in. This evening Congressman 

Rosenthal is speaking to the group. Every evening we get a member 

of our city council, an assemblyman, State Senator or Congressman 

to come and address the community. We are bringing the community 

to the college. We are encouraging the community to come to us and 

listen to us. We are also going to the community. Over the past few 

weeks many of us have spoken to churches, synagogues and political 

clubs. So we’re not marching down the streets and burning flags, 

we’re going out and gettin g people. This is not just characteristic of 

my university, but of universities throughout the country. I think 

it’s important that, you know, t ha t we realize th at students aren’t all 

violent—a very small minority are violent. As you well realize, 

violence sells newspapers, and violence gets publicized very easily.

Air. Findley. Air. Robison.

Air. Robison. Thank you, Air. Chairman. I ’m pleased to welcome a 

fellow New Yorker, although he’s from “downstate,” as we call it, 

and I ’m from “upstate.” I think, just as Mr. Fascell suggested and 

then Air. Hicks carried forth with the thought, tha t in our position, 

we cannot help but be concerned with respect to your attitude and 

tha t expressed by other young people regarding the implications of 

what may happen if, to use your words, “if Government fails to respond to legitimate political action,” which means it either responds 

your way or it doesn’t “respond.” I happen to be a Republican; I’ve 

been here 13 years, and in all tha t time I ’ve never been yet in the 

majority in the House of Representatives—I’ve always been in the 

minority. I suppose I “could” have felt all throu gh those 13 years 

tha t the Government was not responding to “legitimate political 

actions” as far as I was concerned. Aly only suggestion in regard to 

this is t hat I think there is a tendency on the part of some of you 

to want to give up too soon, or to say that you will. I hope tha t’s not 

the case. I think what you’re doing now is right. I think the focus of 

the student activities on the fall campaigns is right, even if tha t 

means in my instance you are going to campaign for my opponent or 

some other people like you are, because this is working within the 

system. And even if tha t doesn’t succeed in November, don’t forget, 

there are follow-on elections, and this is what we have had to learn— 

to live with the fact tha t this system does work, but it takes time to

1
68

make it work. I know you all are the “now generation.” You want 

action now. Go ahead and respond.

Mr. Weinstein. Well, generally I find it very fru stratin g to hear 

you gentlemen, and many other people say, that students are violent, 

they go around marching down the streets and burning flags and 

whatever other things tha t we do. And rightfully some students are 

accused and do do these things. And as I said in my prepared text, 

the great majority of students do condemn such actions, but there 

are a very vast majority of students who are active, who are opposed 

to the war and our involvement in Indochina. We have a Free University at Queens College where some of the workshops, we’ve 

organized like a regular university. We have classes, instructors, 

rooms, scheduling. You know we’re not doing away with all the 

bureaucracy and all administration. We find these things are definitely necessary. Some of the titles of this morning’s workshops are: 

“Cold War,” “United States Involvement in Southeast Asia,” “Social 

Control and Institutiona l Repression,” “Moves for a New Congress.” 

I could go on, you know, 125 of these a day. They are led by faculty 

members—qualified faculty members—students who are interested, 

community members who come to campus. You know, we’re not out 

burning flags, we’re doing things constructively. Every afternoon 

there are meetings throughout the community tha t student and 

faculty members go to address. We speak to people, we hand out 

leaflets, we don't burn flags. I thin k it gets many students very 

aggravated, very annoyed, and I think it may cause some flag burning 

when congressional leaders tell us we burn flags when only a very, 

very small minority of students do these things.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mark, I was a little 

disturbed to hear you say tha t all of the elementary and secondary 

schools in South Vietnam have been closed. We just had a briefing 

the other day from our AID Director in Saigon who pointed out that 

between 1954 and the present time, the number of students in the 

elementary schools in tha t country have increased from 400,000 to a 

little over 2 million.

Mr. Weinstein. But, did he specifically say tha t the schools were 

open and functioning on a 9 to 3 basis?

Mr. T homson. Well, we understood that they were open and functioning, and I wish you would elaborate on your statement and give 

me the basis for your information.

Mr. Weinstein. The New York Times.

Mr. Thomson. Very good.

Mr. Weinstein. I can’t get any closer to reality. There are certain 

things the Government doesn’t tell us. Maybe there is a reason why 

you know the schools are open b ut the media has led us to believe 

the schools are closed.

Mr. T homson. Maybe the Times does not tell it all, either.

Mr. Weinstein. All right.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much. Mr. Weinstein. Our next 

witness is Mr. Thomas Gowen of Haverford College. Mr. Gowen.

t.i-.- x
69

£<•

J

kt

M

j s

(J

STATEMENT BY THOMAS L. GOWEN. JR ., PR ES IDEN T OF TH E 

STUDEN TS’ ASSOCIATION, HAVERFO RD COLLEGE

Mr. Gowex. As I see the present situation and as I think the vast 

majority of those I represent see it, we have two major problem areas 

relating to the war in Indochina. The first is in the realm of foreign 

policy the second in internal affairs.

In the eyes of most young people our foreign policy toward Southeast Asia is senseless and immoral because it is based on a number of 

false assumptions and regardless of such is wasting thousands of 

lives and billions of dollars.

The first false assumption is that we are preserving the rig ht of 

democracy for the people of South Vietnam by fighting the so-called 

Communist aggressors. Now tell me gentlemen do you really believe 

tha t the Thieu-Ky government is a free and democratic government ? 

Do you really believe tha t with such a substantial portion of the 

population either supporting the Vietcong or not caring who governs 

them tha t Thieu and Ky are worth fighting for? Having seen the 

way they conducted free elections and knowing of the incredible 

corruption within their government I certainly do not. And this 

is a very critical point because no matter how much Nixon tries to 

assure us on this point it is not likely tha t we are going to believe 

him. I think we could all agree that Thieu and Ky don’t justify the 

loss of another American life and as a matter of fact I think many 

students believe tha t the demand of the North Vietnamese that we 

discontinue support for the present regime before they will continue the talks in Paris is a reasonable one.

Thus eliminating the first rationale for the war as I think many 

people have, we are left with the reason best described in colloquial 

terms as “you have to stop communism somewhere.” This line of 

reasoning seems to have a hold on many Americans who do not 

have sufficient information to know tha t communism is not by any 

means a unila teral force. That a North Vietnamese invasion of 

South Vietnam does not by definition mean a Russian or Chinese 

invasion of all of Southeast Asia tha t will eventually spread to 

South America and then to the United States itself if it is not 

stopped. What these people are not told is tha t American presence 

in Southeast Asia is probably the only thing tha t has prevented 

the Communist powers from openly fighting each other. Just as the 

American bombing has reinforced the will of the North Vietnamese 

to resist rather than weakened it, American presence in Asia has 

forced the Communist countries together at a time when otherwise 

they might have been torn asunder by internal disputes. Their 

behavior is in simple conformity with one of the oldest laws of 

international relations, tha t of uniting against a common enemy. 

Furthermore it seems reasonable tha t if the Americans withdrew 

from Asia the need of the Communists to unite would disappear 

and they would again be divided by internal quarrels and tra ditional hatreds. So if we admit tha t we are realistically neither preserving 

freedom for a little nation half way around the globe nor saving 

ourselves from the thre at of communism we have no positive ration-
70

ale for fighting the war. And yet it continues. And yet Mr. Nixon 

has the gall to ask for patience for his Vietnamization program and 

the audacity to invade Cambodia without even consulting the Congress. And of course American boys continue to die, 217 last week, 

and American dollars continue to be wasted at a phenomenal rate 

when they are needed badly at home. Now he tells us tha t there 

would be a bloodbath if we pulled out too quickly. Frankly I don’t 

think that we can worry about a bloodbath, tha t would annihilate 

a small minority of the Vietnamese population, particula rly when 

we are killing so many more by staying there and fighting, because 

our own country is being torn apart by this awful war.

As a student body president I think I can speak with authority 

to the Congress about the depth and breadth of sentiment on the 

campuses against the war. I thin k I can tell you about the feeling 

of despair t ha t is prevalent upon the campuses, and about the pa rticular desperateness of the present crisis.

I thin k you know th at the rig ht wing is becoming more militant 

as the polarization increases. The situation is getting very dangerous.

There was a time when only th e most radical students would think 

of opposing their government on war policy. But that time, I'm sure 

you know is long past. The peace movement for years has been 

drawing heavily from the ranks of the moderate students. But it 

was the President’s decision to invade Cambodia regardless of internal consequence tha t made even the moderates thin k tha t the 

situation had reached the desperate stage and had at the same time 

caused most of the conservative students to join the ranks of the 

peace movement for the first time. Even the traditionally conservative and inactive athletes have now joined the active opposition to 

Nixon’s war.

Last week it was impossible to conduct classes at Haverford 

not because radicals had disrupted them, not because building had 

been burned, but because almost everyone was so deeply revolted 

and concerned by the action Mr. Nixon took in Cambodia. We were 

so concerned because we saw our President escalating a senseless 

and futile conflict (and I thin k he would be invading Thailand 

by now if the country hadn’t said no) without the consent of the 

Congress or even of several important members of his own cabinet. 

We were deeply distressed because Nixon had by now made it 

perfectly clear tha t he not only didn’t care what we thought, but 

tha t he was consciously working to alienate youth from his silent 

majority. As the New York Times said he had not yet learned 

the difference between winning elections and governing.

We were lucky at Haverford. We were able to mobilize the 

community and bring the entire college to Washington to protest 

directly to the Congress. Fo r many students this was their first 

active protest against the war, a sign that opposition to the war is 

spreading, but for many others our effort in Washington was seen 

to be the last chance they would give the system. Unfortunately 

many students have already given up, and are already too bitter to 

try the system one more time. However, for some reason or other, 

many students have turned back to the system to give politics and 

the representative system anoth er try. I implore you to listen this 

time for I fear tha t if we fail again and the war drags on much
71

of the young population of our country will be permanently 

alienated. How can you listen and how can you help? This hearing today is a sta rt for which you are to be commended but we m ust soon have action. I think the first thing tha t must be done is t ha t the Congress must realize tha t we have had absolutely enough of this war, and tha t no withdrawal from Southeast Asia can be considered a respon­ sible one if it takes more than a year because the stress on our own 

society is too great. Therefore vote for the house version of the McGovem-Hatfield bill and get all the troops out within a year. Second, particula rly for those of you who are Republicans, con­ tinue to stress to Mr. Nixon tha t his credibility is very low on college campuses and tha t the policies he had enunciated throu gh Spiro Agnew and Joh n Mitchell have seriously lessened the willing­ ness of any students to tru st their government. Third remind him that one of the best ways to fight inflation is to cut the federal budget and that the country could quite easily stand a very substantial cut in the defense budget. We certainly don’t need the war and the ABM as a start and eliminating them would take considerable pressure off the economy as well as free money for much more urgent domestic needs. Fou rth and finally end the draft soon. The dr aft is the most offensive and unfair aspect of American society fo r all but the very poor and because of the distrust and hatred of the military that has developed during the course of the war it will continue to be so even after the war ends. Since a presidential commission has al­ ready indicated the feasibility of moving to an all volunteer army, 

I say let’s get on with it.

Thank you very much.

Mr. Boland. Your statement is a well prepared statement. I don’t know if I agree with it in every instance, but your language is rath er magnificent—very descriptive. I have a problem with your paragra ph on page two, the last paragraph on the page—a problem with it, oecause I read some of the stories recently with respect to Haverford coming here in a body and I thought it was a very impressive demonstration of the feeling of Haverford, and I think perhaps those who saw and heard you and read about you and your school were impressed too, and it puzzles me a little bit tha t you would say tha t many of those who came saw it as their last efforts in Washington to be the last chance tha t they would give the system. You really don’t believe tha t do you? Do you really 

believe that?

Mr. Gowen. I don’t believe tha t myself. But there are certainly students, and I think we probably consider them the more radical students on the campus although they are not members of SDS or anything else, particula rly, who do believe that. I read tha t quotation in a number of papers, and a number of reporters told me tha t this is what the students had told them and I certainly know tha t I have been in contact with some who are. I think the more important thing now is to note that opposition of the war is spreading among the students who have never been actively opposed to it before. These people are willing to work in the Dolitical system and they
72

have not been alienated yet. But they are now at the point where 

they are strongly opposed to the war, strongly enough in many 

cases to be working for several weeks, daily in political campaigns 

in primaries in Pennsylvania.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Robison.

Mr. Robison. Mr. Gowen, I find it difficult, too, to lead a cheering 

section for the Thieu-Ky government. They are not my idea of 

perfect democratic leaders, and I think many adu lt Americans feel 

the same way as you have expressed yourself. But one of the 

difficulties of gettin g out of our problem over there is, of course, 

the Thieu-Ky government and what to do about it. You suggest 

to us that what we must do is to withdraw our support from tha t 

government and, if we did that, what do you envision might hap ­

pen? How would we go about doing it? Just by going home?

Mr. Gowen. I think we can just go home. It really doesn't concern me too much what happens to the Thieu-Ky government. I 

don’t thin k they are worth supporting in any way, and I really 

don’t think Communist government would be that much worse, if 

at all worse, than they are.

Mr. Robison. The theory of continuing the war during the process 

of withdrawing therefrom, and making a collateral effort to “Vietnamize” what may be lef t of the conflict is apparently one of 

trying to produce, somehow, a political settlement. Tha t is worth 

reaching for, if it is possible, is it not?

Mr. Gowen. I th ink so.

Mr. Robison. So tha t we do not leave that area of the world a 

battleground for other people to fight over, after we have gone. 

Now, with respect to t hat political settlement it is my understanding 

that the Nixon administration, our Government, has proposed elections, and has proposed—in which proposal President Thieu has 

concurred—setting up a coalition electoral commission, which would 

mean tha t the Vietcong, who live in and are indigenous to South 

Vietnam, would participate in setting up the elections. Should 

we not still strive in this direction? Is there not something short 

of just plain withdrawal as Mr. McGovern, Mr. Hatfield, Mr. Goodell, and so forth urge? Is there not something we can still try to 

do, in your judgment, along the negotiation front to expedite the 

chances of a political settlement? Is withdrawal the only answer?

Mr. Gowen. I think the cost of anything but withdrawal is probably too high. As I said, I don’t consider a withdrawal tha t would 

take more than a year to be a responsible one and I think tha t I ’m 

basing this judgment upon the domestic situation, the stress, the 

concern, the feeling of desperation on the college campuses, and 

the polarization in society.

Mr. Robison. Mr. Gowen, the cost to which you refer is not just 

in terms of the cost of lives and of further expenditure of American 

treasure in Vietnam, but the cost as well of domestic strife and 

so forth here.

Mr. Gowen. Right.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Gowen, do you feel the students with whom you 

associate are willing to abide by the time-tested rule of the majority? 

I get the question from your statement that maybe there is a suffi-
73

cient disenchantment with our system, tha t they are unwilling to 

abide by what the majority of the American people seem to be 

w illing to support. Am I correct on this ?

Mr. Gowen. I think th at we should look at tha t question by saying 

tha t I think there is a m ajor difficulty in the minds of most students, 

and I don’t know if it is terribly apparent to most of them, but since 

there is such terrific agreement on the college campuses—when we 

voted to come to Washington, 605 students indicated opposition to 

the war and five indicated supp ort for the President’s position— 

that is how widespread unanimously the feeling is. And when students are on a college campus, for 9 months of the year, it is very 

hard to understand how people have strong views outside in a great 

majority. I think tha t in some ways tha t feeling is fairly justified 

because I suspect tha t of the whatever it is we call the silent majority, 55 percent, probably 40 percent of those people really don’t 

care very much, one way or the other. You have your people who 

are asking for peace with victory and I suppose they feel strongly 

enough about their position, but most others wouldn’t care very 

much i f we did withdraw and wouldn’t care very much either if we 

stayed in. So I think the problem is that the intensity of feeling is 

very grea t on the college campuses and this produces the frustration 

with the system.

Mr. Mize. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. F indley. I ’m glad to, of course.

Mr. Mize. Did you say there were 600 students who were against 

the policy and only five supporting?

Mr. Go wen. Yes.

Mr. Mize. Would you think tha t feeling is tha t widespread over 

all of the 7^2 million students ?

Mr. Gowen. I think i t certainly is in the East, and the indication 

is that it is spreading to the West. And I ’m basing a lot of my 

conclusions on the type of student at Haverford who is now vocally 

opposing the war. They say it is even the conservative athletes who 

have now called off th eir baseball schedule to work politically.

Mr. Findley. We now have a record vote in progress. The second 

bells have rung. The next witness on the schedule is Jo hn D. Cooper. 

He is scheduled for 1:30. If there are no further questions for Mr. 

Gowen, we do thank you very much. I will entertain a motion tha t 

we adjou rn until 1:30, giving each of us a chance to answer the 

call on the floor.

Mr. F indley. Our next witness is Mr. John D. Cooper from 

Hampton Institute. Mr. Cooper.

STATEMENT BY JOHN D. COOPER, HAMPTON INST ITUTE

The Black Student and Vietnam

Mr. Cooper. Congressmen, fellow students and guests: In order 

to gain any understanding of the black students’ views on the \ ietnam conflict, it is necessary to bear two facts in mind. First, tha t 

for us, the conflict in Southeast Asia does not approach the importance of the racial confrontation occurring rig ht here in the 

United States. Black students, indeed all black people, are becoming

46—487— 70—— 6
74

increasingly sensitive to the need for our men and women to dedicate 

themselves to the black community. Therefore, we stand strenuously 

opposed to the draft , which sends so many of our young brothers to 

die in Vietnam when they are badly needed to fight oppression in 

America.

The second point is that in continuing our opposition to this 

conflict we will stress not only its immoral and illegal aspects, but 

its inherent racist nature.

Perhaps the best way to convey the opinion and the spirit of the 

antiwar movement among black students would be to read this 

statement, prepared at Hampton Institute and now being circulated 

as a petition to be sent to Congress.

Wher eas, the war in Vietnam is for the benefit of cer tain vested intere sts 

(ca pitalists) and is not in the int ere st of the larger American public.

Whereas, many of the American men requ ired to do the fighting and so pu t 

their lives on the line, did not have the opportunity to make the ir views known 

(re gar din g Southeast Asian policy) and so should not be requ ired to supp ort 

Government policies over which they have no control.

Whereas, this is an illegal w ar in which the U.S. Government is eng age d:

1. The Geneva Agreements have been viola ted by the United States on 

several occasions.

2. The wa r is being fough t w ithout the expressed consent of the American 

public—and this consent would only be evident if a declara tion of wa r were 

voted through the Congress.

Whereas, the present hos tilities are in imminent danger of mushrooming into 

a global affa ir—Cambodia is ju st a sign of wh at could happen as we move 

closer to Red China,

Where as, we recognize the rig ht of every sovereign people to self-determination—the North Vietnamese and the Vietcong are waging a guerilla war which 

has the supp ort of the populace.

Where as, the United States is infringing on the righ ts of Vietnamese people 

to self-determination—the United States blocking of the elections in Vietnam 

is a violation of the Geneva Agreements and an act which is disdainful to the 

United Nations.

Moreover—thousands of Vietnamese people are being murdere d because they 

choose to select their own type of government. The United States is fighting a 

war, not ju st against an arm y but aga inst the majority of the population. The 

only hope of winning the wa r would be the exte rmin ation of virtually the entire 

populace. The French lear ned thi s lesson in Algeria when they destroyed FLN, 

the milita ry arm of the resistance, and discovered that the hostilities were fa r 

from over. The people fought tenaciously and courageously und er the motto of 

“Resistance, Resistance, Re sis tan ce!” If the Vietnamese people supp ort the 

gue rrillas, and it’s obvious whose side they are on, then no militar y machine in 

the world is stron g enough to bend the ir will. Th at is why the American 

soldiers find themselves fighting women and children and th at is why whole 

villages are destroyed and hundreds of civilians massacred Nothing sho rt of 

the extermination of the Vietnamese people will win the war in Vietnam, and 

those who supp ort the war and cring e at the atro citi es committed by America 

have not traced our situation to its logical conclusions.

The United States support of the South Vietnamese Government is an atte mpt 

to impose this Nation’s foreign policy aims on ano ther people, a foreign policy 

whose ideology is fanatically anti-C ommunist and racist. The American public 

must be made aware th at we a re fighting a w ar in w hich we are th e aggressors— 

a wa r which can never be justified.

Fu rth er—that the murder of the studen ts at Jack son State and Kent State 

by the police and military, which are controlled by the facist capital ists is just 

anoth er example of how opposition to government policies has been and will be 

handled.

In the name of freedom, justice, and hum anity we call for:

The unconditional and immediate withdrawal of American troops from 

Vietnam a nd Cam bodia;
The cessation of all types of aid to the South Vietnamese Government; 

The United Nations supervised free elections which were agreed upon at 

the Geneva Conference; The impeachment of the President and Vice President of the United 

States.

Black students have become especially incensed over President Nixon’s handling of the war, and Congress’ lack of dispatch in 

checking him. The recent operation in Cambodia and the resulting murd er of the dissenters, especially white students, represent a turning point in America’s policy abroad and at home. But President Nixon has no mandate from his “silent majority ” to operate as he sees fit in Vietnam. For him to have called on such a body in the first place is a political farce in a Nation which calls itself a democracy. Repre­ sentative democracy must operate as the voice of th e people—a voice which is being heard in those demonstrations tha t Representative Findley has termed “inadequate.” Hundreds of thousands of people have chosen active dissent to show th eir opposition to the Vietnam conflict and we do not believe President Nixon has really listened. It is up to you, as representatives of the people to end the w ar now or you will leave to the people the task of ending it themselves.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much, Mr. Cooper. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. J ohn, does this statement reflect the majority of the 

student body at Hampton Institute?

Mr. Cooper. Yes, I believe it does.

Mr. Boland. On page 3 “in the name of freedom, justice and humanity” you call for the impeachment of the President and Vice President of the United States. That is a rather difficult procedure to go through rig ht now. I don’t think it would be a very popular one in the Congress, in fact I am sure it would not get anywhere. But it expresses your opinion and the students you represent.

Mr. Cooper. My personal opinion is that the President does need some type of check before he can carry his power over this conflict so very far. This happens to be the opinion of the people at the rally where this was read—that the check that was needed was the impeachment of President Nixon, since it was he who specifically 

initiated the Cambodian problem.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Since I didn’t hear enough of the statement, I will 

pass, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. You say the cessation of all types of aid to the South Vietnamese Government—does that apply also to the South Vietnamese people?

Mr. Cooper. United States aid has tended in the past to com­ pletely ensnare the government of the country which it involved. And I would like tha t to be stopped. If it is possible to aid the people without aiding the government, then I would definitely be 

in favor of tha t.

Mr. Mize. Thank you.

Mr. F indley. Mr. McCloskey.

Mr. McCloskey. I just want to commend the witness for the statement about the silent majority and the impropriety of a political leader referring to his constituency as a silent majority.
76

i5u ^J ^dley. ^ r. Cooper, when Members of the House introduce 

a bill they put their names on it. Quite often, as occurred just a 

few minutes ago, when we answer to a rollcall our name is recorded. 

To what extent were the individuals in the student body at Hampton 

recorded “yes” or “no” on this set of resolutions?

Mr. Cooper. Overwhelmingly in favor of it.

Mr. F indley. Was it a voice vote at a rally or was a ballot taken?

Mr. Cooper. No, it was read as a speech at a rally and then later 

on people determined tha t it should be circulated as a petition, so it 

is being circulated now.

Mr. Findley. A majority of the students have signed it at this 

point?

Mr. Cooper. Yes.

Mr. Findley. Are there other questions? Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Mr. Chairman, I would just offer this observation 

on the little bit that I heard, that the resolution so far as it suggests 

impeachment of the President and the Vice President on the basis 

tha t they need some sort of a check is an indication to me t hat the 

students have not thought this through quite as well as they should 

have. Th at is a very serious and drastic measure and I think tha t the 

system has a good deal in it that can provide a check on the President of the United States without going to the extent of impeachment.

Mr. Cooper. I think tha t President Nixon and Vice President 

Agnew have gone out of their way to antagonize student views of 

their policies and I think this is the reason behind this.

Mr. Hicks. Are they suggesting tha t impeachment should take 

place because they have antagonized students or because they went 

into Cambodia?

Mr. Cooper. Obviously because President Nixon has overstepped 

his powers.

Mr. F indley. Any other questions ? I will ask one further question. 

I am sure you realize tha t a President does have terrible decisions 

to make, especially in the circumstances of President Nixon, called 

upon as he is to extricate our country from a war which was in 

progress when he took office. What weight do you think the President 

is required to give to the complications of a withdrawal program 

tha t would result if the Thieu government were suddenly to fall? 

Do you think he has to take that into consideration as he makes 

plans for the withdrawal of our troops?

Mr. Cooper. No, I don’t. Because Thieu is not representative of 

the majority of the Vietnamese population. The Vietcong were and 

still are the nationalist party of Vietnam.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much Mr. Cooper. We appreciate 

very much your taking the trouble to appear here today.

The next scheduled witness is Ka thy Grieb. Kathy is from Hollins 

College, Roanoke, Va. H er home is Chestertown, Md. Please proceed, 

Kathy.

Miss Grieb. Do you all have copies of our statement?

Mr. Findley. Yes. Would you identify the girls who are with 

you?

Miss Grieb. I would be happy to.

Mr. Findley. And the young man.
77

Miss Grieb. From my right, there is Susan Griffith, Nancy Griffin, 

Dee Dee Kerswell, and Bob Scheelen.

Mr. F indley. Please proceed.

STATEMENT BY KATHY GRIEB, HOLLINS COLLEGE

Miss Grieb. We wish to express our appreciation for this opportunity to express our opinions on Vietnam, Cambodia, and related 

issues to interested Congressmen. We share your views th at effective 

channels of communication are seriously lacking. Most of us have 

written letters to President Nixon, to our Senators, and to our 

Representatives in the House—and will continue to do so. Many of 

us have participated in teach-ins at Hollins and circulated statements 

and petitions around Roanoke, Va. We have talked to our neighbors, 

our families, our friends, those who agree with us and those who 

disagree. We have sent telegrams, been given time on radio and 

television, given statements to the press, held vigils and sit-ins, and 

many of us came to Washington, D.C., on May 9. We have done 

these things because we are concerned and troubled and worried 

about our Nation.

Since letters and petitions either do not seem to be received or 

are not effective; since demonstrations, even rigorously marshalled 

peaceful demonstrations, only earn us nicknames, like “bums” or 

“Jeremiahs” or “choleric young intellectuals” ; we clearly need alter ­

native means of expression. Some of us are supporting boycotts to 

influence major lobbying groups to take a stand. Most of us have 

renewed our efforts to work through political channels. Our hope 

is in you, the members of the House and Senate. Above all things, 

we shall continue to speak out and work for peace in the Far East 

and at home, because we love America and w hat it stands for.

We need long-range foreign policy goals. It seems to us that several times when our President, wanting to end the war, tried to do 

it by sudden escalation (as in Cambodia now), we only found ourselves more entangled. More and more responsible, concerned citizens, not just “tired old radicals,” have added their voices to this 

feeling of discontent. It is time the President listened to his people. 

It is time we got out of Vietnam and Cambodia and Laos.

There have been students at Hollins for a long time who have 

been critical of the involvement and escalation in North and South 

Vietnam. Now we are joined by another larger segment of students, 

many of them moderates and conservatives, who are beginning to 

question and oppose Government policy. They are surprised and 

upset by our invasion of neutral Cambodia and our air activity in 

Laos, and extremely distressed by the brutality with which student 

protests have been silenced. We feel that murder, deliberate or 

thoughtless, is too strong a penalty for expressing dissent in a 

democracy, whether in Ohio, or in New Mexico, or in Mississippi. 

We feel, in fact, that these tragic events are symptoms of a widening 

communication gap between those in authority and the people they 

are supposed to represent.

This breakdown of channels is exemplified by President Nixon. 

We believe tha t he is out of touch with many of the people and 

their goals, although he does not seem to realize this. We believe
78

he is out of touch with the Houses of Congress, especially when he 

takes their legislative actions personally, instead of recognizing the 

much graver issues involved. We believe he is out of touch with 

members of his own Cabinet. We believe tha t all three of these 

important groups ought to be heard by President Nixon. We feel that 

the people and the people’s representatives should know more about 

Government policy and should have a say on such critical issues as 

invasion of neutral countries, particularly for a war that is no 

longer generally supported. We feel tha t congressional amendments 

cutting off funds for an undeclared war strengthen the constitutionally ordained separation of powers. •

We feel that the majority of the country is, by now, regretting 

tha t we ever entered into the Vietnamese civil war strife. That the 

war in Vietnam is still “undeclared” adds more weight to their 

questions. We feel th at the argument which says, in effect, “since we *

are in, we mig ht as well stay” is a very weak one on several levels.

Many wrongs do not make a right. Our reputation as a champion of 

freedom has suffered enormously as a result of our behavior in 

Vietnam, not only our clear aggression, but also our cruel chemical 

devastation, our relocation camps, incidents like My Lai—and now 

Cambodia and Laos. We have continued to support an unpopular 

military dictatorship in Vietnam, much as we have in Greece, Spain, 

Guatemala, and the Dominican Republic. We think it is about time 

our Government courageously admitted its mistake and set about 

correcting it, following the example of France in the Algerian situation, by first of all getting out. A specific, definite, public timetable 

(as recommended by W. Averell Harrima n) should be set up and 

followed. Then we should work through the United Nations for reconciliation of North and South Vietnam.

In addition to casting serious doubts on our role as a world leader, 

we are also working against our own stated aims for the Vietnamese.

We found a country in a war to free themselves from foreign control, strongly nationalistic though divided. Because we are destroying Vietnamese crops, villages, and civilians, we feel that it is natural 

for them to accept Communist economic and military aid in an 

effort to get us out of their country, just as they would want to 

expel any foreign power. We should remember tha t the Vietnamese 

people have been extremely distrustful of Communist China in the •

past, tha t Ho Chi Minh was an intense nationalist, and tha t he was 

regarded by the majority of Vietnamese as their national leader, 

supporting an autonomous Vietnam. Whatever the case, we believe 

tha t it ought to be up to the Vietnamese people to choose their own •

government. If they do not want to become a “little America,” we 

have no right to force them to be.

We are also concerned with the present inflationary conditions of 

our economy with respect to the war in Indochina. Our country 

needs a serious reordering of priorities in terms of budgetary allotments. We feel tha t such an elaborate build-up of defense arsenals, 

such investments as the ABM and MIRV, not only hinder enormously the progress of the SAL T talks, a major hope for world understanding, but also make it impossible to feed the hungry at home 

and abroad, impossible to assist the welfare departm ent so that the
79

poor can have food, clothes, and housing; and impossible to solve many of our pressing problems in education, health, and welfare. We ask you, as our elected Congressmen, to take the initiative and work to represent the will of the people. Students are no longer willing to support candidates who are merely against the war. We need peace candidates who are dedicated, not because it wins votes, but because they serve the people. We need active leaders and voices on our behalf. Hollins is one of many colleges cooperating with Princeton’s “Referendum ’70”, a program designed to separate serious peace candidates from those who mouth the words to get

* votes. We feel that this issue is important enough to our country tha t we need to draw the line sharply this time. We will only support people who work for peace. And we will support them whole heart- edly. We will work for them this summer and next fall and two

* years from now as well.

Mr. Findley. Thank you Kathy. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Than k you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Grieb, I think if we are going to be specific and we want to do what you suggest, those who will be candidates, and those who are, would like to know what you mean by working for peace if it doesn’t mean simply being 

against this war.

Miss Grieb. We think that the Senate in particular is very active right now in supporting specific legislation which works for one of the policies we suggest: to set up definite specific public timetables for troop withdrawal from the Indochina area, and further limits funds to be used in th at area, either limits or cuts them off in interval time periods. Does that answer your question? Would you clarify it 

for me ?

Mr. F ascell. I understood you to say th at you were going to sup­ port candidates who were for peace, not simply against the war. I am just trying to understand what tha t was. Now what you have answered is tha t your definition is tha t you are against this war, tha t meets your crite ria which is exactly opposite to what I unde rstood you to say, originally.

Miss Grieb. May I refer this question to another member of the 

panel ?

Mr. F indley. Identify yourself, please.

* Mr. Scheelen. I am Robert Scheelen. President Nixon has said he is for peace and most of the Congress have said they are for peace as well. However, I don’t feel they are actively working for it, for instance, by supporting some of the legislation tha t is presently be-

* fore Congress for instance to limit funds for the Southeast Asia 

area.

Mr. F ascell. I understand now what your definition is. I thin k it is important to understand that when a candidate gets on the stump this fall and says he supported the McGovern-Hat field amendment, the Cooper-Church amendment, the Leggett amendment, and the Reid amendment as his contribution to peace, in your view th at is not making peace. Therefore, there could be a grave misunderstanding.

Mr. Scheelen. That is exactly what we mean. Those are the people 

we are going to support,

Mr. F ascell. OK. I just wanted to be sure. [Laughter.]
80

Mr. Boland. Kathy, yon say on the first page, we need long-range 

foreign policy goals. I think this is an aim tha t all of us want. I 

think the statement is a good statement and I think also tha t the 

majority of the members who serve on this particular committee, a 

committee on which I do not serve, the Committee on Foreign Relations, feel tha t way, too. I thin k tha t for the first time in many a 

moon the foreign policy goals of the United States, are coming under 

considerable spotlighting in the House of Representatives, which 

has not been done before, so speaking for myself, I would agree with 

tha t statement. With respect, following up what Mr. Fascell said, on 

supporting peace candidates, and tha t you are not really going to 

support a person just because he is against the war, he has got to be 

much more active than that. I thin k you realize don’t you, th at back 

home in a lot of areas there are Members in both Houses of the Congress who oppose the war, maybe not quite as active as any of you 

would like to have them, but whose constituency back home are really 

in favor of the position tha t the President takes or are in favor of our 

position in A ietnam. Now how do you feel about that type of Member of the Congress? W hat would be the position of your students in 

supporting him?

Miss Grteb. We feel tha t Congressmen are elected to represent the 

people. We feel also tha t if Congressmen feel particula rly crucially 

on moral issues tha t they should work to support what they believe is 

right. Obviously, the two come in tension and the more concerned 

and tho ughtful a candidate is, probably the more so they will come in 

tension. Being from Virginia, we are not unaware of tha t problem. 

[Laughter] We want to give all the support we can to candidates 

who are having trouble back home. Th at’s why we thin k it is par ­

ticularly useful for candidate to know where students stand on these 

issues so th at they can draw on support. And there is no reason why 

students can’t get out and work for the same ideas tha t they believe 

in.

Mr. Boland. Is Hollins co-ed?

Miss Grteb. No, Hollins is a women’s college, we do have a small 

graduate departm ent in creative writing and in psychology tha t is 

open to men.

Mr. Boland. Well, isn’t Bob lucky. [Laughter.]

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. I will be happy to yield to Mr. McCloskey.

Mr. Findley. Mr. McCloskey, Mr. Hicks is offering to yield his 

question to you.

Mr. McCloskey. I have this question. I think it is extremely impressive to the Congress, when students come from the heartland of 

America, certainly I would consider Roanoke, Va., the heartland of 

conservative philosophy. [Laughter.] And I am wondering what luck 

you are having in convincing the adults in your community that they 

should vote solely for Congressmen who are willing to vote to cut 

off the funds for the war? Wh at luck have you had out in Roanoke 

and the Shenandoah Valley and southern Virginia?

Miss Griffin. I ’m Miss Griffin from Hollins. I worked in the community circulating the petition, trying to get signatures from people 

in Roanoke to send to their Congressmen showing their support for 

the amendment cutting off funds limiting the Presiden t’s authority
81

in Cambodia. I would say tha t of all the petitions we circulated, 

we had 50 percent who signed it who felt tha t funds should be cut 

off, and 50 percent who would not, who thought Nixon was doing 

the right thing. So tha t it is one indication; it is sort of half and 

half.

Mr. McCloskey. Then you’ve really got to keep learning and repeating the arguments you’ve expressed here today. I haven’t heard 

a better statement than Miss Grieb made on the reasons why this 

war might be ended. I’ve not been sure tha t all the students who 

have come here have fully understood the impact of this war on inflation, housing needs of this country, the environment. I thin k those 

ideas, those concepts, are the arguments you have to arm yourself 

with if you are going to convince tha t great middle America to support these candidates. Good luck to you.

Miss Kerswell. Mr. McCloskey, I ’d like to add tha t we also had 

petitions in October during the moratorium, and we’ve gotten a 

much, much better response more favorable to stopping the war now 

than we did in October, so that I feel there has been an indication of 

change in Roanoke, in the heartland of America, toward the war.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ’m sure all of 

us are as anxious to stop the war as you. I t’s not quite clear to me 

why you think this timetable approach is the way to do it. Is it 

because it’s about the only weapon that Congress has?

Miss K erswell. The statement that Mr. Herriman made, it was 

in the newspaper several days ago, was tha t the Thieu govern’ lent 

had “pulled the rug out” from under Mr. Johnson and turned the 

tables on Mr. Nixon, something to that effect, and that they would not 

effectively negotiate until they knew that there would not be American troops; tha t there had to be a public timetable so tha t negotiations could meet with some sort of successful end.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Well, are you suggesting tha t a public timetable is going to make it more likely for the North Vietnamese to 

negotiate, or make it more likely for the South Vietnamese to recognize t hat they must do something?

Miss Kerswell. That the South Vietnamese recognize th at they are 

not going to have American troops there for longer than they need 

to work seriously toward the peace talks.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. And you think that it is a matter of the 

South Vietnamese making concessions and it doesn’t matter what 

the position of the North Vietnamese government is?

Miss Kerswell. No, sir. Th at’s not what I mean. But I think tha t 

both sides must be willing to work for the peace talks to get anywhere.

Miss Griffith. Sir, may I add to tha t by saying that having a public 

timetable would also make our President and our Government stick 

to the timetable so the American public would know when the troops 

are coming home; and hopefully if it is a legislative timetable, the 

President would have to stick to it and the troops would come home.

Mr. Findley. Are there other questions for this group? If not, 

we thank you very much for your statement and for taking the 

trouble to come here.
82

The next witness is Wayne Braffman, Brown University, and Mr. 

Frelinghuysen will be pleased to note tha t he is from Glen Ridge, N.J.

Mr. F relinghuysen. I regret to say tha t is not in my district, but 

I am glad to see that there is someone from my State who is testifyingMr. Findley. Mr. Braffman, please be seated.

Mr. Braffman. Yes, I ’m Wayne Braffman and this is Rich Smith, 

who is from Mr. Frelinghuysen’s district.

Mr. Smith. Politics. [Laughter.]

STATEMENT BY WAYNE A. BRAFFMAN, BROWN UNIVER SITY

Mr. Braffman. I suppose tha t at this time the proper thing to do 

is to thank you for grantin g us the privilege to come here and 

voice our opinions. In reality, though, all you have done is to recognize our righ t to speak here. Tragically enough, it took the murders 

of four students and an uprising of national proportions on our 

campuses to open your ears. Now tha t we are here, I sincerely hope 

tha t you are listening. I must admit tha t when I first learned of 

these hearings I was extremely skeptical. I believed them to be 

a token gesture to pacify students, just as token troop withdrawals 

had pacified much of the Nation before the Cambodian invasion. 

This initial reaction has since given way to the feeling tha t perhaps those Congressmen involved are actually sincere, tha t they 

really are interested in student opinion. Maybe I am allowing my 

youthful ideals to blind me. but my remarks today are made on 

the assumption tha t this is the case.

We frequently hear warnings of doom from those who maintain 

tha t Congress must not enact legislation tha t will end the war by 

means of an immediate withdrawal. They fear a constitutional crisis 

and permanent damage to the Presidency if such measures are taken. 

On the international level, supporters of the war predict the decline 

of American prestige in the world community. They say we risk 

becoming a second-class power. Some claim tha t if we do not halt 

Communist aggression at the 17th parallel, the rest of Asia will 

fall to our foe. Still others foresee the mass murdering of American 

sympathizers among the Vietnamese upon our departure. I am 

sure, however, tha t you have heard these arguments and countless 

others, as well as the respective counter-arguments.

For tha t reason, I will not burden you by repeating those wornout statements. Mv approach is somewhat different, perhaps a bit 

more fundamental. I do not intend to theorize or speculate, but 

merely to describe the situation as I see it.

My basic premise is this : As an economic animal, man acts so 

as to furthe r his own interests. He indulges only in those activities 

which he feels will be beneficial to him. This facet of human nature 

is reflected in man’s institutions as well. In addition, just as an individual must care for his loved ones, an institution also has multiple responsibilities. The prime function of the institution of government, for example, is to ensure the safety of and to improve the 

standings of itself, the other institutions of the country, and the 

citizens who created it, although not necessarily in tha t order.
83

At this point, then, one thing is clear. We are not at war in Southeast Asia because we care about the Vietnamese people. Our concern is not for Asian welfare, but for American welfare. The President has done n othin g tha t will end the fighting. He has only made provisions to lessen American casualties. He cares not for Asian boys, but for American boys. You do not slaughter hundreds of thousands of people if you care for them. You do not destroy homes and cities to express your concern for a nation’s well-being. Our soldiers try to win friends by murdering Vietnamese men and

* raping their women. In the name of democracy we support a mili­ tary dictatorship that imprisons political opponents and suppresses dissent. During the Tet offensive, a philosophy was evidenced at Hue to the effect that we would retake the city even if it meant

• destroying it in the process. This seems to be our approach to the entire war; we will keep Vietnam “free” and uphold the rig ht of self-determination for the Vietnamese people even if we must kill them all to do it. This is an untenable position for us to maintain. I do not ask you to admit this to anyone, for that would be political suicide which is obviously not in your best interest. However, I do ask you to admit it to yourselves. If you are honest and shed your self-righteousness, you will see the tru th in what I have said. Why then are we fighting in Southeast Asia? Evidently, it is in our best national interest, for surely we would not intentionally harm ourselves. Or would we? The common sense answer is “no,” but harming ourselves is precisely what we are doing! The continuation of this war is directly responsible for our internal disintegration. Our economy buckles under the strain of wartime inflation, a recession, and a high level of unemployment. Our people seriously question the merits of all three branches of their govern­ ment. They are unsure of the validity of what they are told by the news media as conflicting accounts of the war are commonplace. Most disastrous of all, the fragile coalitions tha t hold this society together are breaking down because of the war. Radical elements seek violent confrontation and revolution. Reactionary blue-collar workers attack peaceful dissenters as the police stand by helplessly. Intellectuals and students are isolated from and held suspect by

* the rest of society. Minority blacks see a dominant group that wages racist wars at home and abroad. The National Guard is deployed for the purpose of protecting property instead of lives. Families are destroyed as children are pitte d against their parents in debate

• over the war. I feel this more acutely than anything else I have men­ tioned. I lost my family in November because I felt that I had to 

speak out against this war. Believe me, it hurts. These divisions can only deepen as the war is prolonged. We can no longer afford to ignore the fact that our entire social structure is crumbling. When compared to this reality, the consequences of American withdrawal predicted by proponents of the war are trivia l. National reunification must be our top priority. The first step is to immediately end American involvement in the Vietnam war. There can be no furthe r delay. Time is running short.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Braffman, thank you for your statement. It is obvious tha t your convictions are very deeply held. My question is,
84

if, in working through “the system,” as it is often called, you find 

tha t your ideas don’t prevail this November, or in the near future, 

are you willing to abide by the decision of the system and continue 

to work throug h it?

Mr. Braffman. Personally, I am. My fear is for a great number of 

other students who are not, and the best comparison I can make 

is what students are feeling now, comparing it to what blacks have 

felt. For so many years, we have told the blacks, work within the 

system, change will come. Just wait and it will happen. And what 

happened ? We got a few laws passed, but nothing is really changed. *

So what happened in 1967—we had outbreaks in the cities. Tha t 

showed frustration at work within the system. The same thin g 

is happening now among students. We have been told the U.S. 

Government gives you the opportunity to make it change. All right. *

So we are taking advantage of the opportunity right now. But what’s 

happening is that we are starting to realize that although the opportunity is there, the possibility, the probability to actually effect 

change is not. More and more people are beginning to believe that 

you cannot change it, and they are being tu rned away from working 

within the system. And I see this happening and I really fear that 

if Congress doesn't act this summer, then a lot of people will be 

further alienated. You are driving people to the left all the time, 

the more you delay, and I am very concerned about it.

Mr. Fascell. What is the system?

Mr. Braffman. The system?

Mr. F ascell. Yes, what is it?

Mr. Braffman. The system is the institutions tha t were here when 

I came here. I was born into a world-----

Mr. Fascell. You mean the governmental institutions?

Mr. Braffman. Pardon?

Mr. F ascell. 

r rhe governmental institutions which were here when 

you were born?

Mr. Braffman. All institutions: governmental institutions, economic, social institutions, all the institutions of our Nation. Churches, 

everything.

Mr. Smith. I would like to add tha t not only do I regard the 

system as the governmental institutions tha t we have today, but *

also the bureaucracy, the customs tha t seem to surround them. Now,

T am not in any way in favor of changing what has been set up 

through our Constitution. I admire the Constitution. I thin k it is one 

of the greatest documents this world has ever seen, and I admire ’

the system that was set up through it and has gone down through the 

ages. But I particularly feel tha t the average person on the street 

has to be able to approach the Government more easily. I didn’t 

know T could get th is close to a Congressman until I came to Washington last week, and I am really grateful for the opportunity, and 

I th ink more citizens need to know of it and this opportunity should 

be made available to other citizens.

Mr. F ascell. There are t^ o amazing thoughts here, Mr. Chairman.

One is that the witness is just now discovering the existence of the 

system, and I am not being critical. The other is that neither witness in his definition of the system ever included people. The great
85

majority of people; or any people; or those who disagree with you. 

The structure is not against you.

Mr. Braffman. Th at’s the thing I have serious doubts about the 

system or society on the level tha t we face it today. It is so massive, so immense, you can have a dissenting minority of 22 million in this country and the system can take no account of those people, because you still have got 180 million who do believe in the system and whom the system benefits. From the scale that we exist in today, you c an't afford to ignore those minorities any more and the system 

is not as responsive to those minorities as it should be.

a Mr. Fascell. By your complaint if you mean tha t a majority

is not going to adopt the point of view of the minority, I would 

agree with you.

Mr. Braffman. But still the majo rity has the power even though

• it is not supposed to be this way, to hold its opinions over the 

minority.

Mr. Fascell. How will you change the opinion of the majority by 

changing the structure, or changing the system?

Mr. Braffman. I personally don't believe this. I see faults in 

this structure, I see faults in every other structure I have looked at as well and I'm willing to work. But I ’m saying tha t people are 

being alienated by the lack of response from the system.

Mr. Findley. We will have to yield to Mr. Boland, now.

Mr. Boland. I ’ll yield to Mr. Frelinghuysen.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Thank you, Mr. Boland. It is a pleasure to 

welcome two friends from my State and particula rly a constituent 

of mine. I hope that he realizes by now tha t my door is always open and I would guess th at the average Member of Congress is j ust as responsive. I would doubt very much whether our ability and willingness to hear only began a week or two ago. I would guess that if you had been seeking our attention, we would have been only too glad to respond. And I would hope that anyone that 

writes a letter gets an answer, at least from my office.

Mr. Braffman. I would certainly agree with that, but I would 

say tha t look how long it has taken students to discover these chan­ nels, and students are supposedly the more intellectual elements of our society. I don’t know if this is the fau lt of our educational sysr

tem or what. But it has taken students many years to discover these channels to come down to Washington to see their Congressman. And tha t is really unfortunate because we needed this communication

before.

* Mr. F relinghuysen. The sad part of it is tha t they come in the 

8th grade. I have had several with me on the steps of the Capitol only today, but they don’t come as often when they grow up. And this is perhaps the time when the communication is needed more. My question really is the wisdom of the basic proposal which you make, Mr. Braffman, and tha t is for immediate withdrawal. I take it your conscience would not be pricked if there should be disastrous conse­ quences in South Vietnam, if we should precipitously withdraw. You would not feel, even though the Nation might, a guilty con­ science about what might happen there if there should be a vacuum 

and there were not a gradual withdrawal such as is being undertaken right now?
86

Mr. Braffman. Two points on th at; this is what T don't understand. We’ve spent how many years there murdering their people, 

hundreds of thousands, and all of a sudden we are concerned about 

who is going to be killed.

Mr. Frelinghuysen. Are you not concerned, Mr. Bralfman?

Mr. Braffman. Yes, I am, but I ’m saying that I don’t believe 

that it is an argument because we can sit there and kill people, the 

longer we stay, the more we kill. And all of a sudden you are worried about these people. Now tha t is the basic premise of my argument. When T talk about immediate withdrawal, I am thinking in 

terms of the Hatfield-McGovern amendment, and right now language ,

is being worked on to include facilities for those people who do 

fear reprimand. I know both my Senators are working on that, and 

I do support tha t amendment if this type of language gets written 

into it. Yes, I do care about those people. But don't use those people •

as an excuse for not withdrawing as soon and as fast as possible.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. I yield to Mr. Monagan.

Mr. Monagan. Thank you very much Mr. Hicks. Mr. Braffman. 

you have spoken about what we have been doing in Vietnam and 

about the effect of our military activities there. I suggest tha t your 

position is somewhat simplistic and ask you about the other side of 

the picture, what about the people tha t are in South Vietnam that 

we are providing protection for? What about the million refugees 

tha t came down from North Vietnam? Do vou think that is amusing, 

do I gather tha t from your reaction to the question?

Mr. Braffman. I don’t think it is amusing at all.

Mr. Monagan. You are smiling.

Mr. Braffman. Once, again, I have been arguing this for many 

months and I have heard these arguments. That’s why I d idn’t bother 

you with those type arguments.

Mr. Monagan. Well, you are not bothering me. I thin k it is not a 

question of dialectics, it is a question of basic facts in appraising 

this situation. I consider it to be an important factor in determining 

policy.

Mr. Braffman. Once again, with the amendment tha t is being 

drawn up now, provisions will be made for those people. And I'm 

really looking forward to this amendment coming up. And I am *

concerned about those people. But T am also concerned about the 

people we are destroying by continuing to be there. How many 

people are killed tha t are not reported by bombing raids, and the 

like? Civilians tha t are being killed. I ’m also concerned about them. *

Mr. Monagan. Well, I ’m happy to hear tha t because you don’t 

mention tha t in your initial remarks. You’ve also talked about the 

possibility that there would be a turn to the left, even though you 

yourself would not be inclined to move in tha t direction, as I understand it. Based on what the left has done and what we can see 

in other countries, in Czechoslovakia where the left has been in 

control, what would you say tha t the left could provide here that 

the present system would not provide?

Mr. Braffman. Once again, I don’t approve of what T see hao ­

pening on the left, I am just as wary of them as I am of the people 

on the right. But, I do say tha t now, because of what’s happening
87

and what has happened, I can identify with and understand their frustration and I can understand what leads them to this.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Braffman, I regret to tell you tha t your time is up. I regret that we don’t have more time at this point for furthe r dialogue, but I do hope tha t such an occasion will come. Mr. T. G. Ellison of the University of Virginia is next on the schedule and while he is taking his seat I would like to review for the benefit of those who may have arrived just recently—I am grate­ ful to those members who have come in—the procedure tha t we have adopted. The six regular panel members are recognized in order.

» Now if any individual member of the panel wishes to yield his oppor­ tunity for a question to someone who has stopped by, as several have, that’s the time to make your wish known. We do ask tha t each member ask only one question.

• Mr. Ellison, you may proceed. I see you have some company, if you would identify your friends, please.

Mr. Elltson. Let me identify who I am first. I am chairman of Virginia Veterans for Peace. I'm a fourth-year student at McIntire School of Commerce a t the University of Virginia. Another thin g I would like to point out is I have had to amend the speech and edit it a bit because it was a little lengthy. It is hard to write about Vietnam and not say all you want to say. So I hope you will bear with me as far as the time goes.

Mr. Findley. I must tell you as I announced at the start, when the 10 minutes are up we will have to terminate your presentation.

Mr. Eli .Ison. Well, let me get started then.

STATEMENT BY THOMAS GR IFFITH S ELLISON, 

UNIVER SITY OF VIR GIN IA

Mr. Ellison. Good afternoon, gentlemen. Mv name is Thomas Griffiths Ellison. I am chairman of Virginia Veterans for Peace and a fourth-year student in the McIntire School of Commerce at the University of Virginia. I have not come here today primarily as an official spokesman of our organization, rather I wish to speak first as a concerned citizen, second as a concerned veteran who served in Vietnam in the Third Division of the U.S. Marine Corps, and

« thir d as a concerned student at a university where misunderstand­ ing, not violence, brought violence. I neither purp ort to be an expert on constitutional law nor an experienced and well-versed student of diplomatic history. What I would like to speak about is the un-

* deniably brutal effect our Nation's commitment to Indochina is hav­ ing upon the Nation’s youth, in particular, those who have fought 

in this undeclared war. To illustrate this, I would like to relate the course of my own metamorphosis from the son of a naval military officer to a combat Marine in Vietnam to my present position as a veteran for peace. I was brought up in what ex-Commandant of the Marine Corps General David M. Shoupe terms a militaristic society. Our society is indeed militaristic: 20 percent of the adult population of this country are veterans of military service; in fact, over half of this Congress hold positions in the various services’ reserves or in the
88

National Guard. General Shoup has analyzed our environment well.

If I may quote:

Whole generations have been bro ugh t up on wa r news and wartim e prop aganda. The few yea rs of peace since 1939, have seen a steady stre am of war 

novels, wa r movies, comic strips, and television prog rams with wa r or military 

settings. To many Americans, milita ry training, expeditionary service, and 

wa r are merely extensions of the entertainm ent and games of childhood.

General Shoup’s observation is further substantiated by Noam 

Chomsky in his book, “No More Vietnams” :

America has institutionalized even its genocide, . . . the fact th at the extermination of Indians has become the object of public entertainment and w

childre n’s games.

In Jan uar y 1966, I enlisted in the Marine Corps for 2 years. My 

motives were clear: I was incensed at the atrocities of the North 

Vietnamese against our captured pilots, and I felt a chauvinistic and •

patriotic urge to do something about this. Parris Island and subsequent infantry training at Camp Geiger had somewhat of a bewildering effect upon me and my comrades in arms. I gained a false 

sense of security from the Corps. I became a trained killer, and 

unaware to myself, I became more of a racist than the most bigoted 

member of the Ku Klux Kian. But at tha t time I was not disillusioned. Indoctrination was effective. The world’s problems could 

be solved through military reactions, and I would follow any orders 

given to me by a superior. In fact, had I been a National Guard 

member at the time of Kent State, I would have fired unhesitantly 

into the crowd when the order was given. In retrospect, the person 

I had become was frighten ing and dangerous. And idealism or concern for humanity I once had was replaced by the role of a hard 

marine I then played.

An extension of psychological reconstruction was further enacted 

at the Marine Corps staging area. I was completely familiarized 

with the concept: “The only good Gook is a dead Gook.” Very little 

differentiation was made between the South Vietnamese populace 

and Vietcong or NVA troops. I almost swallowed this postulate 

completely, but I was fortu nate enough to attend the annual Vietnamese language course. We were not only taug ht the basics of the 

language but also the culture. I then began to respect the Vietnamese 

as a people contrary to the opinions tha t were institutionalized by »

superior noncommissioned and line officers and drilled into those 

enlisted personnel who did not have the desire or did not have the 

opportunity to learn the tru th about the Vietnamese.

What happened to me and the other men in my outfit in I-Corps, *

has established itself well in my memory. I doubt I will ever forget 

the good and the bad times. The joy of a warm can of beer or 

“Winstons” in our C-rats while on operational status still brings 

a smile to my face. But I am not here to speak about smiles. Last 

week, 168 American lives were ended because of your inaction to end 

the war! Five-times-decorated M. Sgt. Donald Duncan states the 

case well:

Those people protesting the war in Vietnam are not aga inst the boys in 

Vietnam. On th e con trary, wh at they are again st is our boys being in Vietnam.

They are not unpatriotic. Again the opposite is true. They are opposed to 

people, our own and others, dying for a lie, thereby corrupting the very word, 

democracy.
89

The first K.I.A. I saw was the death of a friend of mine in our very 

first fire fight. It was in the very same area Bernard Fall so app ropriately named, “The Street With out Joy.” My friend died from a 

misaimed shot from within our own company perimeter. Subsequently, a very large logistical camp was named for him after we 

secured the area. 1 can assure you tha t he would trade whatever 

honor there is in tha t for his life.

Obviously, though contrary to the beliefs of many of our more 

powerful veterans’ organizations, there is nothing romantic about 

this war. “Wings of gold upon his chest,” “duty, honor, and coun try” 

» rallies, and other misguided supposedly patriotic attempts to gain 

a lasting peace through waging an eternal war have not rallied the 

country to a new God-endowed manifest destiny.

However, I specifically came here today to speak about the de- 

• humanization, resulting from militaristic conditioning and actual 

experiences in the combat zone of Vietnam. The psychological imbalances and violent reactions of the Mike Sharps, the Charlie W hitmans, the Captain Medinas, and countless others are a result of many 

stimuli. I can empathize with these men. Of the over 80 active 

members of Veterans for Peace in Charlottesville, over half—including myself—carry the memories of their own personal Mylai-4’s. 

Gentlemen, I can assure you, it makes it difficult to sleep a t night.

I am not a psychologist. Wha t makes me qualified to expound on 

the subject? Experience! Experience not gained from flying in by 

helicopter for a day or two, but experience gained from being an 

exhausted and frustrated combat Marine for extended periods in the 

field.

Personally, I felt three areas in which stimuli acted in such a 

way that I believe I or any other Grunt (as we infantrymen proudly 

called ourselves) would be forced to the point where any one of us 

was perfectly capable of committing wholesale murder on innocent 

civilians in Vietnam.

First, in the combat environment of Vietnam, no greater fru str ation can be experienced than not knowing who the enemy is. As one 

recent returnee stated, “It is utterly impossible for a GI, especially 

a scared GI in the dark, to make any differentiation between a VC 

and a civilian.” The general policy of “shooting anything that 

’ moves” conditions one to fire at will, even if women and children 

are the targets. This problem is furthe r illustrated by our unrealistic 

and inadequate attempts at pacification and Vietnamization. I worked 

in a civic action program for 2)4 months. I can say with some authority that relocation in north ern I-Corps does not work. Why? 

Our Government faces a somewhat dual and contradictory problem 

in pacification. One day it is necessary to napalm a Vietnamese 

village to liberate it from VC infiltrators. The next day we begin 

to pacify the burned and embittered survivors. They must surely 

wonder if we are liberating them to death. But liberate them we will. 

And those who are too ignorant to realize they must be liberated must 

be pacified, so they will not interfere with the liberation of th eir more 

enlightened brethren whose enthusiasm for liberation has been 

greatly enhanced by their participation in the profits of the economic boom the United States has brought to their hapless land.
90

In addition, the people of Vietnam are not pacified. They are 

merely tired and apathetic.

Thus, we are asking one hell of a lot from our troops in demanding they fight for a populace which only wants an end to the hostilities, regardless of who the victor may be.

I know all too well the fear of not knowing whether or not a 

village was friendly. I also remember a desire to shoot to kill and 

ask questions later.

Secondly, many of us saw our buddies maimed, killed, and mutilated. Many of these deaths were the result of an absence of danger 

landmarks and poor leadership, specifically on Hamburger Ilil l, 

Hill 117, Operation Chinook, and countless other ventures. Fru stration, despair, and a desire for revenge increased the potential for 

incidents similar to Song My. Those companies which suffered continual losses on the field because of traps, sniper fire, etc., were most 

likely to commit atrocities; whether on the scale of Mylai-4 or smaller 

is immaterial. Considering our previous conditioning to kill, I understand the satisfaction and the alleviation of frustration tha t is felt 

from finally getting involved in something other than a sweep and 

clear operation, where all you do is sweep and clear elephant grass, 

or search and destroy operations, where you mostly destroy vacated 

villages and desecrate Vietnamese religious shrines.

The third stimulus actually involves two conditions tha t not only 

exist in Vietnam but prevail throughout the military establishment. 

One is the relationship between most officers and enlisted men, particularly in the Marine Corps. The other is the evidence of racism 

in and out of combat zones. In combat zones, it is relatively easy to 

dehumanize members of an alien race, which of course, results in the 

loss of our own civility. But racism exists outside of the combat 

zone, too. I will never forget one of my D .I.’s antagonizing a young 

black by continuously calling him “boy.” But let me elaborate on 

both of these problems.

Tn view of the conditions of today’s military services, I believe 

psychologically balanced and intelligent men make poor soldiers. 

Why is this so? The very dichotomy tha t is established between 

the officers and enlisted men, in a theory X manner, could hardly be 

improved upon as a means of instilling jealousy and hatred. Enlisted 

men are indoctrinated to kill, kill, kill and yet to be good noncombat soldiers, they must sublimate their aggression into forms 

of behavior tha t the military can tolerate. I can thin k of no better 

way to lose the respect of one’s men than tha t displayed by Col. 

Joseph Bellas, when he commented on the Thanksgiving mess hall 

boycotts last fall. I quo te: “They’re young, they ’re idealistic and 

don’t like man’s inhumanity to man. As they get older they will 

become wiser and more tolerant.” It is because of the attitudes of 

Colonel Bellas and men like him that I am here today. If I must 

passively accept “man’s inhumanity to man,” then I should most 

assuredly prefer to regress to early childhood before I knew about 

Redskins, Krauts, Japs, and Gooks.

The immorality of our presence in Vietnam was adroitly stated 

by Maj. Gordon S. Livingston, M.D., Ret., who criticized Colonel
91

Patton’s inaccurate body count policy and was subsequently requested 

to resign from the Army:

In the end what I objected to was not so much the individual atrocities, 

for these can be found in any w ar ; war itself is the atrocity. What compelled 

my stand was the evident fact tha t at an operational level most Americans 

simply do not care about the Vietnamese. In spite of our national protestations 

about self-determination, revolutionary development, and the like, the attitude 

of our people, on the ground, military and civilian, is one of nearly universal 

contempt. This arro gant feeling is manifested in a variety of ways, from 

indiscriminate destruction of lives and property to the demeaning handouts 

that pass for civic action. Finally one need only listen to a conversation 

between Americans concerning Vietnamese to appreciate the general lack of 

regard. The universal designations for the people of Vietnam, friend or enemy, 

are Gooks, Slant Eyes, Slopes, and Dinks. On the whole, this has no conscious 

pejorative conotation as used casually, but it does say something about our 

underlying attitude toward those for whose sake we are ostensibly fighting. 

How can we presume to influence a struggle for the political loyalties of a 

people for whom we manifest such uniform disdain is to me the great unanswered, indeed, unanswerable, question.

I am as guilty as the next man. I burned villages, fired at innocent 

civilians, and developed disdain for the people. I t was quite conceivable tha t my outfit could have had the same breakdown of morale 

and psychological integrity that resulted in the massacres at Mylai-4.

In conclusion, I would like to make several observations concerning the present debate on the Church-Cooper and Hatfield-McGovern 

amendments. The organization I represent endorses unanimously the 

amendments as they now stand.

It lias been said recently tha t those citizens and representatives 

of our Nation who demand immediate legislation to force the Pre sident to act upon his own guarantees and promises of withdrawal of 

all American troops from Cambodia by Jul y 1, are in fact, embarrassing the President. We veterans of the Armed Forces of the 

United States wish to take exception to this rhetorical suggestion. 

On the contrary, it is the present administration of this Nation, 

with its peace-through-extension-of-war policy, which is embarrassing us!

The issue is simple. We have proudly served our country in her 

military ranks from the battlefields of Germany to the streets of 

Hue. Today, we have joined the battle on another front. In a word, 

we are now fighting in a constructive manner in order tha t our country demonstrate to us, its loyal sons, tha t it remains a polity of, by, 

and for the people.

Our legislators have failed us, the people, because we have failed 

them. The citizens of this Nation have succumbed to the balance of 

terr or proposition that is in effect; the idea persists that declared 

wars are obsolete in the postatomic era and Congress must allow 

the President full rein.

Certainly, this idea has no relevance to our present war in Ind ochina. To our organization, the members of which served under 

Mr. Nixon and former Presidents, the question of limitation of 

Presidential powers is moot. None of us wishes to limit his power as 

Commander in Chief during declared wars and national emergencies. Nonetheless, we do demand tha t the Congress retrieve the constitutionally delegated powers of war policy that the executive branch
92

has obviously usurped. I believe this usurpation to be the crux of the 

issue.

Sophistries from the mouths of our elected legislators concerning 

the difficulties of the nuances of constitutional interpretation only 

aid the arguments of those extreme elements which espouse the proposition that truly representative government is impossible and tha t 

anarchy must prevail. I believe our system can work, but only if the 

ruling echelon of the administration and Congress is receptive to 

the desires of the people. If we cannot, by studying our own Constitution and laws, determine who has the right to make war, then 

those sacred ideals upon which this country was founded and for *

which we gave our youth and blood, have descended into a chaotic 

abyss from which there is little hope of retrieval. Brig. Gen. William 

Wallace Ford stated in 1967, “ The time has come, however to strike 

down the implication tha t whoever does not follow blindly and un- «

complainingly in the steady expansion of this war is somehow unpatriotic. Stalwart heroes of the Army and of West Point, who 

also learned well the motto ‘duty, honor, country’ have counseled 

against a land war in Asia—MacArthur, Ridgeway, Gavin, and former USMC Commandant Shoup. I besought my newly elected representative in 1964 to try to keep us from further involvement in 

Vietnam. I voted in 1964 for the Presidential candidate who opposed 

escalation of the conflict. I am still trying. I consider it the highest 

patriotism.” My presence here is, I believe, in this tradition of 

patriotism.

The proposal is plain. Are we, the people, truly represented by our 

elected officials? Is the mandate for redirection of national policy 

and plea for social change heard?

In essence, do you, our elected representatives, in the name of a 

Nation once proud, right, and a haven for the oppressed of the 

world, have the courage to reassert yourselves as the constitutional 

body which decides the Nation’s destiny in war and peace?

Thank you, gentlemen.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Robison.

Mr. Robison. I would like to yield to my colleague, Mr. Morse.

Mr. Morse. I don’t have any questions, and I would just like to 

thank the gentleman for his presentation.

Mr. Thomson. I ’m glad to yield my time for questioning to Mr. •

McClory.

Mr. McClory. Well, thank you. This is very important testimony 

and very impressive. The question tha t I would like to pose is this:

First, I would like to know whether or not you found that the enemy 

you were fighting in Vietnam was as anxious as you indicate you are 

now for us to withdraw, to lay down their arms and encourage peace; 

and second, do you feel if we would have a precipitous withdrawal, 

can you give any assurance tha t this is going to result in peace in 

Southeast Asia?

Mr. Ellison. Obviously, I can’t give any assurance—I'm not 

President of the United States. He seems to be the only person who 

can assure us of anything.

Mr. McClory. Doesn’t the other side have something to say about 

th»42
93

Mr. Ellison. I ’ll answer your question. One thing I would like to 

point out, I wish you would read the rest of my testimony because 

I didn’t get to my point tha t I wanted to make. Personally, I believe 

tha t the Vietnamese war is a civil war. I believe this because of my 

experience I found in Vietnam while working in civic action. I lived 

in a village for 2i/> months. I taug ht English in the high school there. 

I learned the people. I learned their ways. I like them. But, as far 

as the bloodbath so many people claim is going to occur when we 

withdraw, if we withdraw quickly, which is what I want, the only

* bloodbath tha t is going to occur in Vietnam is if we leave a more 

stable government in Vietnam than we found. The Vietnamese people 

do not respect their government.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Ellison, you can make your point in answer to

* my question. Do you believe the majority of the people in the United 

States agree with you today?

Mr. Ellison. Again, we get to the minority-majority thing. No. 

I don’t think the majo rity of the people do believe. I think a significant minority do. But the reason the majority of the people do 

not agree with the views of my organization and the students of 

this country, is because I don't think they are well informed enough 

to know what’s going on over there. There is fantastic censorship of 

the press, both ways.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. I tried rapidly to read the rest of your statement 

and as one who was involved in this war I must say tha t it’s a 

very interesting statement in many ways. War of course is hell, 

whether it's a moral war or whether it isn’t. In this one, a lot of 

people have some qualms as you do, I can understand your position. 

What about a war tha t is moral. Wha t about a war tha t really concerns the destruction of the United States or the system, as many 

would like to call it, in which we live. You don't thin k in tha t kind 

of war you have the type of atrocity tha t you have witnessed with 

your own eyes and in which you may have participated while you 

were in Vietnam?

Mr. Ellison. The statement I ended with, the quote, says of 

course, war is the atrocity itself. I think you asked me probably

* about three questions. One, if our country ever had to go on the 

defense as far as aggression goes, and my time will be up in a year 

as far as honorable discharge goes, I ’m still in the Reserves, I would 

without any doubt in my mind go down to the nearest station and

* put a uniform on. But, I don’t believe what is happening in Vietnam is in our national interest. I don't believe we should be there. 

And because of the atrocities tha t are happening there when in fact 

it is an immoral war, the only position I can stand on is tha t we 

should get out as soon as possible.

Mr. Boland. Let me ask you this, on the last page you indicate: 

“Is the mandate for redirection of national policy and plea for 

social change h eard?’" What do you really think? Do you think the 

mandate for redirection of national policy and plea for social change 

is being heard ?

Mr. Ellison. I think the fact that we are here today, it is now 

being heard. I think it ’s also been repressed, for a great many years, 

especially the problem with the blacks. I don’t thin k anyone wanted
94

to listen to them. Since we are here today, I can see you all are listening, but I question whether the direction that we the youth of 

America want to take is going to be taken. One thing, I ’ll ask you 

a question if it’s all right, how come the guys over there fighting, 

the people in my outfit, people tha t died at 18 or 19, why don’t 

they have the vote in this country?

Mr. Boland. Well, to speak for myself, I hope they get it.

Mr. Ellison. I ’m glad to hear that.

Mr. F indley. I think you’ll find general support for tha t in this 

group. Are there other questions? „

Mr. Monagan. Pursuing the point tha t Mr. Boland brought up,

I think it is an important one. You have indicated your opposition to this particular war on what you say are moral grounds. What 

I ’m wondering is how this morality is determined? In this case «

one of the points that has been made in the past has been there hasn’t 

been any declaration of war. But let’s suppose th at it was determined 

tha t it was important for our national interest to become involved 

militarily in the Middle East. How would you go about determining 

the morality or immorality of a particular conflict? Do you reserve 

this righ t to yourself in each individual case.

Mr. Ellison. I believe tha t righ t is guaranteed under the Bill of 

Eights.

Mr. Monagan. Well, in other words, you reserve to yourself the 

right to determine whether the act of Congress in a particular case 

is moral or immoral?

Mr. Ellison. Congress cannot dictate the morality of individuals.

Mr. Monagan. Well, Congress, under our system, presumably has 

the righ t by representation to call upon your services, and you are 

saying tha t you would not respond? In other words, even though 

Congress determined by a democratic process tha t this was a conflict tha t was important to the security interests of the United 

States-----

Mr. Eli asoN. If it was a conflict tha t the Congress determined 

was important to the security interests of the United States, I would 

go. But Congress has not determined tha t Vietnam is, and I have 

determined by the experience of being over there tha t it is not.

Mr. Monagan. I can see tha t you have made tha t point and I *

wondered exactly how far you pursued tha t logic. Thank you, Mr.

Chairman.

Mr. Findley. Are there other questions? Mr. Smith from New 

York.

Mr. Smith of New York. Mr. Ellison, I think you stated tha t 

you taught school and knew the Vietnamese and liked them. I g ather 

from your statement tha t this kind of attitude on the part of our 

young men over there would be tha t of a small minority. Is tha t 

righ t ?

Mr. Ellison. Yes, sir. There is a very small minority working in 

pacification efforts. I was one individual out of 20 in Cam Low 

village. There were perhaps three of the 20 tha t liked the people.

The rest of them referred to them in exactly the terminology tha t 

I used and did not respect them whatsoever. And I might say tha t 

the three people tha t did respect them were college dropouts and
95

the others did not have the education to realize what was happening. 

Mr. F indley. We are very grateful to you and your colleagues fo r

this very stimulating statement.

The next witness is David L. Thomas from Haverford College. 

Is Mr. Thomas here ?

STATEM ENT OF DAVID L. THOMAS, HAVERFO RD COLLEGE

P r e se n t a t io n of t iie W h it e H ous e F as t

Mr. Thomas. Across from the White House in Lafay ette Park, 

there are two men who have pledged not to eat until the U.S. troops 

are withdrawn from Cambodia. Brian McDonnell, who is the assistant director of the Health and Welfare Council of Delaware 

County, Pa., began his fast 19 days ago on May 3. He was joined 

on May 10 by Vietnam Veteran Thomas Mahany. Both only drin k 

water.

In directing our action at the President, we feel it important to 

express our solidarity of intent with all who reach for peace. We 

hope that, together, we may put an end to this war. Tha t is why 

I am here.

In a letter to President Nixon dated May 3, Brian McDonnell 

explained his action over the Cambodian incursion. “The Presidential policy statement of April 30, 1970, further reflects the intentions of the Government of the United States to seek peace in Southeast Asia through military force. This violent approach to world 

affairs will lead to increased military conflict and fewer peaceful 

resolutions.”

In a telegram of support, Representative George Brown of California wrote, “I am disappointed tha t the President has not answered 

your letter of May 3.” We share his disappointment.

Nonviolent dissent is a relatively new method of expression in 

America, although it has existed in other parts of the world for 

many years. Representative Allard Lowenstein telegraphed Brian 

tha t “your individual act of sacrifice and courage is in the trad ition 

of Ghandi, Martin Luth er King, and others who have touched the 

hearts and inspired millions of men through history.”

Individual nonviolent action, such as fasting, reaffirms the 

worth and integrity of one human being. By denying himself food, 

a man demonstrates the weight he attaches to his belief. This is a 

means of communication—the physical being—which belongs totally 

to the communicator. At the same time, however, fasting is an action 

which unites people in brotherhood because every human being can 

identify with the sacrifices which a person makes by denying himself 

nourishment.

Nonviolent dissent must also reaffirm the humanity of the person 

with whom one differs. Brian McDonnell emphasized this in his 

letter by assuring Mr. Nixon that “My protest is directed against you 

as President of the United States and implies no accusation against 

you as a human being.”

The significance of these two men’s action is based on the ir commitment to live, to protest, in a manner consistent with the goals 

they seek. Their message goes deeper than the withdrawal of U.S.
96

troops from Cambodia. They are expressing a nonviolent approach 

to living, both in world affairs and in their personal lives.

Peace among men must proceed from our commitment to curb 

aggression and seek resolution of violent conflict through peaceful 

means. A peace resulting from military victory only settles us further 

in our violent approach to solving our problems. Such a peace cannot last—even if it might be attained.

Every day in Lafayette Park, Brian and Tom speak with many 

people of varying opinions about war. Supporters of the fast distribute leaflets of explanation to those who pass through. At lunch 

time many Federal employees either miss lunch or delay it to be with 

us. At times as many as 300 people have gathered to discuss with the 

fasters their intentions and beliefs, and to share their personal questions about Cambodia. The warm response we have received has been 

very supportive and encouraging.

The fast differs from most other forms of dissent in its relatively 

long duration. There are, furtherm ore, few peak experiences which 

make it sensational. It is a long-term commitment to live in accordance with nonviolence, a commitment which extends beyond the end 

of the fast.

And yet we find nonviolence appealing. We are, along with those 

we have befriended in the park, slowly learning to reorient our criteria for satisfaction. Personal growth or a sincere conversation 

are becoming increasingly gratifying. Recently T was quite moved 

when I received a phone call from a 62-year-old Federal employee 

who had never been involved in protest. She offered to take Bria n’s 

place.

I believe tha t this reorientation of our values is as important as 

short-term change such as the withdrawal from Cambodia. The 

two must go hand in hand. A growth in our individual and collective attitudes is necessary if we are to decrease our traditional 

tendency toward violence. Our natural tendency should and must 

be in the direction of peace. Violence must become the exception 

rather than the prevailing solution to our problems.

I have come to you to ask your support and assistance, as well 

as to offer ours, in reaching our common goal of peace. We have 

very much appreciated the telegrams of support from Congressmen 

Brown, Edwards, Lowenstein, and Scheuer, and the visits of Congressmen Mikva and Ryan on the Capitol steps last Tuesday.

I hope that this initial cooperation and dialogue will grow into 

a concerned effort toward peace on the part of all of us. Brian and 

Tom, and we who support them in their action, invite each of you 

and your colleagues to come share some time with us in Lafayette 

Park. Perhaps together we may find added strength to struggle for 

a common goal of peace.

Wallingford. Pa.,

May S, 1970. President Richard Nixon,

The White House,

Washington, D. C.

Dear President Nixon : The Presidential policy statement of April 30. 1970, 

fu rthe r reflects the inte ntio ns of the Government of the United States to seek 

peace in Southeast Asia through militar y force. This violent approach to world 

affairs will lead to increase d military conflict and fewe r peaceful resolutions.
I appeal to you, Presid ent Richard Nixon, as Commander in Chief of the 

Armed Forces, to immediately withdraw all U.S. troops from Cambodia.

To demonstrate the importance of this appeal, I will stop eating until the 

United States troops are withdrawn from Cambodia. This is not an attem pt at 

coercion but an indication of the weight I attach to the expansion of American aggression. By refra ining from food, I am denying myself something all consider important. Until the troops are withdra wn from Cambodia, I will place myself on the 

public domain—in Lafay ette Park facing the White House—and take only 

water. I will remain there, in constant vigil and fast, starting 4 p.m. Sunday, 

May 3, 1970, leafletting passers-by to inform them of the appeal.

My protest is directed against you as Presid ent of the United States and 

implies no accusation against you as a human being.

Respectfully yours, J. Brian McDonnell.

Pittsford, N.Y.,

May 18, 1970.

President Richard Nixon,

The White House,

Washington, D. C.

Dear President Nixon : I am a Vietnam veteran on fas t against your 

invasion of Cambodia. I have taken no food since May 10 and will take none 

until U.S. forces are withdrawn from Cambodia. I spend each day in Lafay ette 

Par k with two other men who are fasting, and with a group of supporters.

I also spent 3 years at West Point, and during my service in Vietnam I saw 

everything with which I was confronted at West Point being implemented in a 

very distast eful way, a way tha t is based upon something other than defense.

The United States is only defeated when its principles are defeated, and you 

are defeating these principles. The idea of saving face over lives is tragic.

Your policy concerning the war in Indochina is immoral, and immorality 

invites violence. If you do not change your policy soon, the violent factions of 

dissent will hand together in open revolt—and tha t would be most unfortuna te 

for all of us. I am fasting because it is time tha t people who believe in nonviolence show 

their beliefs in the most vehement manner possible. If people do not put nonviolent concepts into practice now, nonviolence may be lost forever.

I would like to meet with you and ask you exactly what your intentions are 

in Indochina. Why do you support a Government made up of generals?

Why do you support a Government t hat imprisons its critics?

Why do you destroy cities just to seize a few hundred rifles?

I do not believe tha t you are listening to all of your advisers. You are listen ­

ing to the mi lita ry; and the militar y in this country has developed into something tha t h as no feeling for the people, only for itself.

You cannot continue to allow an organization like this to control our country. 

You must sta rt listening to the people and to your other advisers.

Respectfully yours,

Thomas F. Mahany.

Mr. F indley. Tha nk you, Mr. Thomas. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. T hank you, Mr. Chairman. The crux of the problem, 

of course, is a commitment to nonviolence, and a decision by the 

people, all people, th at the military is an outmoded diplomatic tool.

Mr. T itomas. My response to tha t is tha t the evidence that we have 

seems to be on the other side. We have found ourselves very influential among the people tha t we have contacted. We have distributed information to, say, 40,000 people, almost all of whom have 

read it. We don’t have more than maybe one or two people a day, out 

of, you know, hundreds and hundreds who pass throu gh the park, 

who will destroy one of our leaflets or throw’ it in the wastebasket.

I think this kind of communication is what nonviolence is about.
98

It’s communication, talking to people, convincing them, as many 

of you have suggested.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. Well, I ’m certainly impressed, Mr. Thomas, with 

your spirit and your dedication and your demeanor, your presentation; I think it's a very persuasive one. And I’m also impressed 

by the sacrifices Brian McDonnell and Tom Mahany are going 

through at this present moment. I'm sure tha t it is a very dramatic 

illustration of how deeply they feel about it and at the expense of, 

I ’m sure, g reat personal physical discomfiture. I know too tha t you 

are pleased with the reaction you do get from people who go through 

the park, through Lafayette Square, and converse with you. So in 

a sense you are doing precisely what you think you ought to do in 

your protest, and it is a protest in nonviolence as you so well described here, and it is a protest that, one individual can do tha t 

carries a considerable amount of weight. I want to commend you on 

your statement, and if I have the opportunity sometime to walk 

through Lafayette Pa rk within the next day or so, I intend to do so. 

Thank you very much.

Mr. T homas. I hope you will.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. H icks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I commend the young man 

for his statement. I assume we've been trying to do th at for at least 

some 2,000 years. I believe tha t Christ espoused a good many of 

these matters tha t you talk about, and the Society of Friends, at 

least for the last 5 years, have been around to mv office talking 

about this. But certainly you’ve got to start some place and you’ve 

started; but do you think this country is in a position to unilaterally disarm?

Mr. Thomas. I don't think that we’re talking about unilateral 

disarmament here. I think we're preparing the way for peaceful 

action. I think that we have to change the attitudes of the people 

simultaneously with the change in our structure and the change in 

our policies. I think we can afford, as concerned human beings, to do 

both. I think we must.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Robison.

Mr. Robison. Mr. Thomas, your’s was certainly an idealistic 

speech, and in many wavs a moving statement. I congratulate you 

on it. It’s a statement tha t shows the underlying emotion and sincerity that moves you to make such a statement. Now, looking toward 

the future, and accepting the idea, at least, th at there's a deep y earning for peace in the hearts of the people of all nations, how do 

you think tha t your generation can move in more constructive and 

better ways than our generation has to develop the kind of world 

you envision, in which violence would be the exception rather than 

the prevailing solution?

Mr. Thomas. I feel tha t communication such as what we're attempting now is the basis for change. We certainly are seeing this 

now: our press coverage has increased. Now I'm talkin g very prac ­

tically. This is not only idealistic. I think idealism is practical in 

many cases.

Mr. Robison. Yes.
99

Mr. Thomas. Here it is. We were on CBS this morning, we’ve 

been in the newspapers, we’ve reached an awful lot of people, and 

those people are responding. And tha t is the response tha t allows 

people here to maybe come closer to expressing their personal commitment along with the ir constituents. I ’ve been received very gra ­

ciously in many Congressmen’s and Senators’ offices. This morning 

Senator Hatfield was extremely sympathetic. I think tha t we re 

working on all fronts. I think we're being practical, and I think 

we’re infusing our idealism into the people here.

Mr. Robison. Specifically, do you see hope and value in some such 

device as the Peace Corps as we have known it, or perhaps in an 

expanded role of tha t organization?

Mr. Tiiomas. I ’ve known many Peace Corps volunteers and I've 

worked with the encampment for citizenship, which draws many 

of them. The Peace Corps in its idealism is a magnificent idea. 

Unfortunately, when the United States, for instance, has trouble 

with Peru, then the first people who are hurt are the children who 

don't get their powdered milk for breakfast. That’s unfortunate. I 

thin k the basic idea of America offering its resources to people who 

request its help is a very valid way of demonstrating our concern for 

our fellow man.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson. Any other questions? Mr. Monagan.

Mr. Monagan. Mr. Chairman, I can see the desirability, as you say, 

of preparing the atmosphere for the nonviolent approach. But as a 

practical matter, I thin k in international relations, you'll concede 

that disarmament is not a one-way street. What I ’m wondering is how 

you would suggest that this nonviolent approach be brought home, 

for example, to leaders of the Communist Party in the Kremlin and 

the people tha t support them?

Mr. Thomas. I don't believe that we are making strong efforts 

towards disarmament. I ’m quite familiar, through my father, for instance—who works for the defense industry and yet is also against 

the war—that we are not making these efforts.

Mr. Monagan. I say I concede the desirability perhaps on this 

side, but what about the other side? I mean, from what we read, 

they have 67 ABM sites, their navy is increasing, they are moving 

into the Middle East. How do we get the nonviolent approach across 

to the other side, who, after all, are the cause of our armament?

Mr. T homas. I think a very good example to explain my view on 

this is the thing which happened in 1956 in Vietnam. North Vietnam 

has traditionally, along with South Vietnam as a unit together, 

been a very nationalistic country. They were very united, comparatively, under Ho Chi Minh. I believe tha t our violence, as well 

as the violence of the French before us, has driven those people who 

are nationalistic, to fight us and to ask for arms from China, who 

they have a long history of-----

Mr. Monagan. That's our violence. I would like to have you direct 

your attention to the question tha t I asked, if you would.

Mr. Tiiomas. OK. Then let me go further into the example. I believe that we can influence other countries to disarm, to lower their 

violence, by lowering our own violence and not incurring violence 

such as the Cambodian incursion. I think tha t a commitment, such
100

as bill 609, tha t’s in the Senate at the moment, is one of many ways 

of establishing our commitment to stop violence. And I think this 

is very influential among other people and people from other countries, especially the press from other countries, have been extremely 

sympathetic to us.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Thomas, we’re very grateful to you for your very 

moving presentation.

The next witness is Cally Lewis of Mary Baldwin College, and 

I believe Murphy Davis is also present. It is my understanding tha t 

they will present somewhat differing viewpoints from the student 

body. Cally Lewis, please.

STATEMENT BY CALLY C. LEWI S, MARY BA LDWIN COLLEGE

Vietnam: My View

Miss L ewis. The first thin g I need to say is tha t I cannot speak 

for anyone but myself. I am delighted to express my own opinions 

and beliefs and views, but tha t is all they are—mine. I know that 

there are other students at Mary Baldwin who agree in general with 

my views, but I can present only my views. Those that I know best 

and whose views are most like mine disagree with some of my points. 

Those who are in less agreement with me would have to express their 

own views. I speak only for myself when I say anything beyond: 

“There are those on the Mary Baldwin campus who are not unalterably opposed to the present position of the United States in 

Southeast Asia.”

The keystone of my belief about Vietnam is tha t there probably 

is no “right” answer. There certainly is no easy answer. To question the morality of our presence there is useless. Morality is a very 

individual matter. No two people apply the same standards in the 

same way. It lends itself to no absolutes, nor even to more-definitethan-not formulations. When debates about Vietnam get around to 

the morality issue—and they always do—I feel as if I were listening 

to a broken record. Bound and round we go and where we stop 

depends on how long we can stand it. The point is that we are there. 

No discussion can change this basic fact. The question is first “Can 

we get out?” and if so, then “IIow can we get out? ” I am not sure 

what the answers are. I have heard much valuable debate and much 

bombast by people who know the situation and by those whom I 

suspect of being totally unaware of the complexities involved.

It seems to me that the chief goal of the foreign policy of any 

nation is—or ought to be—ultimately the security of tha t nation. 

I hate to sound cynical and selfish, but no one will look out for our 

interests if we don’t. Ideally, of course, there should be no need for 

any nation to place its welfare before tha t of the rest of the world’s; 

but we do not live in an ideal world. Admittedly, no nation can 

afford to act without consideration of the rest of the globe, but this 

cannot be the paramount consideration. Any elected official is responsible first and foremost for the well-being and security of those 

who elected him, regardless of whether he is the dogcatcher in 

Podunk or the President of the United States. To neglect this duty 

is to shirk the responsibilities and to betray the tru st vested in him
101

by his election. If U.S. security requires involvement in Southeast 

Asia—or in the U.N. or NATO, for that matter—then tha t is what 

must be done. Whether our involvement in Asia is necessary is a 

matter of opinion and interpretation of facts. I have heard very convincing arguments on both sides. The past several administrations 

have felt t hat it was necessary. U ntil someone presents a better a rgument against involvement than I have yet heard, I will support the 

Government policy, if not as an absolute good, then as one of a group 

of alternatives, all more or less undesirable. If we can now’ afford 

to leave Southeast Asia, militarily at least, then so much the better. 

It is a happy occasion when what one wants to do and what he must 

do coincide. Given the process of Vietnamization as an aid to U.S. 

withdrawal—wdiich I suppose is as good a beginning as any—the 

move into Cambodia, whatever its results, has its justification. It 

has its dangers, too. But I have no better suggestion to make as to 

how the U.S. should get out, and since I don't, it seems to me tha t all 

I can do is to support the Government—which is, after all, mine— 

until I have what I feel is a better solution.

I regret the death and destruction th at U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia has caused. I also regret the death and destruction caused 

by World War II . One of the themes t hat World War II historians 

play repeatedly—with little variation—is to berate the nations and 

their leaders for their lack of concern over the invasion of Ethiopia 

and Manchuria. If the world of the thirties learned the hard way 

tha t it was truly global and tha t what happened anywhere could 

affect everyone, how much more global is the world of 1970, when 

trade, transportation, and communication are so much more rapid, 

placing any point on the globe within easy reach of any other point. 

To refuse to acknowledge the rest of the w’orld, then as now, is not 

only foolhardy, but also dangerous. And not to be involved is impossible, at least for any nation tha t wishes to have any control over 

its future. I cannot maintain tha t our action in Vietnam has prevented another world war; I cannot even maintain that it can never 

lead to one. It does seem to me, however, to represent an effort to 

find a path to, if not true peace, then to warlessness. In seeking 

this precious and elusive goal, tria l and error is a slow, painful, and 

costly method, but it is the only one we have. Error has shown that 

ignoring the situation only worsened it.

I am a history major. In my work, I have been struck by one constant point throu ghou t history. It is not how you played the game, 

but whether you won or lost tha t matters. Only the successful, the 

victorious are righ t, even when they were more lucky than skillful 

or intelligent. History is, above all else, pragmatic. What works is 

what interests the historians more than what fails. But the chances 

of making the rig ht combination of decisions are slim. And the 

results can be a long time in being determined. All a man can do 

is to try to make the righ t decisions. Even angels can do no more.

I have a great deal of respect for many of my friends who are 

protesting our involvement in Southeast Asia. And I suspect that 

I am a little jealous of them. I wish tha t I could see things as 

clearly as they do. I think tha t the only way I shall ever see tha t 

clearly—if indeed, I ever do—is to continue to read and study and 

reason, actions which I can best carry on within the framework of
102

the academ ic com munity . For t hi s reason, I dep lore the acts of some 

stu de nt protestors to close dow n the academic com munity . I ackno wle dge th ei r righ t to prote st, bu t I expect the m to acknowledg e 

at the same tim e my righ t no t to protest and to con tinue my work 

in the man ne r th at I see fit. Maybe my ref usal to tak e a sta nd based 

mo re on my own opinions th an on opinions here in W ashing ton is 

a for m of laziness, of escapism, bu t I do n’t th in k so. For me, at least, 

it is a form of intellectua l hon esty. I see too many sides to the prob ­

lem to be able to mak e a definite decision of my own. An d un til I 

feel th at I have a be tte r solution, a be tte r personal decision, I feel 

th at the Gover nment is en titled to my su pp or t—not un critica lly and 

un thinking ly—but in the absence of any be tte r alter nativ e.

Mr. Findl ey. T ha nk you very much fo r a sup erb sta tem ent, Cally. 

Mr. F ascell. Mr. Monagan.

Mr. Monagan. Th an k you, M r. Ch air man. I do wa nt to com plim ent 

Miss Lew is on a certa in am ount of perspe ctive th at is not always 

ap pa rent in some of thes e statem ents. Bu t I rea lly am distu rbed by 

yo ur conclusion which seems to ind ica te th at if you have the power 

and succeed, th at t hat is the sole crite rio n by whi ch a natio nal policy 

sho uld be governe d. I ’m sure th at H it le r said som eth ing v ery sim ila r 

to this. Now should a gr ea t co un try such as ours base its policy only 

upon wh eth er we can cru sh some othe r country , and if so, how can 

we object to wh at was done in Czechoslov akia , fo r exa mple?

Miss Lewis. W ell, I would lik e to make a dis tin ction the re. I said 

th at histo ry det erm ines wh at is righ t by wh at succeeds. I do not 

th in k th at in the process of making histo ry, th at th is is a valid basis 

to make a decision.

Mr. Monagan. W ell, I ’m ha pp y to have th at clarificat ion, because 

it did seem to imply th at you agree d wi th th at conclusion.

Miss Lewis. N o, sir.

Mr. Monagan. Th an k you.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomso n.

Mr. T homson. W ell, I ju st wa nt to say th at we’re very pleased to 

have a little l ig ht alo ng wi th a gr ea t deal of heat we’ve been getting .

Mr. Findley. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. I hop e you won’t mind if I send a copy of your sta tement to my d augh ter . [L au gh ter.]

Mr. Findley. I th in k you can tell clearly, Miss Lew is, th at your 

sta tem ent was att ended very ca refully and with great admi rat ion , 

and I th an k you very much fo r making th is contribu tion.

Miss Lewis. Tha nk you, sir.

Air. Findley. M urph y Da vis is next on the sched ule. Miss Davis 

is also fro m Ma ry Ba ldwi n College. Miss Davis, I hope you'll ide ntify yo ur colleagues on th is occasion.

Miss Davis. On my le ft is Miss Good fro m Cham bersb urg , Pa ., 

and on my righ t, Carso n Pease fro m Ch arlotte , N.C. As will become 

ap pa rent t o you, we come fro m a stu dent body where there is a wide 

dive rsity of opinio n, and I wou ld like to spe ak in gen era l ter ms fo r 

an othe r sort of opinion on the campus.

STATEMENT BY MURPHY DAVIS, MARY BALDWIN COLLEGE

Miss Davis. Th ere have alw ays been difficult problems in dis ­

cussing U.S . inv olvement in So uth east Asia because ou r policy is
103

deeply entrenched in rigid conceptual patterns, cliches, and stereotypes. It is imperative that we come to clarity on what we mean by 

such terms as “freedom,'5

 “honor,” “self-determination,” “aggression,5

and “democracy.” When President Nixon addressed the Nation on 

November 3, 1969, his speech was heavy with emotion-laden abstractions of this sort; he spoke of preserving American “honor and 

“prestige” and “saving face'5

 in the world. As a result of this 

tendency in policy speeches, it has been extremely difficult for many 

people in the country—indeed, some of the policymakers themselves— 

to extricate themselves from an emotionally based premise in 

order to make some rational evaluation of our situation in Asia.

We encounter a problem of somewhat the same nature often in 

speaking of history. We cannot be bound in our th inking by equating 

present situations and conflicts exactly with what has gone before. 

We would o f course be more than foolish to ignore historical precedent, but if we cannot use history as a tool for creative thinkin g and 

a creative seeking of new ways to approach problems, then we 

become slaves and pawns of history. The U.S. war in Southeast Asia is symptomatic of a very rigid 

method of thinking about world situations. Much of our policy in 

Vietnam seems to have grown from the simplistic and somewhat 

distorted notion tha t we are fighting against a Government tha t is 

Communist and evil and on behalf of a Government tha t is “democratic” and “good” and in line with what is in the American ideology 

a duly-elected Government. Our official position—up to the President’s most recent policy statements—has remained one of inerrancy. 

We have made no mistakes in our policy and we have no apologies to 

make to any nation or people of the world. The official picture of this 

war still presented to us is one of the “good” at war to overcome the 

“evil.” This is a rigid position to say the least. From such a basis, 

it perhaps makes sense to think in terms of pure military strategy 

rath er than a negotiated peace. Our country has blatantly ignored 

provisions of the Geneva Accords; we have assumed a military obligation to Saigon tha t never had any legitimate basis for its existence. 

We have kept Vietnam divided when it was never intended that the 

country be two political entities. Now years afte r our first advisers 

were sent to Saigon, the situation still requires more than 400,000 

American troops and the kind of firepower tha t far surpasses anything that North Vietnam can put on the field—even with Chinese 

and Russian aid—just to keep the Thieu-Ky regime in power. Of 

course the policy of Vietnamization is designed to get us out of the 

present situation without being “humiliated'5

, but the question of how 

many more years and lives it will require and what will be finally 

established by it is another issue indeed.

Within the past month now the President has sent troops to war 

in Cambodia on his own decision. He did this because he felt tha t it 

was strategically necessary and he personally assumed all responsibility for the move with a subtle implication tha t all should admire his 

courage. B ut the important issue is t hat in such an action the President blatantly ignored the constitutional provision for division of 

power. Moving into Cambodia to clear out enemy pockets tha t had 

been there for quite some time was no immediate emergency, and it 

seems very strange indeed tha t he consulted with not even one
104

Member of Congress before taking such a decisive step. This was 

the crossing of an internationally recognized border by American 

and South Vietnamese troops into a country to which we were never 

invited. This seems to be a serious usurpation of power by the President and it seems imperative tha t the Congress immediately reassert 

the power it is constitutionally due. The Constitution was written 

with the specific idea of protecting the American people from the 

misuse of military power by making the dispatch of military power 

a joint responsibility of the executive and legislative branches of 

Government. The President’s appeals to patriotism making the Cambodia move a test of “our will and character” encourage emotional- *

ized evaluation of the situation. But we must come to grips with the 

actual realistic implications of this unprecedented move. For Congress to continue to abdicate its power will perhaps mean political 

self-destruction. We must face up to the fact tha t this has been a *

President’s war from its very beginning. It remains an officially 

undeclared war and all policy, objectives, troop commitments, bombing orders, and withdrawals have been made from the Presidency.

Congress has voted appropriations to support the war, but the basic 

decisions have all been made by the Chief Executive.

So America is still idealistically trying to bring freedom to Vietnam when she herself is enslaved by conceptions of herself and set 

solutions to her problems which are no longer applicable. Freedom 

depends upon devising new alternatives for the present, unique situations. A real leader should be able to undercut the assumptions of 

posed historical situations and think creatively about new alternatives. This means a resolute refusal to be bound by whole-system 

views and assumptions from historical alternatives. History must be 

no more than a tool in our policymaking; when it comes to control 

our thinking, we are enslaved indeed. Our present situation—whether 

domestic or foreign—must be seen as unique and requiring its own 

evaluations and attention not dependent upon methods of thinking 

and action from past situations. Such a method requires careful 

scrutiny of these present situations and abandonment of the rigid 

patte rns of conceptualization.

The war issue is driving deep wedges between sectors of our 

society. In spite of P resid ent Nixon’s inaugural promise to “bring us 

together,” we are more divided than would have ever seemed possible *

to many. Students are dying on their own university campuses a t the 

hands of “law” enforcement officials, and our President tells us th at 

“violence begets violence.” In Augusta, Ga. six black men are dead of 

gunshot wounds in the back also in the name of the law. The war *

or something in our national ethos has instilled within us a warlike 

spirit. Our Nation officially sanctions violence and tha t violence 

comes out in all the My Lai’s, the murders at Kent State, Jackson 

State, Chicago, and now Augusta. Sadly, this violence also calls 

forth and nurtures an equally irrationa l counter-violence in the 

streets of our cities and all over the country. A movement has begun 

in this country and I cannot believe th at it will be stopped now.

I appeal to you as Members of Congress to give us the kind of 

responsible leadership we need. We are tired of the inconsistencies 

and unfairness we see in our national policies. We are told tha t we 

must not be humiliated in Asia and tha t we must remain there in
105

order to “save face". What face are we saving? We are being 

humiliated by our Government's unwillingness to admit to any error. 

1 am not ready to believe tha t our system is beyond hope of being 

saved; I do believe tha t in the matter of the war in Southeast Asia 

we have not been a responsible enough citizenry when we should have 

long ago brought public pressures on you our Congressmen to reassert the legislative power tha t you are constitutionally provided.

W e must do everything within our power to immediately bring to 

a close our involvement in this hideous war we have helped to create. 

Only when we are out of this war altogether will we be able to 

reorient our priorities and seriously deal with the domestic problems 

which, if left unaltered, will rip us apart as a Nation.

Mr. Findley. I 'm sure my colleagues on the panel will agree tha t 

your statement, as well as tha t of your associate who was just heard, 

speaks very well for Mary Baldwin College. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. T hank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Davis, you certainly 

have made a very cogent and penetrating analysis. I compliment you 

on it. I wonder if what’s missing is missing by purpose, or whether 

I should draw an inference from what has not been touched upon? 

In doing what you suggest and advocate, are we to be as elected 

officials, totally unconcerned with the results, except as it may affect 

us domestically? Is tha t what you're saying?

Miss Davis. Do you mean the results of our withdrawal from 

Southeast Asia?

Mr. Fascell. With whatever you suggest.

Miss Davis. No sir, I don't thin k I ’m advocating that. I think we 

certainly have a responsibility to the country of Vietnam, in view of 

what we have, for the past 11 years of fighting, done to the 

country. It’s ravaged, it’s politically divided, it's defoliated, millions 

of people have been killed. But I feel tha t the most responsible thing 

we can do for that country is get out. We’ve messed in their politics 

far too long.

Mr. F ascell. T hat is a factor, and I ’m glad to have you respond to 

that. You can’t respond to these other factors of course. But I just 

have to raise them because if we were going to pursue this excellent 

presentation, I thin k we would have to pursue it in the same clinical 

manner in which you’ve approached it so far. Wha t happens or what 

does the United States do following the pursuit of this policy if the 

pressures are applied to us in the Middle Eas t or in Berlin or in 

some other place, whether it’s by the Russians or the Red Chinese or 

somebody else? And whether any of these problems are related? Is 

tha t a factor?

Miss Davis. I thin k one thing tha t I tried to point out in my statement is tha t I thin k part of the fault of what has happened, part of 

the responsibility for what has happened in Vietnam-----

Mr. Fascell. Has been our rigid conceptualization about what 

might happen?

Miss Davis. Right. Right. But I think it very definitely has to be 

laid on the shoulders of the American public for not being aware 

of what we were doing. It’s a very easy thing to say we must trust 

the President, we must tru st his knowledge of the situation. But 

it's irresponsible citizenry to abdicate our power to one man, and it’s 

not the kind of system we’re supposed to be living in. I seriously 

46- 48 7— 70------ 8
106

condemn the American public for the way we have sat back and let

these things happen.

Mr. Fascell. We’re all included in tha t condemnation. I would 

hope and I'm going to presume on my time, Mr. Chairman, that you 

have the opportunity to analyze the related factors. I ’d like to read 

such an analysis by you.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. Well, i t’s apparent, as it is in the Congress and in the 

country, tha t there is a division at Mary Baldwin. I must say that 

both sides have articulated their opinions extremely well in what are 

magnificent statements. Fine language, and very thoughtful state- *

ments. I am concerned, Miss Davis, about one of your statements on 

the second to last page which indicates tha t our Nation officially 

sanctions violence. You really don’t believe that, do you, as a nation 

tha t we really sanction violence? *

Miss Davis. In a very subtle sort of way, but what is our involvement in Southeast Asia if it ’s not violence?

Mr. Boland. Well, when you speak of the Nation sanctioning 

violence, of whom do you speak?

Miss Davis. I speak of the President, the Congress, and the people 

of the United States.

Mr. Boland. What about your statement that “a movement has 

begun in this country, and I cannot believe t ha t I t will be stopped.”

Now, what movement are you referring to?

Miss Davis. This has been referred to by several of my predecessors 

making statements. There’s an intense rise in the impatience of many 

students in viewing our national problems in foreign affairs and 

domestic problems. As someone pointed out earlier, this feeling of 

frustration has been known to our black brothers and sisters for 

years and years, and they’ve tried to tell us about it. But it ’s been hard 

for us to see. And now many of us are beginning to see that, perhaps, 

there is a repressive element in our society. There are many of us 

who are still willing to work through the system, but there are many 

young people who are becoming extremely impatient.

Mr. Boland. Well, I th ink your presence here today is an emphatic 

demonstration of the fact you are willing to work through the 

system. And there is an opportunity of course to change some of the 

things tha t students like yourself and a lot of others who are here *

today are concerned with. Change doesn’t come overnight and no one 

expects it to come overnight. At the same time I recognize the fact, 

as most of you do that, perhaps it comes too late. Sometimes the 

wait is too long. But it does come, and the experiences I ’ve had in *

this Congress with respect to some of the problems tha t affect the 

blacks, affect the poor, the disadvantaged; this Nation has taken 

great strides. It’s taken great strides really because there have been 

people like yourself, like people who are here, who have supported 

those who enter public life who believe in some of these programs.

Some of the great programs that have been passed over the past 

20 years in the administrations of President Eisenhower, President 

Kennedy, President Johnson, and some even in this administration, 

are programs tha t are attuned to trying to solve the very, very 

difficult problems tha t this Nation has. And this Nation has more 

difficult problems than perhaps any other nation on the face of the
107

globe because of the composite of the people who live in this Nation. 

But there is an effort being made, and your very presence here, and 

your concern about it, I think, really indicates tha t people are listening. I just want you to go back and tell those at Mary Baldwin 

they're listening on both sides of the question, too, as I would tell 

Miss Lewis. Thank you very much.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Davis, do you think 

tha t Congress can legislate a change in the attitude of the American 

people ?

Miss Davis. That would be extremely difficult. It would. And this 

is why I continue to emphasize the point, that it’s the responsibility 

of all* of us to see tha t some attitudes and patte rns of conceptualization are changed by grassroots efforts. We've been a very irresponsible public.

Mr. Fascell. Hav en't we too long relied upon new programs and 

infusions of money to correct our social ills?

Miss Davis. Yes we have, but some of the programs are still very 

slow.

Mr. Fascell. I sn’t tha t a rigid conceptualization?

Miss Davis. Excuse me? What?

Mr. Fascell. Isn’t relying on legislative programs and the use of 

funds to correct our social ills a rigid conceptualization tha t we 

better start changing?

Miss Davis. Well, if that’s what we rely on solely.

Mr. Findley. Miss ,Davis, one of the topics tha t I hope tha t you 

and your colleagues on the campuses will give more thought to and 

1 hope we on the Hill will as well, is attem pting to deal with the 

gray area in the Constitution dealing with the relationship of the 

Congress and the President as Commander in Chief. Mr. Fascell and 

I have both introduced similar resolutions which deal with this 

question. They attempt to define the circumstances in which a Commander in Chief does have reserve powers and can act with dispatch 

without prior consent of Congress. They also establish a requirement tha t the President must report formally to the Congress very 

promptly a fter the act, and thus give the Congress a means of review 

and passing judgment as to whether this action was within the scope 

of the President’s reserve powers as Commander in Chief. We thin k 

it would act as a useful restraint. In the case of the Cambodian incursion, the President would be required to report promptly to Congress 

why he did it, and then the Congress could deal with this repo rt and 

pass judgment as to whether it was within the constitutional framework. Do you have any comment on that?

Miss Davis. I have a copy of your resolution, and I ’m very 

curious to know if this, in fact, is capable of preventing another 

situation like we’ve encountered in Cambodia. The President is 

obligated to report to you, but he is obligated and not pressed any 

farther to seek the advice and consent of the Members of Congress.

Mr. F indley. Well, it recognizes tha t there probably will be future 

circumstances when the President as Commander in Chief does have 

to act with dispatch and perhaps with secrecy. But even in those 

rare circumstances, which I would hope would be very narrowly construed, he does have a responsibility to the legislative branch. We're
108

trying to provide a mechanism through which this responsibility can 

be fulfilled.

Well, we're very grateful to you for your appearance.

The next witness is Mr. Neil Oxman of Villanova University. Is 

Mr. Oxman here?

Mr. Oxman. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY NEIL A. OXMAN, STUDENT BODY PRESIDENT, 

VILLANOVA UNIVERSITY

Mr. Oxman. Mr. Chairman, I would first like to thank you fo r myself—and if I might take the liberty to do so—for the other young 

people who have testified and will testify before this panel. I only 

hope our words will truly be hea rd and no t merely listened to.

I make no claims to be an expert on foreign or military matters. 

For this reason alone, what I and what many of my fellow students 

have said has been for the most p art ignored by this administration. 

But I can, and have, and am now observing marked events tha t are 

taking place, both abroad and at home, which are drastically changing the face of this Nation.

We have watched a President come into office and claim tha t he 

has “a secret plan for peace in Southeast Asia.” He also said that 

he will “lower our voices and bring us together.”

And yet, what I see today, is an escalation of th e war in Southeast 

Asia, a raising of our voices and the greatest polarization of young 

versus old, black versus white, rich versus poor, and left versus right,, 

tha t we have ever seen.

And, I am observing, from the point of view of a student who is an 

activist, but has not gone to the point of violence, foreign policy and 

military matters tha t have been handled with an air of deception in 

what appears to me to be a plan tha t is telling the American public 

to believe tha t we are following course x when we are actually 

enacting course y.

I do not mean to imply tha t the President sits with Messrs. 

Kissinger, Laird, and Mitchell and purposely plots out schemes tha t 

are the exact opposite of what we are truly following, but the strong 

sense of secrecy with which this administration is handling itse lf 

cannot have any good effects.

In September 1969, Senator Mansfield, in his repo rt to the President and to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee upon his return 

from Southeast Asia, strongly urged Mr. Nixon to collaborate closely 

with Congress in making the decisions tha t affect the Nation’s foreign 

affairs. In Vietnam, in Laos, and in Cambodia, the President seems 

to have done just the opposite.

I cannot believe tha t the Congress of the United States is going 

to allow the President to act unconstitutionally and wage war in an 

illegal manner any longer.

I strongly feel tha t the time has come for all Senators and Congressmen to stand up to the people of this country and say either 

one of two things:

(1) That the Congress declares war against the people and the 

government of N orth Vietnam and in doing so has the legal right ta
109

'continue fighting there and in Southeast Asia until a time when 

they believe a victory has been won, or

(2) Tha t the Congress declares that our ventures into Southeast 

Asia have been a grave mistake and that Congress shall declare a 

timetable—preferably not later than June 1971—for withdrawal of 

all American troops from Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam.

I think tha t a statement like this is the first priority of Congress 

at this moment, and has been years late in coming.

I also believe very strongly tha t the Congress cannot let the administration come up with compromise alternatives to legislation like the 

McGovem-Hatfield bill in the Senate, but Congress must set the 

direction tha t it wants to see this country evolve towards.

We cannot let “secret plans” be our guide any longer. I do not 

believe tha t there ever was a secret plan or tha t there is one now. 

For this reason Congress must enact its own plan to pull this country out of the mire tha t we have become bogged down in.

Once this has been completed, I believe that there are a few more 

basic objectives—that have been stated time and time again—that we 

must accomplish if we ever want to live in peace on this planet.

First, we must recognize one thin g very, very clearly. We must 

establish that our goal is not to act as the world’s policeman or as a 

unilateral peacekeeping force for the people of this planet. This concept and policy is neither advisable nor good for the future of the 

United States and the rest of this world.

We must move to strengthen a body like the United Nations and 

to make it become more than just a “forum for invective.”

We must also see a changing of our forms of aid and our types 

of foreign policy toward all countries—particularly those of the 

third world—combined with a reversal of our national priorities and 

a drastic cut—up to 40 percent—in the budget of the Defense 

Department.

I cannot believe tha t today when we are supposedly working 

toward a final reconciliation of mankind tha t we are in need of a 

standing army of 3 million men.

I cannot believe tha t the American people are allowing the 

Defense Department to spend over $3 billion last year for spying 

purposes when our schools and colleges are going broke.

And, I cannot believe that year after year Congress is appro priating almost two-tliirds of every tax dolla r toward some aspect of the 

military.

We cannot let these trends continue any longer.

I am sure that the civilians of South Vietnam—rather than have 

millions of rounds of ammunition sent to them, would instead want 

to receive the equivalent of all the surplus wheat we dump in the 

ocean, or the tons of potatoes tha t farmers in Maine have burned, 

or the billions of dollars we pay people in this country not to grow 

food.

And, I am sure tha t the prestige of this Nation would skyrocket 

upward if we took all the money tha t we are willing to spend for 

antiballistic missile systems and bought medical supplies for the 

sick peoples of Asia and Africa and South America and even the 

United States.
Permit me to sound trit e and use the term again “reversal of 

national priorities” but Congress cannot sit on its hands and let 

millions of Americans continue to remain ill-fed, ill-clothed, illhoused, and ill-educated while we lavish billions and billions into 

armaments and war and the military-industrial complex in this country grows mightier.

It is tritism by this time but it is still true and we must begin to 

correct those ills tha t go along with that tritism.

I realize that in only 10 minutes of testimony I will not be able 

to come up with the cures for this Nation’s ills or the panaceas for 

our country’s foreign policy but let me conclude by saying this: 

Congress righ t now must seize the initiative and try to fill the gap 

tha t the President has created between those on the left and himself. 

For if Congress does not fill this gap the only alternative for many 

people is not redress of grievances constitutionally but violence. Let 

us hope that that situation will not occur and we can begin to change 

the direction of this Nation and make this world a better place for 

my generation to inherit.

Air. Findley. Thank you Air. Oxman. Air. Hicks.

Air. H icks. Air. Oxman, in your early remark th at you hope you’re 

truly heard, not merely listened to, I suppose tha t translates into the 

fact tha t you hope that you get what you’re speaking for. Aly question to you is how f ar out in front of his actual district do you think 

a Alember of the House of Representatives can be in bringing about 

what it is tha t you’re asking for? The corollary to tha t would be 

how willing do you thin k tha t students will be to maintain a sustained effort over a period of time, which might be several years, in 

order to help bring these districts to the point of view that you have, 

assuming as a fact that it would be desirable to reach tha t state.

Air. Oxman. I think right now the students of this country are 

willing to work towards these goals fo r a few more years within the 

framework of this system. But there’s so much frustration and so 

much dissatisfaction with what is going on now, th at I could not see 

it continue for 4, 5, or 10 years, and still have the present results 

come about. I think very strongly tha t you'll see it until November 

and possibly a fterwards because of the election. I don’t know how 

much farth er after that if we don’t get our results.

Air. Findley. Air. Thomson.

Air. Thomson. I ’m interested in your repeated reference to secret 

plans. You say we cannot let “secret plans be our guide any longer.’r

I do not believe there ever was a secret plan or that there is one now. 

Within the last year 115,000 Americans have been withdrawn from 

Vietnam and the President announced in April that he intended to 

withdraw another 150,000. That wasn’t very secretive; it was on 

nationwide television. Did you miss that?

Air. Oxman. No, I saw that, Congressman. What T'm referring to 

is the fact that I don't believe that the President withdraws troops 

on any set pattern but withdraws troops—in fact there was a piece 

in one of the papers this morning that he’s thinking about announcing ai^other troop withdrawal just to placate many of the students 

who are screaming down his back, and many of the Alembers of the 

Senate and the Congress, only because tha t is what they want and 

tha t is what is good politically. Now, I think the President acts on
political motivation. I really don’t think he has a plan, I don't think 

he had one du ring his campaign when he said he had a plan to end 

this war quickly, and I don't believe in what lie’s telling the American people to be true.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. I have no questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell, do you have a question?

Mr. Fascell. Do you mean if Congress does not fill this gap the 

only alternative for many people is not to redress their grievances 

constitutionally, but violently. Is tha t a personal belief held by you ?

Mr. Oxman. No, no, it’s not personal.

Mr. Fascell. Th at’s an opinion ?

Mr. Oxman. Yes; yes, sir. But in talking with many people at 

Villanova, which is a rath er conservative campus in schools around 

the mainline area in Philadelphia, if someone doesn’t fill the vacuum 

tha t seems to be, have been created between the President of the 

United States and what many people on the left want, in response 

to the great problems of this country, then there are people around 

who are going to burn and who are going to riot, and you know it 

as well as I do.

Mr. F ascell. Oh, I agree; I agree with you. But you know’ the 

thought that occurs to me, Mr. Oxman, is this: If war is immoral, 

and war is bad; if war doesn’t really conclude anything; if it is 

negative; and is outmoded, doesn’t the use of violence also indicate 

a failure of the intellect?

Mr. Oxman. Yes, sometimes. What I was referring to was that 

I thin k it was the role of Congress now to seize tha t initiative; 

I said that before, and I-----

Mr. Fascell. Right. I understand. I think we’re on the same railroad track. We’re in agreement and Congress will seize the initiative 

if that’s the will of the majority of the people in the United States, 

as the Congress sees it.

Mr. Oxman. May I ask you a question, sir?

Mr. Fascell. Certainly.

Mr. Oxman. Do you always act upon what the people—doesn't 

the Congress ever get ahead of the people of the United States and 

try to solve the—instead of going from crisis to crisis in the United 

States, doesn’t Congress try to go from preparation to preparation 

in order to meet what might inevitably be a crisis? Isn 't that a role 

of Congress sometimes?

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Oxman, you know you could debate tha t forever, but there is no such thing really as “the Congress” except on 

paper. There are individual Congressmen. Maybe you can get a 

consensus. Maybe you can get unanimity of opinion. Maybe you can 

get an agreed thrust towards a direction. Maybe you can pass a law. 

But Congress by itself doesn’t administer it, doesn’t implement itr

doesn’t execute it, and Congress doesn’t speak with one voice.

Air. Oxman. Why do you say tha t-----

Air. F ascell. I t may respond to my action. It may respond to my 

leadership, and I may get enough votes fo r what it is tha t I propose. 

Congress doesn’t operate in a vacuum; it doesn’t operate as a un it; it 

doesn’t have a director general telling it what to do. The whole
112

essence of representative democracy is try to distill from the constituencies what the will of the constituencies might be, and tha t’s 

a very difficult job at best. My job would be easy if in my district, 

every day, on every issue, we took a vote, and the people could tell 

me what I was supposed to do. It would be a simple thing. I 

wouldn't have to weigh in the balance all of the factors. I wouldn’t 

even have to convince my colleagues of what their position ought 

to be when it’s different from mine. And I get very frustrated when 

their position isn’t exactly like mine. You know, I ’m only one out 

of 435. But that’s the whole essence of the problem.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. Yoii say the President’s announcements of troop withdrawals are politically motivated. Now, when the President does 

terminate our military role in Southeast Asia, are those who have 

been so vocal in expressing their dissatisfaction with the war going 

to take credit for it, and say tha t they pressured the President into 

making these political actions?

Mr. Oxman. I think some of the students in this country are 

acting as a catalyst to get the President moving occasionally.

Mr. Mize. Then in the futur e, is that the way we’re going to 

decide all issues?

Air. Oxman. I would hope tha t we wouldn’t have to decide all 

issues like that, because I would hope tha t the President could see 

the problems before they reach the magnitude of Southeast Asia, 

and I hope the Congress could see the problems before we have 

twenty million or so people starving in th is country, and prepare for 

those problems, and meet those crises before they become of tha t 

magnitude. And that’s what I would like to see happen in this 

country. I think that’s what all of us in this room would like to see.

Mr. Mize. Well, we’re wrestling with them every day. Believe me, 

we do share your concern.

Mr. F indley. Thank you very much, Air. Oxman, for your presentation. The next witness scheduled is Ross Lominitz, from New 

Mexico Tech, but so far he has not reported in. Is he present? 

Ross Lominitz?

If not, we will hear from John Cook, of Kalamazoo College, 

Kalamazoo, Alich. And while he’s approaching the witness chair, 

I know I speak for all members of the panel in expressing our 

appreciation to these young Americans for taking the trouble, investing the money, investing the time and energy tha t is so well 

represented by these statements. Air. Cook.

STATEM ENT BY JOHN R. COOK, KALAMAZOO COLLEGE

Air. Cook. I come to you as a political science major from Kalamazoo College who is working this spring as a Senate Intern. Aly 

purpose is to express my emotions and thoughts on the recent Indo ­

china events and campus reactions. I do not pretend to be an expert 

in either area. What I hope to do is give you the impressions of a 

young American; impressions which I believe represent the thoughts 

of many other concerned students. I am not one who believes in 

violence. I believe the American system is still potentially viable. 

Recently though, my faith has been severely shaken.
113

As I listened to the President the nigh t of April 30, I was overcome with both anger and fear. I was angry that my President 

seemed to no longer represent the best interests of my Nation but 

it was fear tha t truly overwhelmed me. I was not and am not afraid 

of dying but I do fear the decision I had to make th at night. I knew 

tha t I could no longer be apathetic toward the situation. There is 

a certain indescribable point, where a man must stand behind his 

convictions instead of ignoring them in the face of adversity. I 

had reached that point and I realized tha t I could not particip ate in 

the immoral war. But what could I do? I cannot even vote. The 

only immediate legal action feasible was to peacefully participate 

in a demonstration here in the Capitol, which apparently had no 

effect on the President. To be able to live with myself, I know I 

must make a bigger commitment than just p artic ipating in a protest 

or even testifying in front of this committee. That night, I decided 

tha t I would not be a member of any American army involved in 

Southeast Asia. This kind of decision left me with only two alternatives: Jail or leave the country. I am not willing to go to jail, 

therefore the American Government has forced me into a moral 

position where it may be necessary for me to leave the United States. 

I cannot stress to you enough how much it hurts me to make tha t 

decision. I love my country and the thought of leaving it apalls 

me. If I left, I would be giving up law school, my friends, my 

family. My entire life as I have planned it would be destroyed. But 

what is a thinking human being to do? The President talked of 

honor, in fact, the well-being of the Vietnamese seemed lost in this 

grasp for honor. I t is a mere chauvinistic drive. A truly great honorable man or country can and will admit tha t it has made mistakes 

and will go on to try and correct these errors instead of disclaiming 

them in the name of honor. When a nation is so engrossed and overwhelmed with its own power that honor becomes a goal instead of 

a guide; the integrity and honor of the individual in that country 

is forfeited. I may only be 20, but I am a man and my honor as a 

human being would be compromised should I support the present 

actions of my President.

These reactions, I believe, may help you to understand the feelings 

of many young people at this moment. My generation has always 

been considered the concerned generation but now they are compelled 

to act. Even my most conservative friends write me and plead “John, 

what can we do?” The constitution guarantees the right to assembly 

but that right is met with bullets and bayonets. The tragic events 

at Kent State and Jackson State have caused a polarization among 

previously nonalienated students like myself. When I saw the students with their business suits lobbying in the Senate I had a feeling 

tha t these were “my people.” At the demonstration where some 

were far more radical than I, I still felt tha t these were “my 

people,” unified by a common frustration.

This frustration can be alleviated by men like you. If you support, 

and when the time comes, vote for measures such as the McGovernHatfield amendment, much of the anxiety and distrust can be dispelled.

As late President Kennedy said, ‘Those who make peaceful 

revolution impossible, will make violent revolution inevitable,” and 

gentlemen, you are “those” people.
114

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cook, I'm sorry you 

had to reach tha t kind of personal conclusion. Those kinds of decisions are indeed difficult and personal. I hope th at whatever action 

Congress can take would be taken so as to relieve your anxiety 

and the anxiety of many people who obviously believe just like you 

do. The thought tha t concerns me, I just wonder what your reaction 

to it is, when the effort is made, made as ha rd as anyone knows how 

to make it in this Congress, and the exact language or the exact 

amendment tha t you advocate is not passed—we have already had 

four different votes in the House on this issue or part of it not too 

long ago and they all failed (we did manage to get a hundred and 

forty-six votes in support). Then, what’s your thinking going 

to be?

Mr. Cook. Sir, I am willing to stay with this country as long as 

I can and support it. Possibly the President's move into Cambodia 

will work. If it does, then maybe he’ll be a hero. If it doesn’t, at 

the present time I'm not prepared to get a gun-----

Mr. Fascell. I wasn’t asking you with respect to your own personal decision on whether you’d leave the country or wouldn’t leave 

the country. That’s something you have to struggle with within 

yourself. Wha t I meant was, representing the kind of thought and 

feeling you do, the anxiety, the frustration of students, and the 

strong support among the student groups for the McGovern-Hatfield amendment and for the Church-Cooper amendment, supposing 

both of those fail ? It’s been given a real go, and it will be given 

a real go in the Senate, maybe it’ll get over to the House. It may 

pass in the Senate and die in the House. Now what’s the attitude 

going to be among students? Is tha t the end of the ball game? Are 

you going to burn the football, and the stadium, or are you going to 

try again? I know there’s going to be more anxiety and we’re going 

to be more frustrated, but aside from that, what do you personally 

think the reaction is going to be i f tha t event should occur?

Mr. Cook. There will be a few, I think, who are now considered 

radical—which is a bad word to use, automatically categorizing 

someone—but there will be a few who may take up arms, sniper fire, 

or riot. But I think the worst reaction as far as the government 

goes will be the amount of students who before were apathetic, who 

before were moderate, who will be no longer tha t way. They will 

become frustrated, you will bring in a new group. The longer this 

kind of thing goes on, the more people that will join me.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Chairman, may I say we welcome the participation of people who are not apathetic. We want them to be committed to a point of view. Nothing wrong with that.

Mr. Cook. Gentlemen, though, if this kind of thing keeps up, 

apathy sometimes turns into frustration instead of just turning into 

commitment. You know as well as I do t hat if you write your Congressman or your Senator, you usually get back a form letter, 

especially in the-----

Mr. F ascell. No, I don’t know tha t at all. That’s not true and I 

answer over a hundred thousand letters a year. That’s not true.

Mr. Cook. Well, it is true in the Senate. [Laughter.]

Mr. Fascell. I have no further questions.
115

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. We have heard a number of young people today sit 

where you are and say tha t they can’t convince their parents on 

this matter. And yet they’re sitting here trying to convince Congress. 

Now, certainly we want to hear the views of the young people. But 

shouldn’t they be convincing their parents and the rest of the country ? You're not saying you’re going to opt out of the system, t ha t 

the system doesn’t work if people won’t listen to you, but listen 

doesn’t mean tha t they ’ve got to agree every time, does it?

Mr. Cook. No, of course not.

Mr. Hicks. Wh at Mr. Fascell was saying was we’re giving it a 

go here, those of us who feel like you do, and we lose, and we did 

lose, at least Mr. Fascell and I lost the other day—we only got a 

hundred and forty-six votes. But does that mean tha t you should 

go to Canada or elswhere, or are you going to stay and help change 

this so that there are enough people here so next time there will be 

a majority vote for our position.

Mr. Cook. Of course, I do not intend to leave immediately if this 

does not, if nothing happens. But we can always talk, these are 

always the words used, all righ t, if it doesn’t work this time, go 

back and try again. With myself I do not know when the point 

will come when I ’ll say, “I ’ve tried enough.” My parents, as far 

as my parents are convinced, I ’m doing the right thing. My Gra ndmother’s volunteered to go to-----

Mr. Hicks. Ju st this one point, and I thank you for indulging 

me, Mr. Chairman. Look at the movement tha t has occurred since 

New Hampshire and Senator McCarthy. And if it hadn’t been for 

Cambodia, wouldn’t you have been satisfied—reasonably satisfied—■ 

with the direction tha t the war was winding down?

Mr. Cook. Let’s say I would not have been as violently opposed to 

it. Satisfied maybe is not the word.

Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. F indley. Well, Mr. Cook, you have presented one of the most 

frank, personal reports we’ve had, and I admire your frankness. 

With Mr. Fascell and others, I wonder if you’re really doing what 

is best for your country—by even contemplating abandoning it to 

those who you feel are not doing a good job. If your love of country 

is really as great as you say in your statement, it would seem to 

me th at you should stay here and fight it out and try to make the 

country what you would like to see it, recognizing tha t it isn’t all 

tha t you would desire.

Mr. Cook. Yes, sir, that is what I intend to do. If it comes 

to the point tha t I am drafted, though, the only thin g I can do 

to avoid this war is not to go. Now, like I say, there are not a 

whole lot of alternatives. I can go to jail, I can leave the country, or 

I can fight if I ’m drafted.

Mr. Findley. I s there any other question? Well, thank you, 

Mr. Cook, we’re very grate ful to you.

The next witness is Dick Moss of John Jay College of Criminal 

Justice, New York City. Mr. Moss. Please identify those who are 

with you for the record and then proceed.

Mr. Moss. This is George Leifer, Larry Finn, Ivonne Hughes, 

and Kenneth Wiseman.
116

STATEMENT BY DICK MOSS, JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL 

JUSTICE, THE CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK

Mr. Moss. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee: We would 

like to thank you for giving us this opportunity to present our 

views on the war in Southeast Asia and its relationship to the 

domestic crises facing our Nation today. We are especially interested 

in discussing with you how the current social and political situation 

affects students at our school, which specializes in the education of 

law enforcement personnel and civilians who have a vital interest 

in the criminal justice system.

The John Jay College of Criminal Justice is a 4-year liberal arts 

college and a branch of the City University of New York. Our 

institution is unusual, however, in tha t of its 3,000 students over 

75 percent are members of various law enforcement agencies, particularly the New York City Police Department. I myself am a 

member of the New York City Police Department currently on 

academic leave.

Recent events at our college have demonstrated that many members of the John Jay College community—administration, faculty, 

and students—are very concerned and upset about what has been 

happening in Southeast Asia and on our Nation’s campuses. On 

May 7th, the faculty of Joh n Jay College passed the following 

resolution:

In light of the recent invasion of Cambodia and the tragic deaths on our 

Nation’s campuses, we, the faculty and staff of John Jay College, feel that our 

Nation is facing a crisis of such mag nitude th at action to resolve this crisis must 

tak e precedence over “business as u sua l.”

Therefore, we resolve th at all normal activity a t John J ay College be suspended 

indefinitely and th at all stud ents, staff members, and faculty be relieved of all 

fu rth er academic obligations this semester in order that they may devote all 

their time and energy to engage in w hateve r actio n they deem necessary to resolve 

the present crisis.

Thus the faculty clearly expressed its dissatisfaction with the war 

and its feeling tha t the United States is facing “a crisis of such 

magnitude” tha t action to resolve this crisis had to take precedence 

over normal academic activity.

The student body also held a referendum on the question of 

whether or not to close the college fo r the remainder of the semester 

as a means of symbolic protest against the escalation of the Vietnam 

war. The result of the vote was th at 48 percent of those voting (most 

of whom, again, were policemen) voted to close the college and 

demonstrate their dismay and alarm at the present trend of our 

national policy. In addition, many students who voted to keep the 

college open were also extremely unhappy with the direction of our 

national policy, but felt that closing the college was not the best 

means of expressing dissent or resolving our problems.

The closeness of the student referendum at John Jay indicates 

tha t many educated policemen are displeased with the present course 

of our foreign and domestic policies. Why is this so? It is because 

the student who is also a policeman is often most acutely aware 

of the deleterious effects the war in Vietnam is having on our society.

It is obvious, for one th ing, tha t the war is so splitting our body 

politic and breeding such hostility towards the institutions of our
117

society tha t the basic respect for law and justice, upon which our 

system is based, is threatened.

It is insane for our country to follow a foreign policy tha t often 

leads to violent confrontations between policemen and our own students—the future leaders of our society. Moreover, the increasing 

probability tha t a policeman will often have to use violence against 

students—some of whom may be his friends—makes it more difficult 

for police departments to recruit and retain competent, concerned 

young people. (In a similar vein, a civilian student at our college 

who was offered an appointment to the National Guard the day 

after the tragedy at Kent State is refusing this appointment, and 

risking imprisonment, rath er than chancing being put in the position 

of having to use violence against a fellow student.)

As students, policemen (and police training generally) are suffering from the massive drain on our resources tha t the Vietnam war 

entails. To take just one example, the L EE P program, which finances 

the college education of actual and potential law enforcement officers, 

is threatened with insufficient funding because of the drain, by the 

war, on the budget. This would mean tha t many law enforcement 

officers who would like to get a college education will not be able to 

do so; and this would obviously affect the quality of law enforcement.

Moreover, and most importantly, to the extent tha t the war 

utilizes resources which are vitally needed to rebuild our cities, develop our human potential, and resolve our other social problems it 

directly contributes to those conditions which breed the crime and 

social unrest which is making the job of the policeman increasingly 

unattractive.

These are problems which could be corrected if our resources and 

•energies were directed toward helping our own people and nation.

Therefore, we recommend the following:

(1) tha t the Cooper-Church and McGovern-Hatfield amendments 

be passed by the Congress, without any compromise;

(2) tha t our national wealth be directed immediately toward the 

total elimination of hunger and poverty in America, toward providing decent housing for every citizen, toward providing the optimal 

education for every child, and toward providing justice for all members of our society;

(3) tha t the Congress use all available means to encourage local 

and State law enforcement agencies to recognize and utilize the 

value of a college education for the ir personnel;

(4) tha t the Federal Government do its utmost to discourage the 

use—and even the presence—of lethal weapons to deal with campus 

and civil disorders, so that under no circumstances will the tragedies 

of Kent State and Jackson State ever occur again; and tha t one concrete step the Congress could take in this direction would be to fund 

the research, development, and utilization of nonlethal techniques.

Finally, as a means of demonstrating to students and other young 

people that our leaders truly respect the voice of youth, that they 

trul y wish to change our society for the better, and tha t they are 

truly open to new ideas, we recommend that the Congress abolish its 

own seniority system so as to insure tha t younger and fresher voices
118

in the Congress—now and in the future—will have a meaningful 

voice, and will be able to participate meaningfully, in the formulation of national policy.

I thank you again for providing us with the opportunity to make 

this statement before you.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Moss, I certainly 

agree with you tha t in time of moral crisis, every individual has 

to make a moral commitment. These days and times are probably 

no different than any other days and times. I know of a thousand 

cases and I ’m sure everybody here knows of others where people 

have done just that. Third year medical students who have quit 

medicine in order to actively participate because they feel there's a 

higher prior ity than their own medical education in order to become involved in the affairs of the country. I ’m sure that’s true of a 

great many other students and educators around the country. If one 

judges that the problems confronting the country require more attention and prior ity than they are receiving and he so makes that 

judgment, then by all means he ought to make it. That’s what the 

system requires and demands. Many people are arriving at decisions 

which you attempted to make at the college. I gather that the college 

did not close down. Is tha t correct ?

Mr. Moss. Normal academic work for the most part has been 

suspended.

Mr. Fascell. That’s for this year. But not permanently?

Mr. Moss. Du ring the 2 years as before we’ll be closed down again 

to participate in political activities.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. I yield to Mr. Reuss.

Mr. Reuss. Thank you Mr. Boland. I ’m very encouraged, Mr. Moss, 

by your appearance here this afternoon, and to know tha t people 

like you and your colleagues at the table are engaged or are about 

to engage in a career of the enforcement of law and justice. I think 

we need people like yourself.

Mr. Moss. Might I interject something, sir, that I feel the real 

tragedy is th at those of us who have received education because of 

the nature of our domestic crisis today, we’re withdrawing. I myself 

am resigning from the police department, Patrolman Finn from the 

Newark police department is resigning.

Mr. Reuss. Tha t is a source of great sadness to me to hear. But 

let me ask you this question about white/black relationships. What 

can you tell us about the feeling of black people whom you come 

across in your daily work, over such recent events as the ugly events 

in Augusta and Jackson, the Carswell appointment, the go-slow-onintegration approach, regimentation of the Government, and so on. 

Have you detected any change in the attitude of black Americans, 

as a result of the events of the last few months?

Mr. Moss. Well, if I might take perhaps what I consider a typical 

example, my father, who is perhaps 2 hours short of his doctorate 

and had 2 years of medical school and became a civil servant, and 

I suggest co-opted, and a somewhat rigid man in his late sixties, suggested to me, which shocked me, tha t perhaps the only way you’re 

going to deal with this is f or the shot-at students to open back with
119

automatic weapons. This isn't a radical black panther talking. This 

is an educated black man who's worked through the system and has 

adopted all the cliches which we hear so often today. If his despair 

has reached this point, I hate to think what the less educated person 

in the black community feels.

Living in Harlem and in Bedford-Stuyvesant all my life, I know 

tha t there's not an apathy, but one develops some type of cushioning 

against this type of traum atic event which occurs repeatedly; tha t 

dual system where the Nation was enraged about Kent State, and 

yet we see very little being said about the fact tha t we were slaughtered in the southern district of this Nation. I think th at’s more 

the concern, the apathy on the p art of the Congress towards this type 

of carnival which is allowed to prevail.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You indicated tha t you 

thought tha t the seniority system should be changed. Have you 

thought tha t through and do you have any concrete suggestions as 

to exactly what ought to take its place?

Mr. Moss. Yes, my criticism of the seniority system is twofold. 

First, as Republicans I don’t believe that the liberal Republican wing, 

while I consider myself a liberal—not Republican, hasn’t made any 

real effort to develop itself in the South. Therefore you have them 

fighting among two races, either Wallace or Nixon. And you have a 

one-party system in effect in the South. Hence you have men who 

come up who face no opposition to their tenure in the Congress and 

consequently they grab ahold of the Nation and they strangle it. 

When we have a person who moves for the southern strategy and 

you have chairmen of different committees who are primarily from 

the South, the major committees, then I believe tha t the Nation is 

being run by maybe a quarter of the people, or less.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. Yes, Mr. Moss, I too would like to express my sadness 

tha t you and your colleagues are withdrawing from the law enforcement calling, because I think a lot of us in this country feel tha t 

one of the hopes for unity in this country is educated law enforcement officials. I think we have felt tha t with an upgrading of the 

educational advantages for law enforcement officials, hopefully along 

with it would come compassion, better community relations, and all 

of these things that education can mean. So I would say th at I would 

join my colleague in expressing sadness tha t educated law enforcement officers are withdrawing.

Mr. Moss. Might I interject something, sir, tha t I too am sad, b ut 

afte r being in law enforcement for approximately 4 years, I realize 

the efforts I make as an individual in a mammoth organization of 

30,000, are nil. That the only way an education for patrolm en is 

going to help—we have people who have doctorates who are walking 

the streets—is tha t the Federal Government, who gives the money 

to the State and local law enforcement agencies and to the States 

for policing, tha t they make these agencies much more responsive, 

not only to social change—we’re existing in the New York City 

Police /Department under rules tha t were established in the 1800’s. 

And they simply amend it and amend it. One goes into the force and
120

you have about three pages of instructions with amendments which 

run out to about 400 or 500 pages.

Mr. Mize. Supposing tha t the New York City Police system is too 

large, too massive. What about educated law enforcement officers, of 

whom you would be an example, going into smaller towns, where 

they need perhaps the leavening influence of educated men in this 

profession ?

Mr. Finn . I work in the ghettos of Newark each and every day 

and I can understand how you say the hopes of the Nation are in 

having a better educated policeman to improve upon the community 

relations programs and to express compassion in general. However, *

when a policeman, who is educated sees the events tha t are taking 

place in our Nation at the present time, also finds himself being 

put on the firing line to oppose people who are expressing views th at 

are identical to the ones tha t he holds, it’s not likely tha t tha t *

policeman will continue in the agency th at puts him in tha t position 

for very long. More and more policemen from outside of New York 

City are attending John Jay College for the purpose of upgrading 

the police department in the New York metropolitan area. However, 

as they become educated, they also see tha t unless some change in 

the national policy takes place, th at they are going to be put in what 

we consider an untenable position for people who do feel tha t our 

Nation should have the best.

Mr. Findley. Well, gentlemen, we’re very grateful to you. I ’m 

sorry that the time for this discussion is up. We hope we’ll have an 

opportunity to talk with you further. I ’m particularly taken by your 

suggestions in item number four. I thin k this a field in which the 

Federal Government should be taking a lot of new initiatives.

The next witness is Mark McClafferty of the University of Delaware. Please identify those with you.

Mr. McClafferty. We have George Utz, he’s a graduate student 

at the University of Delaware in entymology; we have Bob Halstead, 

who is a senior at the University of Delaware; I ’m Mark McClafferty, I ’m president of the Student Government Association; we 

have Dennis Robinson, lie’s a sophomore in political science, and 

last of all, Bob Canning, and we're all from the University of 

Delaware.

Over the past year, I can recall the October moratorium, the *

November moratorium, the April moratorium, and as the year 

progressed, it seemed like the participation in the moratoriums was 

less. On April 15, we had several speakers from the National Moratorium Committee on our campus, and I recall tha t we had about a "

hundred students out of 8,300 undergraduates there to listen to the 

speakers. In the past 3 weeks, with the announcement of troops going 

into Cambodia and the murder of four students on the campus of 

Kent State, I would have to say tha t the political mood on my 

campus has changed from one of perhaps apathy to one of activism.

The students are now concerned with our move into Cambodia as 

they’ve never been before. I think before this time, there was somewhat of a trust, you might say, of the Nixon administration. And 

since that time, I would say this trust has gone. First of all, I would 

like to start out by saying I'd like to thank you for inviting me 

here today I invited several people to come down here with me.
121

They refused to come. I think this is a tragedy when the youth of 

America feel tha t they cannot come before Congress to present their 

views and have Congress listen to them. 1 hope tha t’s not the case 

here today, and I hope tha t this is the start of a new dialogue between the political leaders and the students of this country.

STATEMENT BY MARK McCLAFFERTY, STUDENT GOVERNMENT 

PRES IDENT, UNIVERSITY OF DELAWARE

Mr. McClafferty. I would like to thank Representatives Findley, 

4 Fascell, Thomson, Boland, Robison, and Hicks for taking time to

listen to their constituents.

The situation in Indochina has been thru t into the forefront of all 

discussion by all Americans in the past 3 weeks. The concern as to

* the future of the war bv students is also echoed by many Americans 

in the silent majority. We are not here to discuss the constitutionality 

or correctness of the President’s decision to send U.S. troops into 

Cambodia. What is at the heart of the situation is the long-range 

geo-political implications of these operations.

Ever since different nationalities have lived in Indochina, national 

enmities have been evident. The political development in Indochina 

has historically been hindered by the Vietnamese distrust of the Chinese, Cambodians' distrust of Thai and Vietnamese designs of 

domination, and the traditional rivalries between the ethnic tribes 

of this region such as the ?Teo o f Lao?, the TZhmers of Cambodia, ; nd 

the Montagnards of the Vietnamese Highlands.

In light of history, the situation in Indochina must be viewed in 

nationalistic rather than in purely military terms. In Vietnam, we 

are involved in what is essentially a civil war which in no way d irectly involves the national security of the United States. By our excursions into Cambodia, the United States has forced Communist activity deeper into the heart of Southeast Asia. Thus, we have given 

renewed validity to the Domino theory.

In Cambodia, South Vietnamese troops will remain after the U.S. 

troops are withdrawn at the end of June of this year. A foreign 

diplomat remarked recently that, “the A.R.V.N. may end up being 

your Frankenstein monster. I t may drag you, kicking and screaming,

* deeper into Cambodia than you ever intended to go." The Thieu-Ky 

Government in Saigon has a defacto military alliance with the Lon 

Nol Government in Phnom Penh. Actually, the Cambodian Government has essentially given over defense of its eastern provinces to

* Saigon. There are several reasons why it is advantageous for Saigon 

to maintain troop commitments in Cambodia:

(1) It relieves domestic pressure on the present government :

(2) It has raised the troop's morale to be fighting in Cambodia 

rather than in Vietnam; and

(3) The A.R.V.N. presence in Cambodia reflects President 

Thieu's continued determination to seek a military solution in 

Indochina.

By our continuing support of South Vietnamese troops within 

Cambodia the United States is in the position of indirectly supp orting the Lon Nol Government. Prince Sihanouk is the national hero 

of present-day Cambodia and General Lon Nol is in a position of 

46 —1S7— 70 -----9
122

unpopularity with many peasants and even some members of his own 

armed forces. The heightening of nationalistic tensions between 

Cambodians and Vietnamese is directly related to the length of time 

A.R.V.N. troops remain inside Cambodia. Within the first weeks of 

the Lon Nol Government’s rule, wholesale massacres of Vietnamese 

peasants living in Cambodia took place. The longer U.S.-backed 

South Vietnamese troops remain in Cambodia’s eastern provinces, 

the better chances tha t the Sihanouk-Khmer Rouge-Populist 

forces will gain a substantial amount of popular support. Thus, we 

find ourselves supporting a government in power in Cambodia that 

is to say the least on shaky ground with or without a South Vietnamese presence.

When considering the logistics of South Vietnamese army units 

in Cambodia, we must hope the troops will not become over extended. 

We must work with the basic assumption tha t the United States will 

provide some basic support operations for the South Vietnamese 

to be properly supplied. We ask, how far is the United States 

willing to go in support of these troops in Cambodia?

Thus far, I have only spoken of direct effects on South Vietnam. 

For the United States, the gravest political implications come from 

the danger to President Nixon’s “era of negotiation.” United StatesSoviet relations at the SAL T talks in Vienna could possibly have 

been dealt a severe blow in credibility. In Warsaw the Chinese Communists have refused to atten d this week's conference due to the entry 

of United States troops into Cambodia. And it is more apparent 

than ever that the Paris peace talks have been given a back seat to 

the military. President Nixon’s plan for Vietnamization of the war 

is in danger. Only 1 week before the crossover of U.S. troops into 

Cambodia, Secretary of State Rogers said: “we have no incentive to 

escalate. We recognize tha t if we escalate and get involved in Cambodia with our ground troops, tha t our whole program (Vietnamization) is defeated.” There is a paradox when President Nixon withdraws troops and at the same time threatens the enemy with increased military activity if the need arises.

It is obvious to many people th at Mr. Nixon is seemingly obsessed 

with preventing the United States from being militarily defeated in 

Southeast Asia. What virtue is gained in the winning of any war?

To quote former Secretary of Defense and Presidential Adviser 

Clark Clifford: “President Nixon’s policy of making our withdrawal dependent on his three criteria:

(1) The level of enemy activity:

(2) Progress at the peace talks in Paris: and

(3) The speed with which the South Vietnamese take over the 

fighting. Even a cursory study discloses th at items one and two are 

controlled bv Hanoi, while item three is controlled by Saigon.”

The possibility of deeper involvement in Indochina looms on the 

horizon. With Bureau of the Budget predictions of only $22 billion 

for new program initiatives to alleviate domestic problems over the 

next 5 years, the United States must refra in from “protecting our 

national interests” at the expense of the people overseas and make it 

our only national interest to serve the people of the United States 

and the people of the world for whom poverty, starvation, and envi-
123

ronmental abuse present far g reater danger to their national security 

than the Indochina situation.

Thank you.

Mr. F ascell. T hank you, Mr. McClafferty, for giving us an overview of the implications of recent actions.

Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. Wh at is your major?

Mr. McClafferty. Political science.

Mr. Boland. I would say from your second parag raph that you’ve 

got a good Asian Department at the University of Delaware. I want

* to express my appreciation to you for coming down here today and 

those who accompany you. As you’ve indicated, you would hope that 

this would be a continuing dialogue between the campus and the 

Congress, and we hope tha t this will be maintained. You come here

* with the express hope and belief that there are Members of Congress 

who are listening, on both sides of the aisle I m ight say. Republicans 

and Democrats, and the fact tha t you have some belief in the system 

by your very presence here, which indicates that, I think gives to 

those of us who serve in the Congress a clear indication tha t there 

is a responsibility on the part of us to listen, and we do, I thin k 

a great many of us do. Your statement on Vietnam reflects the 

opinion of many Members of Congress. I don’t know whether it’s a 

majority or not, but it reflects certainly the opinion of many Members of Congress and I think you presented it very well, and it is 

my hope tha t those of you at the University of Delaware will continue to join as you have today in this nonviolent, peaceful, and 

I think very persuasive way of getting your own point across. T hank 

you, Mark, for being here.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith of New York. I too want to echo Mr. Boland’s expression 

of thanks for coming down here and for being concerned, and for 

presenting to us your views.

Mr. Fascell. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. Well, I would only want to add tha t it’s obvious your 

concern is deep rooted and sincere. I would hope tha t you would 

concede th at we share tha t concern. Believe you me, we do.

Mr. Fascell. Any other questions? Mr. McClafferty, gentlemen,

* thank you very much for coming here and giving us your views.

The next witness is Mr. Andrew Feinstein from Wesleyan University.

* STATEMENT BY ANDREW FEINSTEIN, WESLEYAN UNI VER SITY

Mr. Feinstein. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Andrew 

Feinstein. I am a student at Wesleyan University in Middletown, 

Conn. My home is in West Ha rtfo rd, Conn. I am here on my own 

and at my own expense. I represent the students on strike at Wesleyan. I am appearing because I believe tha t a group of responsible 

Congressmen can do a great deal in ameliorating the problems of 

war and racism. I t is indeed heartening to be able to testify before a 

group of men who generally disagree with me about the war. I 

also feel th at students have been amiss in not explaining their concerns to Members of the Congress.
124

At Wesleyan, the strike has not meant the cessation of classes.

Rather, those who have chosen to support the strike have been given 

the opportunity to work on canvassing, the newspaper, and research 

on the issues of the strike. Those who have chosen to, have been 

allowed to continue their normal course of studies. The strikers, 

nevertheless, are, for the most part, required to complete their assigned work but with allowances made for lateness. I have with me 

a copy of the card which each student had to fill out for each 

course. It lists the available options and may be of interest to 

members of this committee. In addition to the activities of the strike, 

workshops have been held throughout the last 2 weeks. These work- •

shops were conducted by faculty members or knowledgeable people 

from outside of the university and dealt with subjects related to 

the demands.

In this brief statement, I hope to establish the case for a quick, *

scheduled withdrawal from Indochina, In addition, I will explain 

briefly, the other two demands of the strike: One dealing with the 

actions of the police and the courts in relation to blacks, p articu larly 

the Panthers, and political extrem ists; the other dealing with the 

possible bias of Government gran ts to universities and the relationship of the University to the Government.

The recent expansions of the war into Cambodia and Laos have 

served as catalysts for the reactivating of student opposition to our 

activity in South Vietnam. This opposition has been on moral, 

military, cultural, political, humanistic, religious, and economic 

grounds. I base my opposition to the war on two factors. First, 

from a military standpoint, we appear to be no closer to winning 

this war than we were 5 years ago. Every increase we have made 

in our war effort has been matched by the enemy. I contend that 

it is impossible tha t we ever win this war militarily. The reason 

for my contention is tha t we appear to be fighting an indigenous 

force; moreover, this indigenous force apparently has the support 

of the rural people in Vietnam. It thus appears tha t the very people 

for whom we are trying to gain freedom, shelter and protect the 

enemy from us.

Second, our strategic interests are not being served by being in 

Vietnam. Vietnam does not guard any major waterways or occupy 

a unique position in relation to either China or Russia. Vietnam is, *

effectively, worthless for the security of the United States.

We are thus fighting a futile and unnecessary war in Vietnam. I, 

therefore, would urge the passage of the Ilatfield-McGovern amendment, a piece of legislation tha t is eminently responsible in tha t it *

calls for a quick, yet not precipitate withdrawal. It, therefore, 

minimizes the problems cited as a result of such an immediate departure. President Nixon in his November third speech, stated that 

a precipitate withdrawal would result in a bloodbath in South 

Vietnam, the making of the United States into a second-rate power, 

and an identity crisis within this country. The evidence is hardly 

clear on any of these possible results.

The bloodbath in North Vietnam, which the President cites as a 

precedent, has since been repudiated by General Giap as a strategic 

mistake. The National Force for the Liberation of Vietnam is an 

astute enough political force to understand that the most effective
125

way of dealing with the opposition is not to kill them, but rath er 

to co-opt them. Fo r the NLF , the most effective way to maintain 

power would be to use the present structure, putting its men in at 

the top. I would have no fear for the lives of the current leaders 

of South Vietnam. They are undoubtedly prepared to leave for 

Europe in case of a Communist takeover. Thus, it does not seem to 

me tha t a bloodbath would immediately result from a withdrawal 

of American forces.

It is hard to see how a withdrawal would turn the United States 

into a second-rate power. By pulling out, we would be conserving 

our military strength instead of expending it. Furthermore, there 

are no other countries in the world who are able to assume a position 

of greater power than we might have. Mr. Nixon also stated tha t 

a precipitate withdrawal would mean tha t our allies would lose 

confidence in America. The President did not elaborate as to who 

those allies were. They are certainly not Britain or France, both of 

whom have fallen somewhat short of total support for the United 

States policy in Vietnam. The impression tha t one gets from the 

foreign press is tha t respect for the United States has suffered 

markedly as a result of our war in Indochina.

The final result tha t the President saw in the event of an 

immediate withdrawal was tha t America would lose confidence in 

itself. The President said, “Inevitable remorse and divisive recrimination would scar our spirit as a people.” I think tha t the notion 

of a “spirit as a people” is a myth. The great majority of people in 

the United States, or any other country, approach politics as a 

pastime. Most vote every 2 years and care very little about what 

happens in between. This is particularly true in foreign policy. Our 

international relations hard ly touch most citizens, unless they have 

a relative or friend in the armed services. It seems, therefore, to be 

at least an overstatement to say tha t an immediate withdrawal 

would result in a scarring of the national spirit.

Furthermore, all three results that the President has outlined as 

consequences of an immediate withdrawal seem to be true righ t now. 

There is a bloodbath going on in Vietnam. Our extensive bombing 

raids are killing civilians and destroying the land. Not only are 

large areas of land in Indochina virtually uninhabited, but we have 

also left 3.5 million bomb craters which fill with water and breed 

malarial mosquitos. We have thus produced a wasteland, in many 

parts of Vietnam, which may not be inhabitable for many generations. The war also seems to have turned the United States into a 

second-rate power in terms of guerilla warfare. We were totally 

incapable of defeating a small and ill-equipped band of local irr egu ­

lars, and have since been forced to fight a much large r war. This 

would not seem to show a great deal of strength on the part of the 

United States. Furthermore, our image in Europe has greatly suffered as a result of this war, leaving our only strong allies in Asia. 

Finally, to the extent that a war might scar the national spirit, 

Vietnam has certainly already done so.

Despite the fact tha t the President’s analysis of the results of a 

precipitate withdrawal is erroneous, the measure which I am supporting does not even go so far as to call for an immediate withdrawal. The Hatfield-McGovem amendment merely calls for a
126

scheduled withdrawal from Indochina. The Congress, in passing 

this measure, would merely be exercising its constitutionally delegated authority to control the budget. The Congress would also 

affirm its power to help in the setting of the policy of the country.

I think tha t his amendment could be the most important piece of 

legislation tha t the Congress could approve at this time.

Students at well over one hundred colleges are now on strike 

over three demands. The second one calls for an end to the war in 

Indochina. The other two demands, I think, should be called to the 

attention of this committee. The first demand calls for the end to 

political oppression in the United States. This demand can be interpreted in many ways, but it is not necessarily an attack on our 

judicial machinery. It is rather a criticism of the ways in which the 

judiciary has acted to suppress political activists. Let me use three 

examples to elucidate this demand. Bobby Seale has now been in 

jail, without bail, for well over a year. Whether guilty or innocent, 

he, as chairman of the Black Panther Party, has been out of 

circulation. His jailin g has been an effective damper on continued 

activities of the party. No matter how one might feel about this 

party, this is not the proper or legitimate way to respond to it. 

Second, eight men in Chicago have been sentenced to excessively 

long jail terms as a result of contempt citations, partially caused by 

the intransigence of the judge. Third, there have been two separate 

cases which involved bombings in New York City. A group of 

whites who were indicted with bombing were released on $20,000 

bail each. A group of Black Panthers who were charged with 

conspiracy to bomb, although they destroyed none of the buildings 

that they were accused of conspiring to destroy, was asked for 

$100,000 bail each. For a lesser crime the Panthers were asked for 

five times the bail. The judicial system will probably in the long run 

fairly adjudicate all these cases. Nevertheless, all of these cases have 

shown inequities in the judicial system. I feel tha t this is an improper use of our judiciary. I would suggest that the Congress 

establish a special committee to study judicial procedures against political dissidents, and adopt ways to make the judiciary more 

equitable.

The third demand asks the universities to cease their compliance 

with the military. This includes classified research, Reserve Officers 

Trainin g Corps, and military recruiting. Although this is primarily 

an internal matter for the colleges, Congress has enacted an amendment on NASA grants and is now working on a similar bill setting 

conditions on other grants to universities, making it very hard for 

a university to disentangle itself from the military. Colleges are 

not allowed to receive gran ts if people involved in political protests 

are going to use some of the money. This has made it very difficult 

for some colleges to accept the money in good faith. I feel that the 

Congress ought to take action in order to repeal the measure on 

NASA grants and reject the bill coming up about other grants to 

colleges.

These three demands have been supported with equal weight by 

the students participating in the national strike. I have spent most 

of my time in this statement on the second demand because this 

committee is made up of experts on foreign affairs. I would hope-
127

tha t committees that could effect action on the other two demands 

would hold similar hearings in order to fully explore student feeling 

on these issues. I would like to thank the committee for giving me 

this opportunity to state my views on Vietnam and would hope 

tha t I in part have helped to show the depth and strength of 

the feeling against the war throughout the United States.

Thank you.

Mr. IIicks. Thank you very much young man. As long as there 

isn’t anyone here I ’ll indulge myself in asking a number of questions. How is your congressional delegation, Senators and Congressmen from Connecticut, how do they vote, in accordance with your 

feelings? Do you know?

Mr. Feinstein. Of the two Senators, one is very much in sympathy, Mr. Ribicoff, and one supports the President, Mr. Dodd. In 

the congressional delegation, five presently, Mr. Daddario supports 

these measures, Mr. Giaimo as f ar as I ’ve heard does not, Mr. Meskill 

is presently running for election in Connecticut and has been very 

reluctant to take a stand, and the other two I don’t know about, sir.

Mr. Hicks. Wouldn’t you say tha t if you want Congress to take 

action that that's the easiest way and the quickest way to get it—to 

be sure that those in your own State represent the views tha t you 

think tha t they should take? And wouldn’t you say that tha t is 

true throughout the United States?

Mr. Feinstein. I would agree with that.

Mr. Hicks. Wouldn't you say tha t, as an early labor leader, I thin k 

it was Mr. Green but I'm not sure, said tha t we should reward 

those with whom we agree and those with whom we disagree we 

should t ry to remove from office? Now isn’t tha t the greatest impact 

tha t students are going to have if they can get out and convince 

the people in the community tha t their views are correct?

Air. F einstein. I thin k for the first time in the student movement, 

this has been happening.

Mr. Hicks. Didn’t it happen in New Hampshire? Don’t you think 

tha t the country listened, don’t you think tha t President Johnson 

listened to students as the result of what they did in New Hampshire?

Air. F einstein. Wha t happened in New Hampshire was not followed up throughout the country, particularly in Chicago.

Air. Hicks. AVell. but whose fault is that? Students want to point 

the finger at somebody else. We have been hearing today some of 

the finest statements that I have heard any place, one right after 

another, but the students must understand that they can't come to 

Congress here and talk to legislators tha t have to go back out to 

their districts and get elected to come back here, and expect them 

to react just to what the students have to say if the people back 

in their constituencies don't feel the same way. Legislators aren’t 

going to be too much further out in front of their constituencies 

than their constituents want them to be. Even the Senators aren’t 

going to when they get down to within 2 years of their elections. 

They are out in fron t when they’ve got 4 or 5 years to go, if 

you’ll examine carefully in most instances.

Air. Feinstein. Well, there have been efforts to go to the people 

in particula r districts and there have been efforts for students to
128

work with candidates who support their views. There are quite a few 

problems w ith that, one being that it’s rath er hard to find people 

v ho actually support our views who aren’t one-issue candidates. 

A candidate could support our view on the war but also be very 

opposed to our view on political oppression in this country.

Mr. Hicks. Get your own candidates.

Mr. Feinstein. The problem with tha t is the party machinery is 

so structured its hard for an outsider to break in.

Mr. H icks. There's no question th at it’s hard to change the system 

but tha t s what you’re talking about, isn't it—having the system 

respond to your view ? As I have sat here and listened, I ’ve heard 

•‘Respond or there may be revolution.” Now which do you think 

is going to be easier, to tear the whole thing down or to work 

within and change the system by working with it?

Mr. F einstein. I would agree with you tha t we ought to work 

within the system, however, the failures during the 1968 campaign, 

the McCarthy campaign, seemed, up until the issue of the strike 

came up, the invasion of Cambodia, the killings at Kent State, 

they seemed to have, the 1968 campaign seemed to have turned off 

a lot of students towards political activity. As much as they worked, 

they were still in effect powerless in order to get their candidate in.

Mr. Hicks. Don't you think that’s why the regular party people 

succeed, because they don’t turnoff, they'continue to work? If they 

lose this year, they are back next year.

Mr. F einstein. I hope that happens.

Mr. Hicks. I hope that it happens, too, because I think that’s the 

most salutary thing tha t I have heard coming out of the student 

discussions—the fact tha t they say “We are going on; we are not 

going to stop just this year; we are going out to work in 1972 and 

work within the system.” Those who are not working within the 

system or who are setting one group against the other, from my 

standpoint as a Democrat, make it very difficult for the Democrats 

like myself. If we are going to succeed we’ve got to have a number 

of groups working together. If the other side can drive these 

wedges between us so tha t you’ve got the blue collars at the students’ throats, and the Chicanos down in the South against everybody and the Blacks and the construction workers at each others 

throats, the Democrats won’t succeed. So from a practical viewpoint 

I would prefer to see the students out working within the system 

and trying to get all these groups to work one way.

Mr. Feinstein. I think students would be more likely to cluster 

around candidates who have been outspoken in support of our 

views, i.e. opposition to the war.

Mr. Hicks. I have no question but what they would, but tha t’s 

been a minority of the people. You’ve got to get enough so you’ve 

got a majority. You can’t move the system with a minority. There 

are 435 Members in the House of Representatives and you’ve got to 

get 218 if everybody is present before you prevail on an issue. The 

fact that you may just cheer when NTr. Lowenstein has something 

to say or a number of these other men that you identify with, tha t 

doesn’t do it until you get enough more here so th at von can count 

up 218.
129

Mr. Feinstein. Well, in the interim we have been working and 

many of us have been down here for 2 weeks now talk ing to people 

in the Congress and we hoped that this would have some effect.

Mr. H icks. I commend you for it and I hope tha t you don’t opt out 

in the event tha t you can’t convince the majority of people in your State to send down just exactly the person tha t you want. Keep 

working within the system. Thank you very much.

Mr. Feinstein. Than k you.

Mr. Hicks. Mr. Kendler. Let’s see t ha t’s your statement?

Mr. Kendler. Yes, sir.

STATEMENT BY KEN KENDLER, UNIVERSITY OF 

CALIFORNIA AT SANTA CRUZ

Mr. Kendler. We, as Americans, students, and representatives of 

the University of California at Santa Cruz and the Santa Cruz community, have, in the past few weeks witnessed events which 

threaten the future of our country. We have come to Washington in dedication to the responsible change tha t we feel is now both 

urgent and necessary. In order to bridge an already too wide gap 

which exists in our Nation and to preserve our country's trad ition of dissent and responsible legislative action, we need your immediate 

attention and cooperation.

We support all efforts to disengage American forces from Southeast Asia as soon as possible. We thus support the McGovem- Hatfield amendment and the counterpart bill in the House. But we 

also see it as necessary for the United States to renounce the logic of the war in Vietnam. We are not satisfied with the Pres iden t’s 

plan of Vietnamization, which continues to support a military regime which has never been representative of the people. We deplore an American foreign policy which views the support of a right-wing dictatorship to be justified in the name of stopping communism. 

America’s role in the underdeveloped world should be one of aiding the now appearing nationalistic movements instead of opposing them 

and thus pushing them into the communist camp.

However, we have come here today to address ourselves to prob­ lems closer to home. Never in our lifetimes has this country been 

so divided. Major public figures make political hay out of increasing 

this sense of division while certain students, in frustration and 

despair, take to violence. Six students, the innocent ones, have been 

killed.

We need not here dwell long on the crisis which faces our Nation, 

for we are all too familiar with it. Simply, the crisis is a crisis of 

faith. Most students do not know what to do now. We can enter into the political system from which we have felt alienated for so long by committing ourselves to action in the up-coming political 

campaigns. Or, we may continue in our apathy, continue founding 

our communes in the woods. Or, we can turn to violence. The first 

path, tha t of entering the system, is without doubt the hardest. 

But it is crucial that the majority of us chose that path. We have found an idea which we believe could, if implemented, help direct 

student energy toward tha t course. We see our idea as appealing
130

a

Ju Americans interested in the future of our country, not just 

the liberals or those against the Indo-China war.

The idea would be for Congress to show its faith in the students 

of America and its willingness to listen by inviting student speakers 

to address a Joint Session. A resolution to this effect was introduced 

into the House last Thursday by Congressman Tunnev and cosponsered by Congressman Brown and 21 other members of the 

House. A modified form of the House resolution will be introduced 

into the Senate early next week. The Senate resolution calls for 

fixe students, one each from a parochial university, and universities 

from the west coast, Midwest, east coast, and South to address a *

joint meeting at any time before June 15 about “the Indo-China 

War and the Cause of Peace. ’ These students shall represent not 

only their own schools but also the universities in the area from 

which they come. »

We see the Joint Session as having two effects. First, we see it as 

going far to correct the considerably tarnished image that the 

American public now holds of the student. It has been frequently 

noted how media coverage has concentrated on student violence 

rath er than the far more numerous student attempts at constructive 

change. The joint session could help correct this image and thus 

facilitate communication between the generations. The Nation via 

the media coverage of the joint session would see tha t students can 

conduct themselves in a responsible and intelligent manner in front 

of the most distinguished body in the land, the U.S. Congress. The 

country might even find that students have some things to sav t hat 

deserve to be listened to. Second, we think this joint session could 

change the student’s image of himself. Congress, by this symbolic 

gesture of concern and attention, would force students all over the 

country to question their disillusionment, to question the prevalent 

attitude of cynicism which now exists on our campuses in regard to 

the responsiveness of our Government.

We realize tha t this resolution is unprecedented. Join t sessions 

are only held on special occasions such as the state of the Union 

message by the President and the appearance of foreign dignitaries.

However, we feel tha t the present crisis is unprecedented as well. 

Widespread violence and the accompanying bitterness and hatred 

is foreseeable in the near future on the campuses of our Nation. We 

must act now to prevent that violence from ever occuring, by showing all students tha t the ir energy can be put to use and can produce 

changes. The students of America are all watching Washington now 

to see what response is given to the efforts of their fellows here. •

Many of them would like nothing better than to see us fail. If, 

for example, th e McGovern-Hatfield amendment fails to nass. thev 

will justify their radicalism or apathy bv saying, “I told you so.”

We here in Washington have seen what we thin k are the subtle 

effects of student lobbying. But we know that these results are not 

concrete enough to satisfy the doubts of those back on the campuses.

Impatience is a fault of the young. For once, we ask you to accept 

our faults and respond to them. It does not speak well for our times 

that such a spectacular move as calling a joint session is needed to 

reinstill in the young people of our country a faith in their Government. But our experience on our campus, in all urgency and candor,
131

is tha t the situation is tha t grave. A joint session might seem a 

mere symbol to those of us here now. B ut it could mean everything 

back home on the campuses and in our communities where such 

an expression of commitment on your pa rt might give moderation 

its very life.

A mood of hope has recently reemerged on our college campuses. 

We can, without reservation, call it a renaissance of interest in 

changing our country through authorized channels. This hope must 

not be allowed to die before it can give fru it in action. We, students 

of the University of California at Santa Cruz, offer to you, the 

leaders of this Nation a plan to help the hope survive. Our country, 

due to several factors the most important of which has been our 

tragic involvement in Southeast Asia, is in shreads. It is divided and 

it is bitter. We, the young people of this land, possess the energy 

and idealism needed to save the country, and events in the near 

future shall determine whether this energy shall be used as it should 

or be lost into frustration and violence. The resolution we have 

offered addresses itself to the central issue, tha t of mutual trust. 

Congress can offer its great influence to help this country by recognizing what is good in our land and helping tha t goodness to survive. We ask for a gesture on your part, for no one else can give 

it. We ask for recognition for what we are. We ask for your trust. 

And, we ask for your help so that we, as a Nation, might stop expending our energies fighting ourselves and unite, in common trust, 

to face our problems with all our energies and resources at hand.

Mr. Hicks. Now was i t your school tha t burned down the bank?

Mr. Kendler. No, sir, that was the University of California at 

Santa Barbara.

Mr. Hicks. This is Santa Cruz.

Mr. Kendler. Yes.

Mr. Hicks. But that is the sort of thing you are worried about?

Mr. Kendler. I think we all should be worried about that.

Mr. Hicks. Well, now, how do you think tha t the California delegation represents your point of view?

Mr. Kendler. Well, we have gone around in our weeks in Washington to most of the members of the delegation and we have found 

some, particularly Congressman Tunney. I can show the list of 

people tha t have sponsored this resolution from California.

Mr. Hicks. Well, not necessarily by name but generally, half of 

them, a quarter of them, none of them ?

Mr. Kendler. We have found considerable support.

Mr. H icks. From California?

Air. Kendler. Yes, sir.

Mr. Hicks. Do you intend to try to make your views felt in California this fall and summer so far as the general electorate is 

concerned ?

Mr. K endler. Yes.

Mr. Hicks. In general, do you feel that all college students who are 

concerned should make th eir views felt in that fashion?

Mr. Kendler. They should. The question is whether they will 

or not.

Mr. Hicks. You spoke of this joint session of Congress. Why do 

you feel tha t the students, a group of seven and a half million
132

people, even if they all felt alike, are any more entitled to present 

their views to a joint session of the Congress with its attendant television coverage than any other group of similar size?

Mr. Kendler. Well, I tried to explain tha t in my statement. Our 

answer basically is tha t we are a very disenfranchised group. We 

realize we are not the only ones. We feel tha t the urgency of the 

moment now speaks to us. We see division in the Nation.

Mr. Hicks. Do you take responsibility for any of that division?

Mr. Kendler. Yes.

Mr. Hicks. Do you think that by this appearance before the joint 

session of Congress you might heal part of that division that pos- *

siblv you are somewhat responsible for?

Mr. K endler. Yes, that is what we believe.

Mr. Hicks. It’s a novel idea. I might say, tha t based on what I 

have heard here today from the young people who have presented *

their views, I would be very much in favor of it just from the 

impact that your statements have had on me. But it might be 

somewhat difficult to convince other groups tha t you say are disenchanted if not disenfranchised, tha t they shouldn't also have equal 

time.

Mr. Kendler. Well, the question before us is the role of the Congress. How exactly should they respond to the needs of the people.

1 understand the difficulty. It' s very difficult for me to answer the 

question why only we should be allowed to speak.

Mr. Hicks. You certainly recognize the fact that you don’t speak 

for the people, all the people, or T would say at the present time a 

majority of the people. Th at’s why I think that the best idea that 

I have heard is that you should go into the land and convince the 

people so tha t you are speaking for a majority of the people.

Mr. Kendler. I agree with you but I seriously doubt whether we 

shall or not, and we are both agreed as to whether we should. The 

problem now is how we can make the people, how we can convince 

us—my fellows and the students of this land to do that. And this is 

how we have addressed the resolution. The point is tha t it is the 

young people now that are disaffected, especially the young, and I 

think in some sense, I can't claim special privileges for us, but being 

young we need a certain treatment. As I said we are a group that is 

impatient and I wish tha t weren't true and I wish we had maturity. *

Now go out and commit 10 years or 20 years or 5 years, even the 

next year of our life to a political campaign. That is a very difficult 

thing to do when you are 19 or 20 years old. There are so many 

other things you would like to do and things you haven’t done, and *

now we are faced with this problem. There are plenty of other things 

I ’d rath er do in the next 6 months than work on a political campaign and I am sure my fellows feel the same. And we as a Nation, 

now, students must work this way, but how do we convince them to?

That is the problem.

Mr. Hicks. How do you convince them that they don’t really 

achieve any purpose by burning down a bank? Or blocking a highway ?

Mr. Kendler. You convince them bv showing them their energies 

can be utilized better in other ways.
133

Mr. Hicks. If you fellows tha t have been here today, you people tha t have been here today, can’t convince them, they can't be con­ vinced because this is as articulate and well presented a group of thoughts by young people as I ever hope to hear. I am quite certain tha t all the members that were here and heard this today have the same feeling, only they can say it better than I. As we’ve gone back and forth to vote here, I've heard tha t expressed time and again. Your problem in every instance is tha t if you are talking to the people tha t feel like you do, you are wasting your time. There are some that you can convince who don't think the way you do, but you are going to convince them more quickly if you are back talking to their constituents because there isn't anyone in the House of Representatives tha t isn't trying to represent his constituents. He may be trying to lead them a little bit, but it's just not possible to be out in front too far, too often. And you know you can't help the 

country if you're not back here.

Mr. Kendlek. I understand that. As 1 said, you know, the question now as we both understand it is what students should do; but I am just not sure they will. 1 hope they will. I hope we can take all 

action to direct them towards tha t goal.

Mr. II icks. I wish you the very best. The bell's rang again and I have to go vote. I want to thank all who are in attendance and all 

who testified today.

Mr. Kendlek. T hank you very much.

Mr. H icks. Norman Taylor? Is Norman Taylor here? Mr. Fasccll should be back here in just a minute. You are from Florida? Would you prefer tha t he heard your testimony ? Would you like to pro­ ceed then, now? I'll wait for the second bell and hope th at somebody 

gets back over here to take over.

Mr. Taylor. I think we won't be tha t long.

Mr. IIicks. Would you care to identify those who are with you?

Mr. Taylor. Yes. Mr. Ralph Jasper, Miss Sheila Flemming, Mr. Anthony Godbodlt, Miss Constance Proctor, Mr. John Banks, and my name is Norman Taylor, president of the Student Government 

Association at Bethune-Cookman.

STA TEM ENT BY NOEMAN TAYLOR. BETHUNE-COOKMAN COLLEGE

Mr. Taylor. To: United States Senate and House of Representa­ tives. From: Student Body of Bethune-Cookman College, Daytona 

Beach, Fla. Dear Sirs: We take the following positions on U.S. foreign and 

domestic policies: We strongly urge that all military forces be immediately removed 

from Vietnam and Indochina in general, We urge tha t military spending be cut by one half of the present cost and that the money be redirected to domestic problems, We demand th at the United States immediately begin a nationbuilding campaign, We demand that the present dra ft system be abolished and replaced by an all volunteer military, We demand that no armed police, national guards, or other re­ pressive agents be employed on college or University campuses to 

quell any activities,
134

A e demand that the wealth of this country be shared by all 

Americans with insured capital,

AA e urge tha t a committee of blacks and other minority groups 

be formed as a special committee in the administration’s Cabinet 

and tha t it remain until racism is no longer the American “wav of 

life”. J

AA e demand tha t black people have the righ t to self determinism 

without discrimination or economic reprisals bv the U.S. Government.

. Mr. Hicks. Im kind of at a loss, sir, to know how to respond, 

either with questions or any statement. You speak of being the 

black minority, yet we’ve been listening to students all day long 

talking about being in a minority. I suppose you are going to have 

to do the same thing as the other students and that’s to either do it 

within the system or without the system. If you do it within the 

system, you’re going to have to form coalitions just the same as 

anyone in a minority has to do, or you’re going to have to sell the 

people in the various constituencies on making specific changes. 

Certainly, no one can in the abstract, dispute the fairness of a great 

many of the matters you mention. Nontheless, you want, as I take it, 

specific changes made by Congress. Now if you were here earlier 

you heard what Air. Fascell had to say about this numbers game here. 

You’ve got to have the votes. 146 won’t do it, for example. You have 

to have 218 in the House of Representatives if all the House is 

present. How do you propose tha t this be done, within the system 

or outside of the system ? And Air. Fascell is here now. These people 

are here from Florida.

Air. F ascell. Yes, I know.

Mr. Taylor. If we’re talking about within the system then I 

thin k black as well as other minority groups must have the right 

of self-determinism. AVhat we have in many of the cities of the 

United States, is actually colonialism, in tha t the blacks are not 

represented even in their local governments, proportional to the 

population in the particu lar cities tha t they reside in. AYith exceptions of a few places like Gary, Ind. and Cleveland, et cetera, et 

cetera. So when you talk about working within the system, I think 

you know the blacks have tried, and still are trying to run for 

political offices th at will insure blacks of the kind of treatment from 

the Government that they would desire. However, I think on the 

grand scale we have been unsuccessful because of the racist institutions in this country which deny and will not permit blacks to any 

proportional degree to be represented in policymaking bodies.

Air. Hicks. Do you think those are breaking down, can you see 

evidences of them breaking down? Or is it tha t it is not breaking 

down fast enough, just as we’re not getting out of Southeast Asia 

fast enough?

Air. Taylor. Right. AVe aren’t getting out of Southeast Asia fast 

enough, and I cannot see the breakdown, as you call it, and as far 

as blacks getting political control within their own communities, no, 

I cannot see that.

Air. Hicks. They’ve got control of all the basketball teams, almost. 

[Laughter.]

Air. Taylor. AATell, this is something they could not keep us from 

entering, athletics and music as many of you say has been one of 

th° flnnnrs th at we’ve been able to ffet to the ton in. but-----
135

Mr. II icks. But tha t had to start with Jackie Robinson and it 

has continued to move; it has moved satisfactorily, I take it.

Mr. Taylor. T hat doesn't put food in the mouths o f the 22 million 

blacks in this country.

Mr. Hicks. But it is a step in the right direction.

Mr. Taylor. This is not enough though.

Mr. Hicks. Now when you say self-determination, what do you 

have in mind specifically?

Mr. Taylor. I ’m saying tha t blacks must have control of the ir own communities. The communities in which they reside. Since we will, I think, concede the fact tha t blacks do live in communities to themselves when the blacks cannot control the economy within tha t community, and they do not have a part in the policymaking; this is colonialism. So therefore, blacks are colonialized right in America itself. Se we can very easily sympathize with foreign coun­ tries who do not have the righ t themselves to make the policies 

tha t govern them.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Fascell.

Air. Fascell. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Air. Taylor you’re not by your position eliminating the possibilities that blacks are participat­ ing and are in positions of power by virtue of th eir participation ?

Air. Taylor. It’s so obvious, I cannot do that.

Air. Fascell. I wasn’t quite sure what your your point was, because I can only talk about my own community. We have a black who is elected to the city commission of Aliami, for example, and she is very effective. She got elected by a majority of white votes. Now if you’re going to pursue determinism to its ultimate in the Miami community you’d have to take a black area, make it a separate city, and turn it "over to the blacks. You’re not advocating that?

Mr. Taylor. No.

Air. Fascell. I just wanted to be sure. But where they have an 

opportunity, let’s say, in an all black community you would want 

all black opportunity?

Air. T aylor. T hat’s right.

Air. Fascell. Both from the standpoint of making policy, pa rticipating, and the economics.

Air. Findley. Air. Frelinghuysen ? Do you have any questions ?

Air. Frelinghuysen. I ’m sorry Air. Chairman I wasn’t able to 

hear all the witness’ testimony. I have no questions, and I regret 

1 was voting and unable to get here any sooner.

Air. F indley. Air. Taylor, I share your anxiety about Vietnam and your desire tha t our troops be withdrawn at a faster pace than has been evident. But at the same time I know that I can’t sit where the Commander in Chief sits and comprehend fully the problems he faces. Do you feel that there can be a justification in order to carry out an effective withdrawal program for military action which will’help keep the enemy off balance? In other words, it’s a dis­ tressing problem he has, and I ’m sure you'll agree with that. Do you acknowledge tha t it can be essential under certain circumstances ’for the Commander in Chief to order military action in order to 

accelerate the withdrawal?

Air. Taylor. If the President is sincere with withdrawing from 

Vietnam, I concur wholeheartedly. But if the President is delaying
136

for any reason, I cannot concur at all. But I do think, and I urge 

even if he does and is sincere about withdrawing troops, tha t these 

troops must be removed immediately.

Air. Findley. Are there any other questions?

Air. Fascell. Air. Chairman, I just want to say th at I ’m glad that 

the contingent from Bethune-Cookman is here and had an opportunity to be heard even if at the end of the day. We appreciate your 

waiting. Of course, as you know, the schedule was all made up, and 

there was no way we could get you in before. And I'm curious, how 

did you find out about this?

Air. Taylor. AVe received communications on it.

Air. Fascell. Aon mean that somebody advised you or you got a 

letter or telephone call?

Air. Taylor. We received letters, telegrams, telephone calls.

Air. Fascell. Good. We re delighted you responded and took the 

trouble to come.

Air. Taylor. Thank you.

Air. Findley. Air. Taylor, I'd like to thank you too, and to explain that we had an unexpectedly complicated floor situation today 

in the House of Representatives. It absolutely required tha t we 

shuttle back and forth in order to vote on very important measures 

tha t are being considered—amendments to the social security program 

providing increased benefits, tying it with the cost of living, amendments which I know are of concern to everyone in our country. So 

we felt the necessity for leaving our chairs momentarily, and that’s 

why we could not be here for the entire statement.

I would like to add that this does conclude the schedule for today. 

Tomorrow morning at 9 o’clock promptly we will resume our hearings and I am glad to report also tha t tomorrow the quorum bells 

will not ring because the House will not be in session. So we can 

proceed on an uninterrupted basis star ting at 9 o’clock in the morning. If there is no other business, the committee will stand adjourned 

until 9 tomorrow.

(AVhereupon, the Ad Hoc Committee adjourned, to reconvene at 

9 a.m., Friday, Alay 22,1970.)
HEARINGS ON STUDENT VIEWS TOWARD UNITED 

STATES POLICY IN SOUTHEAST ASIA

F R ID A Y , M AY 22 , 19 70

H OU SE OF R E P R E S E N T A T IV E S AD HOC C O M M IT TEE

PA U L F IN D L E Y , C H A IR M A N

E D W A R D P. BO LA ND H O W A RD W . ROBIS ON

D A N TE B. FA SCELL FL OYD W . H IC K S

V ER N O N W . TH OM SO N ~Wasliington^ D.G.

The committee met at 9 a.m. in room 2172, Rayburn House Office Building, lion. Paul Findley (chairman of the ad hoc committee) 

presiding.

Mr. Findley. Our first, witness today is Ed Rosenthal of Rutgers University. Ed, we welcome you to the second day of hearings on student opinion on the policies of the United States in Southeast Asia.

STATEMENT BY EDWARD LEE ROSENTHAL, RUTGERS COLLEGE

Mr. Rosenthal. In this time when the papers receive many letters about how parental guidance is missing in the protesting youth, I would beg your indulgence to expand on a bit of direction from my 

early youth. Often when I had done something foolish, something which did not turn out well fo r me, or when I had done something wrong, but cared not to admit it, I would displace the blame of the incident by shifting the guilt to someone else by saying, “But he told me to do it.” Time and again I was admonished, “Would you jump off the Empire State Building if he told you.” Of course, I embarrassedly 

answered, “No.” Not that the Congress is in the same position tha t T was but I wish to draw from this lesson what I would like the Congress to do. In my mind, this approach avoids the emotionalism of the Hitler analogy, but still underscores the importance of the avoidance of blind obedience. The lesson implicit in the statement is tha t one must make one’s own decisions. The evaluation of the facts must be accomplished and a decision must be drawn so as to reach an in­ dividual opinion. My question to the Congress is whether they will let us fall off the Vietnamized “Em pire State Building” ? My question to the Members of Congress is whether they will under­ mine the basic principle of democracy, tha t of an informed, con- 

(137)

46 -4 S7 — 70----- 10
138

cerned and active citizenry by urging irrational faith in the course 

of our foreign policy?

I won’t hit you again with the list of facts about the war for I 

am sure tha t you are familiar with them and will be reinforced 

throughout the upcoming debate, for the time of teachins are over 

and the time for action has come.

The problems that the war has caused in the economy, our foreign 

image, in the tackling of the problems at home and the polarization 

of our population are all obvious. However one point tha t I take 

issue with is t hat the Nixon administration has separated what has 

happened before the ascendency of their administration to what has 

come during it. This is ridiculous. War, especially this one, does not 

come in 4 year sections. One must deal with the whole situation and 

the problem of the initial involvement cannot be cut off from the 

reasons for leaving now.

Perhaps you too will come to the conclusion that I and millions of 

my fellow citizens have come to, tha t we don’t belong there. That 

our presence there is a vain search for the Communist menace and 

a showdown with it, in the best tradition of American Westerns. 

Tha t our continued presence there is just as suicidal and futile as 

jumping from tha t Empire State Building.

To continue in the line of the story, what we seek from Congress 

now is the safety railings to prevent falling over, if we have not 

already. Efforts such as the Church-Cooper amendment, the repeal 

of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, and the Hatfield-McGovern proposal in the Senate and similar ones in the House are efforts to set 

up those railings. One of the problems with this war is its dangling 

nature. One is never sure where either side is going to strike next. 

One is never sure if this war is going to end. Measures such as these 

will not give “aid and comfort” to the enemy but rather extend it 

to an American people sick of war.

Several facts cannot be rebutted, nor their tragedy answered to. 

Over 40,000 men have died. Over 250,000 men have been wounded. 

About 35 billion of our tax dollars go to the war in Vietnam each 

year. To quote a peace slogan, “Not one more life.” We cannot allow 

any more American lives to be lost in this senseless encounter. 

Compound to tha t all of the Asians who have been killed and countless lives disrupted, and the depth of the tragedy is overpowering. 

Some say war is hell. I say, get the hell out. I challenge you to put 

yourself in my place and enter a war that is hopeless, to perhaps 

be the next in line to die, I think this will explain our urgency. 

Perhaps we must exercise what "World Wa r II poet, Piet Hein called 

“the subtle act of losing face * * * what weaker minds would call 

disgrace.”

Working on the strike committee at school, I composed a letter 

which some of your colleagues may have received which said that 

expanded military ventures only succeed in the loss of more lives. 

Several days ago, I read in the paper tha t 217 Americans were 

killed in war last week, the highest since mid-August. This stark 

statistic reinforced my conviction tha t the Cambodian expedition 

dubious in effect militarily, dangerous politically, and based on a 

still more dubious principle of Vietnamization lias only in the final 

analysis asceded to tha t end. The logic still escapes me as to how 

withdrawal is aided by further military aggression.
139

I am 17 years old and have just survived my freshman year in 

college and it is true that I am scared to take up a gun and perhaps die in a war, but even more sharp is the repugnance tha t I feel for the specific war tha t I would be called upon to fight in. I am being asked to give up my life to sugarcoat the paragraphs in history of the present President of the United States. I am being asked to travel 

to a far-off country to defend a corrupt government which exists without the support of its people. I am being asked to support the repression of an internal struggle in a foreign land only muddled by the United States, its political paranoia and economic self in­ terests. Beyond the conceptions of the World War II generation is that the moral and national causes which impelled our participation 

in tha t war are not present in the Vietnamese situation and, yes, I am scared to die, but if I have to die I would confine i t to a just 

cause not this one. Perhaps a better statement to make would be tha t I prefer to live 

for my country rather than die because of it. I would rather see my activity directed towards the betterment of this country rath er than dying in defense of decadent status quos. I would not like to join the Army through the process of the draft. The military to me represents the potential and actuality of killing, a thought morally repulsive to me and many of my fellow students. I would rath er 

join forces to combat the evils of this society, the racism, the poverty, the pollution. I would rather serve my 2 years in the Peace Corps, VISTA, inner city programs, efforts to combat pollution and pro­ mote conservation, or in other areas to positively better my country and to spread good will abroad. Once again it is up to the Congress to provide the leadership for the bettering of our society, to reorder 

the priorities from an emphasis on the military and death to an 

emphasis on people and life. It is difficult to describe the frustration among my peers with 

the current status quo. It is even more disturbing to report their disenchantment with the political process and politics in general. 

I fear for this country. I fear deeply tha t this spasm which the Congress has felt from the young may be the last straw. In the 

words of Justice Douglas on the American Revolution?

 “But a vast 

restructuring of laws and institutions was necessary if the people were to be content. Th at restructuring was not forthcoming and there was revolution.” And to describe today—“Whether it will continue 

to adhere to its tactics, we do not know. If it does the redress, hon­ ored in tradition, is also revolution.” To place my personal position 

to use contemporary jargon “that’s not where I am at.” However there are many who are. And still many more who will be. In America today we have experienced brie f spurts of violence. If the 

Congress fails to answer the call of peace and humanistic change, 

then I stand fearful of the future.

Are my fears of violent rebellion unfounded ? I think not. Histo ry 

has proven tha t such upheavals occur neither in times of total repression—a situation I will not ascribe to America today—not in 

a time of prosperity—a situation evident in our economy and mur­ ders at home and abroad disqualifying the United States. It occurs in a situation which Crane Brinton, the noted historian, termed as 

“cramp”. The historical situation seems to be ripe. The mood appears
140

volatile. All tha t is needed is the sparks. Yet one always says that 

the country contains its safety valves and therefore this will not 

happen. I contend th at if the Government remains unresponsive, the 

safety valves prove ineffective for they are not used.

Yet I fear even more for revolution in the classical sense may be 

an outdated and useless method for modern military and police 

tactics would make the uprising a massacre. Real repression will set 

in, and the prospect for real change even more illusive. The possibility tha t arises from the situation is weighty in itself. I implore 

you, the Congress of the United States to summon the foresight 

necessary to carry us through these difficult times.

Perhaps many could not support the revolt in the streets but still 

more could not support an unresponsive government. Politics itself 

is in the doghouse with the youth of today. Politicians, even delvers 

in student politics, have been put down as meaningless and superfluous to the real problems and their real solutions. As politicians 

this aversion must be rectified for a democracy cannot exist when 

people will not participate in the governance and politics of it.

In the words of a girl who spent the summer as an intern in 

Washington, “It is odd that students are turning to the political 

system now, when all indications say tha t they shouldn’t. You have 

to grab the chance.” I must echo—You have to grab the chance. This 

is not only the chance to end the war but to build a better society. 

Perhaps my prophesy of revolt is a bit too drastic, yes, even romantic, for there is another course open to youth today. One in my 

opinion is worse than any communist threat, worse than any revolution, and tha t is withdrawal from politics. If the Congress does not 

respond the people will stop feeding the stimulus. Already the foreshadowing is foreboding with the aversion to politics I have noted. 

I reiterate, democracy cannot exist where people divorce themselves 

from their government.

To quote Justice Douglas again

That revolution—now that the people hold the residual powers of government—need not be a repetition of 1776. It could be a revolution in the natur e of 

a political regeneration. It depends on how wise the Esta blishment is. If, with 

its stockpile of arms, it resolves to suppress the dissenters, America will face, 

I fear, an awful ordeal.

Mr. Findley. Thank you, Mr. Rosenthal. Before we begin the 

questioning, I ’d like to welcome those who are here this morning 

and to state just a few facts about these hearings. This is an informal, unofficial panel representing a group of us who had the 

intense desire to provide a suitable forum for college students in 

which they could present the ir views on Southeast Asia policy. 

On this panel are Dante Fascell of Florida and Vernon Thomson of 

Wisconsin, both members, like myself, of the House Committee on 

Foreign Affairs; Edward Boland of Massachusetts, a senior member 

of the House Committee on A pprop riations and Floyd Hicks of the 

State of Washington, a member of the Committee on Armed Services. Howard Robison of New York, a member of the Appropriations Committee, was with us yesterday but had to return to his 

home state today. After the 10-minute oral presentation by witnesses, we will take turns on the panel, each asking one question of 

the witness in rotation and then when the 10-minute period is up we 

will go to the next witness.
Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Mr. Rosenthal, are you saying th at the Congress or the establishment should grab the chance to do what you want it to do? Or, we’d better do it, or face the 

consequences ?

Mr. Rosenthal. No, my statement is not a threat. My statement is an hypothesis of what might happen. My first statement, as I said, was individual decisions should be made. My individual decision is tha t this war is wrong. This war is immoral; this war is useless. Many people have come to tha t conclusion. I wish not to impose my point of view on the war on the Members of Congress. I wish to express it. I wish to say tha t both goals which I alluded to, one being ending the war in Vietnam, another one a better society— stopping pollution, poverty and racism—seem to be goals which I certainly hope tha t Congress also shares. What T do see though is tha t I think tha t by gettin g out of Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, tha t perhaps we can join forces with the youth of today in try ing to combat these problems. I sense an intense frustration. I sense two methods, two reactions to this frustration. One is withdrawal, the other one is violence. I find both of them to be undesirable.

Mr. Fascell. I wasn’t quarreling with your observations. I thin k tha t these are probably valid. But what I was questioning, however, was that if “the system, th e establishment” or the Congress, didn’t do what you suggest, then we’re all lousy, we’re stupid, we’re cynical, we’re not responsive, we’re not to be trusted, politics is bad, and the system is bad.” I don’t follow the logic of that, but tha t is your 

point.

Mr. Rosenthal. Pre tty much, I guess. My point is tha t if the system remains unresponsive, to the need, the needs of peace and the need for solving our internal problems, then democracy depends on this government being responsive to its people. And if it’s not being responsive to the needs of its people, then I fear, as I said, I ’m personally not an advocate of this violence. I do not advocate violence in any form whether it be revolution on the streets or it be 

in Vietnam-----

Air. F ascell. I ’ve gone beyond my time, but I think we will agree 

tha t the response should be to all and not some.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Air. Boland. You’ve indicated, Ed, tha t you don’t think the gov­ ernment is responsive to the needs of the people. Do you really mean that, tha t it doesn’t respond to the needs of the people, that this system under which you and I and all of us live, doesn’t respond, 

or doesn’t it respond rapidly enough ?

Air. Rosenthal. Perhaps the latter. However, when I look at— to explain the view of today’s youth—when we look out and we see the Defense budget and we look at the budget for education—it seems to us to be rather dichotomous. As I said, military represents death, education represents life, to us. And we see the racism, we see the poverty in the ghettos. These problems all plague us and the obser­ vation of our country at war, and the possibility of more lives being lost in a war that has been recognized as hopeless, is just amazing.

Air. F indley. Air. Hicks.

Air. Hicks. No questions.
142

Mr. Findley. Mr. Rosenthal, I heard about a year ago Herman 

Kahn of the Hudson Institute , forecast tha t the United States now 

has the capacity as an economic unit to mobilize to the extent of 

perhaps four hundred billion dollars a year in case of war emergency, way beyond what we did in World War II. If that’s the 

case, it would seem tha t our Nation could produce what’s needed to 

deal with the problems of pollution and other domestic problems 

and at the same time continue to invest about $30 billion a year in 

Vietnam, if it has the will. W hat’s your reaction to that?

Mr. Rosenthal. Well, I certainly would hope the country could 

be mobilized to solve these present problems. However, one thing 

I have noted about the war in Vietnam. The question to me is the 

hopelessness of it. How can we win tha t war in Vietnam? By defoliation? By mass killing? In other words, by disruption, by clearing out areas? And to me, this defoliation of Vietnam, the displacement of the villages and things like tha t, it’s a terrible crime in itself. 

The question is. do we want to remain in Vietnam ? Does it serve our 

national interest? In effect, does it serve the interests of the people 

in South Vietnam? And I would tend to say it does neither. You 

know, we jus t don’t stay in a war because we have the ability to do 

it. I understand the military has the ability to fight, what is it, two 

large wars and one small one; but just because we have the ability 

to do it, doesn’t mean we should go out and fight these wars.

Mr. Findley. I certainly agree. Are there any other questions? 

If not, thank you very much, Air. Rosenthal, for your statement 

and for taking the trouble to be here. It was a very helpful contribution.

Mr. Najam of H arvard Law School. Do I have your name correct, 

Air. Najam? You are a resident of Bloomington, Ind. Welcome, Air. 

Najam.

Air. Najam. Thank you, sir. Let me begin by identifying myself. 

Aly name is Ted Najam, I am 22 years old, I am a graduate of 

Indiana University where I served as student body president last 

year. I am currently at Harvard University Law School and though 

I have lived, worked and demonstrated in Washington before, on 

this particula r occasion I have been here for 2 weeks working for 

the Hatfield-AlcGovern amendment, No. 609.

STATEMENT BY TED NAJAM, HARVARD LAW SCHOOL

Air. Najam. I wish to thank Congressman Findley and his colleagues for extending this invitation to young people so th at we may 

present our views on national policy as it relates to Southeast Asia. 

Those of us who have come to AVashington indicate by our presence 

that we still have some faith in this system. Alany of our brothers 

and sisters have already given up and have eithe r dropped out or 

have turned to destructive endeavors. Each of us must object in 

his own way. I am here today to register my indignation over what 

is happening to my country, hopeful tha t we may regain our senses 

and find our humanity before it is too late.

It should be obvious that the United States must terminate its 

Southeast Asian misadventure immediately if it is to retain credibility abroad and viability at home. Our continued presence there
143

has diminished rather than strengthened our stature in the world community and it has deeply divided our people. In order to justify our activities in Southeast Asia, members of both parties in both the executive and legislative branches of gov­ ernment have continually relied upon a distorted version of the history and politics of the area. In so doing, the significance of nationalism as the principal driving force in the developing nations of the third world has been obscured. And the American people 

have been misled. From the beginning our intervention has been characterized by the misapplication of a military solution to a political problem. While we profess a deep commitment to self-determination, while we claim to be helping the South Vietnamese defend themselves from an “invasion” from the North, we have in fact been pa rtic ipa t­ ing in their civil war. And in the name of freedom we supp ort a corrupt regime which refuses to broaden its political base, which imprisons its political opposition, which restricts freedom of the press, and which ties our hands at the conference table. I object to this folly. I object to a brutal and immoral war for which my brothers have been conscripted and sent to die. I object to the cold bureaucratic jargon which has obscured the agony of this war: kill ratios, body counts, search and destroy missions, pro ­ tective reaction, pacification, and now the ultimate in Pentagonese, Vietnamization. The fact is tha t we have killed and wounded thousands of human beings, have left thousands homeless, and have bombed and scorched the earth for no good reason. It is difficult to understand those who deplore violence in the streets and on the campuses but who at the same time perpetrate this kind of violence abroad. Now the President has sent combat troops into Cambodia in order, we are told, to shorten the war. This kind of inverted logic makes as much sense as pouring gasoline on a fire to put it out. The Pre si­ dent has also told us tha t he will accept full responsibility for this invasion and for its consequences. This is a preposterous assertion. In fact, the entire American people must bear the responsibility for and the consequences of this decision. Opposition to our presence in Southeast Asia has now reached the point at which this Nation may well be ungovernable until we get out. Not until we extricate ourselves from this mad adventure will it be possible for the divisiveness, the self-doubt, and the despair which ha unt our people to give way to some sense of harmony. And I am confident that there will be little business as usual on the Nation’s campuses until this senseless foreign escapade has been concluded. If this were ever in doubt, the massacres at Kent State University and at Jackson State College have assured that. It has become open hunting season on students, and white middle-class America is now beginning to understand the terr or tha t black America has known for some time. The inflammatory rhetoric of the Vice President has exposed a frightenin g lack of perception. He has appealed to people’s fears and prejudices rather than to their intelligence and good sense. Not­ withstanding Mr. Agnew’s assertions, the discontent among the young people in this country is not confined to extremist elements
144

but it is widespread. It runs deep, from the ghetto to the suburb, 

among the sons and daughters of both poor and affluent America.

And it will not just go away. While young people do not have all 

the answers, we are raising har d and legitimate questions. And 

most of us are no longer willing to give public officials the benefit 

of the doubt as a matter of course. We are tired of rhetoric. We are 

tired of obfuscation. We want the truth.

The most fundamental question before the American people is 

whether we can successfully retain control over our own political 

institutions. This government belongs to the people, and it is incumbent upon those who hold the public trust to provide honest, ♦

unequivocal, and nonpartisan leadership. Since tha t leadership is 

not coming from the White House, the burden rests squarely upon 

the Congress.

The issue is the war. It must be stopped. It is not worth one more *

life. It is not worth one more dollar. It is not worth the stress it 

has placed upon the fabric of our society.

I urge Members of the House of Representatives to support and 

to work for an amendment to the Military Procurement Authorization Act (H.R. 17123) to cut off funds for all military activity in 

Southeast Asia. Such legislation is clearly within the constitutional 

prerogative of the Congress. Mister Justice Jackson said, “While 

Congress cannot deprive the President of the command of the 

Army and Navy, only Congress can provide him with an army or 

navy to command.” Youngstown Sheet & Tube v. Sawyer, 343 U.S.

579, 644 (1952). In fact, only a few months ago. Congress exercised 

this power when in the 1970 Defense Appropriations Act it prohibited the use of funds appropriated bv tha t act “to finance the 

introduction of American ground combat troops into Laos or 

Thailand.”

Clearly the President’s authority as Commander in Chief arises 

only afte r the Congress has exercised its authority to “raise and 

support armies,” as provided by article 1, section 8, clause 12 of 

the U.S. Constitution. If our system of checks and balances is to 

have meaning, Congress must exercise its proper constitutional role 

and check the unauthorized assertion of Executive power. Congress 

must act immediately to bring U.S. participation in this war to an 

end, not just in Cambodia, but in all of Indochina. To do otherwise •

is to abdicate its responsibility to the American people.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. No questions.

Air. Findley. Air. Boland. •

Air. Boland. Ted, you’ve indicated tha t you’ve been down here 

working for the AIcGovern-Hatfield-Goodell resolution. As you 

know, tha t doesn’t pull us out of Southeast Asia immediately, it 

sets a particu lar date. Throughout your statement here you indicate 

we ought to get out tomorrow. What really is your position here?

Air. Najam. I would agree with you tha t that is misleading. By 

“immediately” I mean setting a specific time at which our troops 

will be home—absolutely by the end of the fiscal year 1971. I do 

not consider tha t to be a precipitous withdrawal. I consider tha t to 

be an orderly withdrawal which can be accomplished without endangering the lives of our troops. Tha t is what I mean by immediately.
145

Mr. Boland. I can assure you that there are a number of Mem­ bers on this side of the Capitol building tha t share tha t conviction, too. W hat specifically are you doing in this area? You say you are down here working, or you have been down here for the past couple of weeks—you came down here a couple of weeks ago and have been here ever since, working in the interests—you have been working in passing the AIcGovern-Goodell bill. Wh at have you been doing 

specifically ?

Mr. Najam. Well, of course, my first obligation was to visit the Indiana congressional delegation, both the House and Senate. I ’ve 

seen most of them. I ’ve been telephoning, writing material, working on petitions, various kinds of activities. Some of it’s rath er mundane actually, 

but it’s needed.

Mr. Boland. Have you been getting anywhere?

Mr. Najam. I think* we’ve been making progress. We are in con­ tact with people around the country, funds are coming in, peti­ tions are coming in; we’re trying to build or establish and bring together the grassroots support th at’s there and hasn’t quite yet 

found itself.

Mr. Boland. Well, I want to commend you for doing what you’re doing. You’re taking part in the political process and you are satis­ fied you are making some headway, and I think doing what you are doing, and feeling that you are getting someplace, does indicate tha t if you work within the—favorite expression—within the sys­ tem, tha t actually the system does respond and can respond.

Mr. Najam. Congressman, I might add that the system has not yet responded, only certain Members of the House and Senate have responded, and I also might add tha t the situation in the House of Representatives is much more dismal with regard to the kind of legislation tha t the Hatfield-McGovem amendment represents.

Mr. Boland. Well, as you say, the system has not responded but 

the system does respond with this kind of activity.

Mr. Najam. I hope i t does.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Thomson.

Air. Thomson. No questions.

Mr. F ascell. Mr. Chairman, have we got time yet?

Air. Findley. Sure, go ahead.

Air. Fascell. Do you want the truth?

Air. Najam. Yes, sir.

Air. Fascell. Why should the Congress respond to a minority group of leaders who are out here lobbying to get an amendment passed? Do you assert tha t you represent the majority view in 

the country?

Air. Najam. I thin k that the distinction between the majority and minority views is one that has been overstressed, sir. This government—

Air. F ascell. How is it overstressed? How is the Congressman 

supposed to judge?

Mr. Najam. I ’m about to explain that, sir. This Government can­ not govern effectively if a sizable minority of its people is unwill­ ing to cooperate with it, The idea of ruling this Government by 

poll is abhorrent to me.
146

Mr. Fascell. It is abhorrent to me, too, and the Congress, therefore, has to exercise its judgment in determining what the people 

want. You say you don’t know vet. You haven’t been able to coalesce 

the grassroots opinion to support the cause you’re for, even though 

we may be for what you’re for.

Mr. Najam. That’s not exactly what I said. sir.

Mr. Fascell. Oh, I ’m sorry.

Mr. Najam. I would suggest that this society is about ready to 

split at the seams. I ’m looking toward our institutions to respond, 

to save us from that dilemma.

Mr. Fascell. If society splits at the seams, why wouldn’t the institutions split at the seams?

Mr. Najam. That’s precisely the point, sir. I have faith in our 

institutions. I hope tha t they are sufficiently flexible. I would add 

tha t I think the central question facing this country is whether our 

tradition al ways of conducting the public business will prove to be 

sufficiently responsible for the powerful forces at work in our society. I ’m not altogether sure that they are. That’s why I'm here.

Mr. Fascell. I appreciate that, and I ’m not arguing with your 

position at all. I want to know what the trut h of the subject is. We 

are not an inanimate structure. We are people. We respond to people. We don’t work in an elevator shaft, going up and down.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Najam, on page 2, you speak very critically 

of inflamatorv rhetoric. And I agree, that inflamatorv rhetoric has 

no place, especially in periods of great tension such as we have today. And yet I wonder if possibly here and there you may have 

slipped into that same situation yourself. In the preceding par agrap h you say, “It has become open hunting season on students.” 

Is tha t really the tru th? We have at least 1.200 institutions of 

higher learning in this country. We have thousands of high schools, 

elementary schools. It is true there have been some brutal killings, 

but is it really correct to say that it has become “open hunting 

season on students?” Isn ’t that inflamatorv rhetoric?

Mr. Najam. I ’d like to respond bv making several points. Firs t. 

I ’m not the Vice President of the United States, and I think that 

as a public official he has a greater responsibility to refra in from 

rhetoric which would divide this country than I as an individual 

citizen do. I would draw tha t basic distinction. To answer your 

question, open hu nting season on students is a bit excessive. It is a 

dramatic way of stating the kind of things tha t many students feel. 

In a stric t sense, it is an overstatement. But I think to explain, we 

have an expression among young people. It’s called “bringing it 

all home.” I th ink that the killings at Kent State and Jackson State 

College do bring it all home to a significant number of young people 

who have heretofore been concerned, yet not really aware that this 

can and is on occasion a very brutal society. I think I mention this 

because I feel tha t it has served as an awakening. Jus t one example. 

The kinds of people who have appeared to protest in Washington 

over the last few weeks are significantly a new breed, a new constituency. It ’s not just the old peace people who have been reinvigorated by the President’s invasion of Cambodia. It is a lot of people 

who have been shocked and who have not up till this time participated or been moved to act. But in a strict sense, you’re right.
147

Mr. Fascell. Th at’s a significant political analysis. Yon should 

have said that earlier.

Mr. Najam. Well I said it now, so at least I got it in. [Lau ghte r.]

Mr. Findley. We thank you very much, Mr. Najam, for your 

statement.

Mr. Najam. Thank you for your time and attention.

Mr. Findley. It was very helpful. Next on the schedule are John Marron and his associates. Is John Marron here? Joh n Marron and three colleagues from John s Hop­ kins University. John , am I correct tha t with you are Spencer War­ ren, Tim Kana, and I assume th at Steven Buckingham is not here. 

Is tha t correct? Please proceed.

STATEMENT BY JOHN MARRON, JOHNS HOPKINS UNI VER SITY

Mr. Marron. Today wc find ourselves tryi ng desperately to live up to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, which demands by its democratic conception the silence of the majority of people it represents, so that a single representative voice can be heard. Be­ tween this silent majority and the representative voice of the admin­ istration, there exists an extensive system of checks and balances tha t mediate the many different voices of the not-so-silent minority which remains. The fact tha t we are meeting here today is testi­ mony th at, despite the cybicism of the radical or the blind faith of the reactionary, the Constitution and the ideals of democracy are still alive and well. I would like to thank all the representatives responsible for this dialog, not for the opportunity to speak, but for their obvious willingness to listen and to translate the various words of the not-so-silent minority into the one quiet voice th at the administration may listen to. Early in August of 1964, two U.S. destroyers came under North Vietnamese attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. This incident led imme­ diately to the Tonkin Gulf Resolution which the administration rammed throu gh Congress with little debate and without sufficient knowledge of the actual sequence of events. Thus, August 6 became a turning point in the escalation of the war. The constitutional powers of checks and balances had failed. Because the administration was either unwilling to investigate the incident thoroughly or “for the public good” decided to classify this “secret information” there arose from the people of the country a deafening silence which al­ lowed the administration to make an inevitable human mistake. It was not until February of 1968, nearly 4 years and thousands of Vietnamese and American lives late, tha t the Senate Foreign Rela­ tions Committee reexamined the Tonkin Gulf incidents and found that: The administration had suppressed inform ation; the destroyers, Maddox and Turner Joy. were actually on a spying maneuver; and at some time the destroyers had illegally crossed international boundaries into North Vietnam waters. Does this render President Johnson’s “constitutionally legal” justi­ fication for the war, all these years, null and void or do we let it set a precedent for all similar undeclared acts of war, such as the Cam­ bodian invasion. Strict constructionists would, of course, disagree and show that there have already been many precedents for Presi-
14S

dent Nixon’s action on May 7 and for our 10-year intervention 

in Vietnam.

In Fleming versus Page (1850), Chief Justice Taney states that, 

“He (the President) may invade the hostile country, and subject it 

to the sovereignty and auth ority of the United State s; but his conquests must not enlarge the boundaries of this Union, nor extend 

the operation of our institutions or laws beyond the limits, before 

assigned to them by legislative power.” Was Cambodia’s inability 

to dispel the Vietcong from their country to be considered an act 

of a “hostile country?” Were their requests for arms and supplies 

an open or secret invitation to send “military advisers” to Pnom 

Penh or for 40,000 troops to penetrate from 22 to 35 miles into their 

country? Have we not enlarged the boundaries of the United States 

by making South Vietnam the unofficial 51st S tate in the Union?

The Prize Cases of 1863 allowed Lincoln to advance his “war 

power” by enforcing the blockades of Southern ports, after the attack on Fort Sumter. Speaking for the majority of th e court, Justice 

Grier sustained Lincoln’s theory by saying:

If wa r be made by invasion of a foreign natio n, the President is not only 

authorized but is bound to accept the challenge witho ut waiting for any legislativ e authority. And whethe r the hostile par ty be a foreign invader or states 

organized in rebellion, it is nonetheless a war, although the declaration of it be 

unilateral.

The United States v. Curtis Wright Corp., which suspends the 

authority of Congress if it does not delegate its power, allowed 

FDR to say that, “In the event tha t Congress should fail to act, 

and act adequately, I shall accept the responsibility, and I will 

act * * * out of the inescapable responsibility to the people of this 

country.” I believe that, indeed, President Nixon’s motives are to 

save as many lives in Vietnam as possible, but unfortunately, the 

final cost in lives here and abroad will be much greater. Joseph Story 

wrote in his commentary: “The propriety of admitting the President to be Commander in Chief, so far as to give orders, and have 

a general superintendency was admitted. But it was argued tha t it 

would be dangerous to let him command in person, without any 

restraints, as he might make bad use of it. The consent of both 

Houses of Congress ought, therefore, to be required, before he should 

take actual command.” Both Presidents Johnson and Nixon have 

not. asked the Houses of Congress to “advise and consent” on their 

proposed military defenses of democratic foreign governments. 

Under the aegis of the Tonkin Gulf resolution, they have ordered 

full-scale bombing and defoliation of North Vietnam, the increase 

of troop levels to over 500,000 men, and the waging of a fatal ground 

war in Southeastern Asia. Is this the “bad use” of military power 

of which Joseph Story spoke?

It is true tha t Woodrow Wilson, in 1918, resolved the question 

of an independent American command on the western front, and tha t 

Truman in 1945 ordered tha t the bomb be dropped on Hiroshima and 

Nagasaki, but the American people and the presidential military 

advisers were generally in agreement. From the start of the Vietnam war, however, military advisers have continually struggled to 

wage war despite the interference of politicians from back home. 

A certain minority of the public, primarily the academic-journalistic
149

complex, also protested the waging of the war, not for reasons of strategy and politics, bnt on moral grounds. The President has been the victim of onslaughts from both sides, but continued to make the decisions tha t were humanly possible to make. Tragically, for the country and the President, they have been the wrong ones. “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual service of the United States,” but the President and all those tha t support an undeclared war shall not be President or representatives of the people any longer if their sup­ porters do not vote them into office next term. We, as students of voting age, intend to do just tha t in this election, the next election and in as many elections there after as it takes to restore the values of peace to this country. The days of Washington rallies are oyer. We have become numb to the deaths of 40,000 Americans in Viet­ nam, to astronaut’s possible deaths in space flights, to the diet of violence from every media, and even to the deaths of those in Au­ gusta, Kent State, and Jackson State. We are told tha t when we practice dissent, we must expect such violence. This numbing process is an addiction to still further means of satisfying our great need for peace. Some say revolution, whatever tha t has come to mean as a fashionable phrase. Some say democracy. And some say, like me, I would ra ther get out and do it myself. Robert Packwood of Oregon, the youngest man in the Senate, commented on the May 17 “Meet the Press” program tha t if a million to a million and a half college students work for peace candidates next November; that if the voting age is lowered to 18; and tha t if every 21-year-old student voted; there would be such a ground swell of political opinion as to upset all future priorities of this country. I couldn’t agree with him more. In the 1968 election of the eligible 21-25-year-old people, only one-third voted and President Nixon won by 0.7 of 1 percent. This in itself is significant, but coupled with 4.8 percent unemployment, the GNP deflator at 6 percent instead of the announced 5 percent, the failure of law and order, and the increase of racial tension; one can only guess where the vote for the system, but against the men re­ sponsible, will lead. I think that all the far-sighted people in my age group want to be there to find out. Thank you for your time. 

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much, Mr. Marron. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Marron, we have had some excellent presentations here since we started yesterday morning. They have been well thought out. The people who have spoken have been articulate, emotionally involved, and committed, but I dare say that on page 4 startin g with your last paragraph, we finally got to the root of the subject as far as this Congressman is concerned. I thin k you’ve finally brought it home. You’ve told it like it is. You’ve got to the heart of the matter. What really counts is w hat you’ve got in tha t last paragraph which says, “Those of us who believe like we do are going to keep at it until we get every­ body convinced th at this is the right thing to do.” I admire you, I 

salute you.

Mr. Marron. I thin k it is necessary to develop how one comes to the last conclusion. I think some of the rest may be filler in the sense tha t it doesn’t come to the point, it is more or less a diffuse
150

argument, recitation of court cases, and what has happened before. 

But I think tha t it is necessary for the country to realize tha t students aren’t just reading the pamphlets they find in their mailboxes. 

Mr. Fascell. I agree with you.

Mr. Marron. They are not just getting leaflets. They aren’t just 

listening to the New York Times or the Village Voice or whatever. 

They are reading other newspapers. They are reading congressional 

reports, and so forth.

Air. Fascell. I think having a sound base fo r your conclusion will 

support your actions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. I would agree with my colleague, Air. Fascell. I ’m 

sure tha t all of the members who sat on the committee yesterday— 

and there were a great number of them who came in and sat in addition to those who comprise this ad hoc committee—a great number 

of Alembers of Congress are interested in this and the reaction of 

students. What Air. Fascell said with respect to the statements is 

true. The statements tha t were presented yesterday and those tha t 

have been presented this morning I think have been extremely well 

done. The language has been put together well. I think it extremely 

fine language, and yours is no exception.

And as Air. Fascell indicated, one of the ways to correct some of 

the things t hat you object to and a lot of those who will appear and 

have appeared object to is by going out and doing something about 

it, and this is bv taking p art in campaigns. It is true that in the last 

presidential election only one-third of those between the ages of 21 

and 35 voted. This has been true with practically all elections, too. 

It is rather amazing tha t this has not changed. It may change this 

year. You indicated tha t perhaps it will. So in many contests around 

the United States the students will be pouring in on behalf of their 

particu lar candidate. Aly question to you is what happens if you 

lose in those contests?

Air. AIarron. I think the upshot of the McCarthy election shows 

tha t although students at the time were somewhat frustrate d and 

some were giving up hope, shows t hat because of the media, there 

were other issues, because students will always need issues. Hopefully they won’t just need them when they are in college, when they 

are in the vacuum of an education tha t provides a great amount of 

time, a great amount of ideas tha t they can use within their own 

ranks and also just friction with the system. But hopefully they will 

go after their college years, out, not only into their communities, 

but also come to AArashington, come to the bodies of representative 

government and can express the ir own views, perhaps in a different 

way, but at least register the ir opinion.

Air. Boland. You know, you are going to be dealing with a great 

number of people when you are campaigning in particular areas 

around the United States, and you’re going to be dealing in areas 

where a lot of people may not agree with all of the things that you 

desire, of course.

Mr. AIarron. I come from Phoenix, Ariz., and I think there are 

quite a few people in tha t area of the country who disagree with a 

great many of the things I have said.

Air. Boland. I think tha t is probably true. But I would hope tha t 

those who do get involved in contests—I thin k you ought to be care-
151

ful about the particular candidate tha t you may support. I think you’ve got to look at the whole man. Not just in regard to the peace issue alone, or the war issue. I think there are a lot of other factors that have to be considered here. Would you agree to that?

Mr. Marron. Oh, definitely. But I thin k tha t peace or war are partial to many of the other issues at this particular time. I think tha t as a startin g point, tha t they are valid issues. I agree that one should go on and look much deeper—to community problems, municipal problems, and national problems.

Air. Boland. There are a great number of people back home who

• will be looking at the total man. Not just what his outlook may be 

on just one issue.

Mr. Marron. I agree, that’s why I brought up the problems which are going on within the economy right now because if you

* hit someone obviously in their pocketbook, tha t they ’re going to 

see that.

Mr. Boland. Thank you very much.

Mr. Warren. Congressman, may I add something to that point? My name is Spencer Warren. Regarding that, “What would we do if we lost.” The excuse fo r a lot of the violence today on th e part of students is that the system doesn’t work. But I ’d like to say tha t I don’t agree with tha t because I think tha t if we look at 1968, there was a very strong possibility tha t Robert Kennedy would have won the Democratic nomination and perhaps the Presidency. Now the sys­ tem cannot be asked to compensate events such as assassinations. Ad­ ditionally, I think tha t students tend to feel tha t if they can’t get people to agree with them, then the system is failing. This isn’t true. Vietnam is not a question of an inalienable right such as free speech. If they can’t get people to agree with them, then they are in a minority, they get outvoted and that’s it. I would like to make an elaboration, if 1 may, about the failure of law and order. Wha t we mean bv tha t is the increasing lawlessness in our country today, and I think this ought to be the main context in which we view the Vietnam conflict, a part from the military right or wrong of the Cambodian invasion, or the success of Vietnamization, et cetera. Blit we speak today of increasing lawlessness. First of all, by the Presi­ dent and his unilateral action in invading Cambodia. Ap art from the

> specifics of the debate upon the constitutionality of this, I think everyone would agree that the Constitution does not mean tha t one man should have the right to lead our country into war, and I think this is what President Nixon has done in Cambodia. His justification

« for this could be used to attack Russia or China for that matter by saying we are protecting our troops by cuttin g off sources of weap­ ons for the enemy. This leads to increasing lawlessness by the Gov­ ernment, and this is apparent, of course, in Jackson, Miss., and in Augusta, Ga. In New York we have, I suppose, America’s modern day brown shirts wearing construction caps. There are reports that the police just watched and some even aided the construction workers when they were beating students and other people. This is what reallv concerns me because even if we win the war in Vietnam, if freedom is destroyed in this country as we continually slide down the road toward lawlessness, and terror and violence replace the rule of law, then this country will just go r igh t down the drain.
152

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks?

Mr. Hicks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to commend the 

last speaker here, Mr. Warren. One of the things tha t disturbed me 

yesterday was the number of young people who kept saying how 

frustrated they are going to be if they don’t win. I think tha t the 

response th at you take is the proper one—to get out and work, and 

if you can get the votes, then you win. I think the vote on the 

amendment the other day to try to restrict funds on the military 

procurement bill showed about the proportional representation that 

you’ve got here in the Congress based upon how many people got 

elected on that. About 146 in the House, or some such number. All 

you can do is get out and work, and if you win, fine. I f you don’t, go 

back and try again.

I commend your statement. Both of you.

Mr. Warren. Thank you.

Mr. Findley. Let’s go to the next question. Mr. Thomson. Mr. 

Mize. Are there any other questions ?

Mr. Warren. Yes, I ’d like to address this to Mr. Hicks in regard 

to what he just said. I think th at the statistics of the 1968 election just 

point out tlie fact tha t the people th at we should direct our political 

campaign action toward are our own age group. If we can get our 

own age group to vote. I ’m quite certain tha t the people tha t our 

age group as a whole wants will be in. In this day and age, presidential elections, congressional elections, senatorial elections, you 

name it, are decided by, n ot millions of votes, but tens of thousands 

and even thousands of votes, and, yes Mr. Fascell, even hundreds. I 

thin k tha t this just points up the fact tha t if we can get our own 

age group to vote, then we are in.

Air. Fascell. You’ve got it made.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much for a very good contribution.

The next witness scheduled is Bob Hubbard of Xavier University. 

Mr. Ford will present the statement, is th at correct ?

STATEMENT BY MICHAEL F. FORD, XAV IER UNIVERSITY

Air. Ford. Good morning gentlemen. It is indeed an honor to address this gathering, and we are grateful for your interest in our 

opinions. The possibility of our having a meaningful exchange of 

ideas is enhanced by our shared frustrations as well as our mutual 

concern for the solution of our Nation’s problems. Indeed, fru stration is seemingly one of the only factors tha t is shared by most 

Americans today. This virtual ubiquity of frustration leads us at 

once to investigate it further . The psychological reactions to fru stration are for the most p art, aggression, apathy and withdrawal, fixation, and regression. Americans today are exhibiting these reactions 

in varying degrees and forms.

I am here however, to speak as a student, particula rly as a student 

representing my university.

The touchstone for student frustrations seems generally to be resultant of a helplessness in attem pting to effect a change in policies 

that they feel to be immoral, illogical, or perhaps most im portantly, 

inhumane. On our campus, our most recent reactions have not been 

typical ones, at least in our geographical area (Ohio), as obviated
153

by the fact that we were one of the two major universities in the State of Ohio that remained open thoughout the recent campus dis­ turbances. Opinion on our campus concerning Southeast Asia and national policies in general, runs the gamu t from those who are in agreement with the present policy, to those who are diametrically opposed. This polarization is not unusual, yet the volume of concern, regardless of which direction it may lean toward, is unusual. This concentrated interest on our campus seems to have been effectively channeled, through administration and student compromise and ef­ fort. Tranquility on our campus was maintained and we submit tha t perhaps this is so because students though t that they were heard. This approach, we feel, is appropriate to educational institutions, but evidence surrounding us indicates that this method is ineffective on the national level. As students fail to effect change on national issues tha t they regard as vastly important, then their frustration is m ulti­ plied. The psychological reactions of student frustrations are here illustrated clearly. Aggression has been, and is increasingly being used as an out by some, as indicated by recent violent campus out­ bursts. The violence we speak of is sometimes emotionally initiated, yet some violence is calculated with the consideration tha t people do listen when violence is utilized. We do not intend to imply that we condone violence for students, nor do we condone it for anyone else, however, we do empathize to an extent with some of the ini­ tiato rs of the violence, knowing their frustration. Apathy, too, is in evidence to the extent tha t some students thin k tha t the chance for their effecting change is virtu ally impossible. At this time such a group among the student population may be considered as the silent minority rather than a majority. The silent number will increase only as the majority feels they are faced with an insurmountable 

frustration in the ir efforts. We feel tha t a dialogue such as this would be incomplete if we were not to offer some tangible solutions to our shared dilemma. We are not disregarding the value of spontaneous discussion, however we think t ha t this occasion provides an outstanding opportunity for us to offer what we think to be some constructive solutions. First, realizing tha t student opinion is varied on national issues, we think tha t for us to take a definite stand at this time on any particular issue, would not serve any function beyond tha t of re­ leasing a pressure valve for ourselves and for you as well. Rather, we are urging that a constructive channel be opened to receive the physical and intellectual energies of the student population. Cont sequently, we are strongly urging each of you as legislators to vote for, and to attempt to garner sufficient support for the Voting Rights Act of 1970, which if passed, would permit young Americans to vote at age 18. The vote is the classic form of American political partici­ pation, and the students are ready for it. We feel that the urgency of the situation warrants action by the U.S. Congress in this area. Hopefully, they will take the initiative rath er than allow the in­ evitable delay th at would result if it were to go through the State legislatures. Southeast Asia is, we believe, merely an example of a more basic problem. We are merely asking that students be perm itted to participate in the governmental process which affects us so greatly. 

46 -4 S7 — 7 0 —— 11
154

Second, we suggest tha t the gentlemen of Congress include a 

youth advisor on their staffs, who could serve as an information 

source for the congressman as well as for the constituency. We applaud the President’s creation of such a position in the Department 

of Health, Education, and Welfare, in the Office of Education, and 

we regret the difficulties which tha t office has run into. However, 

we suggest tha t an extension of such a program could conceivably 

provide valuable experience, an information base, and an opportunity to increase sensitivity for all parties involved. Such an arrangement would permit youth to participa te in the governmental 

process beyond the mere stuffing o f envelopes. •

Third, we are urging tha t hearings such as these be scheduled 

on a continuing basis. We regard this occasion as an excellent opportunity for us and hope t ha t others may be afforded the same opportunity. Along the same lines however, we do not intend to indicate *

tha t communication in such areas is to be a one-sided affair. To 

insure this on our campus, we are sponsoring a forum on political 

education. This forum will not be intended merely as an opportunity 

for student expression. We are inviting each of you to come to our 

campus to express your views to us in November, and we will ask 

you questions. Hopefully, other universities will follow suit, and 

perhaps we m ight learn to empathize as we are expecting you to do.

We ask tha t you, as well as students, deal with the world as it is 

and not disregard things because they are new or because they are 

old.

Admittedly, the fact tha t todays student population has been 

brought up in a technological society where news media is capable 

of transmitting information with great speed, and where movie and 

television conflicts are resolved in short periods of time, could lead 

us, unreasonably perhaps, to demand too much too fast. Yet, on the 

other hand, we also feel tha t the government in its frustration falls 

into a psychological fixation of its own whereby its adaptability 

to change is reduced through stress and outmoded tradition.

We endorse strongly the growing youth movement tha t is attempting to work within the system. Yet, we think that the system, as 

it is now, has atrophied relative to its potential participa tion; which 

is the fault of the people, not of the system. We furthe r think that 

our system was originally constructed intentionally to provide for • 

change, not to prevent it.

The crv for participation by youth must be answered lest aggression an d/o r apathy reach epidemic proportions. I f this were to occur, 

we will have reached a point of social entropy and, resulting from 

this, we would ultimately face anarchy.

This issue is furthered by the awareness of ever-present dichotomies in our our society. The dichotomy of pursuing peace through 

war, or the social polarities in our system are dealt with only after 

the fact of a tragedy such as in Kent, Ohio, or in Mississippi. By 

definition a social problem is considered a problem only when it is 

recognized by, and I quote, a “significant group within society.”

By the time a problem is recognized it has usually reached monumental proportions. I feel tha t the function of government must 

extend beyond dealing with problems afte r the fact and even go 

beyond dealing with problems in the present because the complexity
155

of such problems might lead us to consider them even after they 

have already passed us by. Reviewing inform ation on Vietnam, prepared by the Vietnam 

information group of the National Security Council, I noticed that 

the Chairman of the House Committee on Inte rnal Security went 

to great lengths to prove tha t participa tion in antiw ar demonstrations regardless of motivation would be aiding the cause of the Communists. Such a statement seemingly contradicts the American 

way of life and would indicate that if we did not agree with the 

policy, and we say so, we are aiding communism rather than fu rthering democracy. So we have another dichotomy. For government to deal with and prevent fata l social polarization 

it must anticipate conflict and attem pt to deal with it before it 

happens.

Mr. F indley. Mike, I ’m afraid I have to interrupt at this time, bu t 

we do have a 10-minute question period coming up, and I must say 

tha t of all the splendid statements tha t we have heard, I think 

your presentation was one of the most constructive and useful we 

have had. It went right to practical proposals, and I congratulate 

you and whoever else had to do with preparing it. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say tha t 

the constructive suggestions made in the prepared presentation are 

excellent ones. I have no problem following all three, and I am 

following two of them already, maybe all three of them, since I 

have been to a campus. I ’d like to hear the rest of your points. T ha t’s 

my question.

Mr. Ford. I was almost throu gh anyway. I was saying that the 

Government should try to anticipate the problems and deal with them before they happen. This operation could possibly revitalize 

the country which is divided by misunderstanding and frustration. 

Hopefully, the leaders of our Nation will follow the words of Gandhi 

when he said, “There go my people. I must catch up with them, 

for I am their leader.” Tha t is all I had to say.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. How large of a student body does Xavier University 

have ?

Mr. F ord. It’s a fairly small university with approximately 2,100 

undergraduates, and 6,000 overall including graduate and night 

schools.

Mr. Boland. You have indicated, Mike, tha t there is a diversity 

of opinion of course, with respect to our actions in Southeast Asia 

and Cambodia: that i t’s probably what, split down the middle, is it?

Mr. Ford. No, I wouldn’t say tha t it is evenly split. I would 

estimate th at a little over 50 percent m ight be questioning the actions 

in Southeast Asia.

Mr. Boland. Of the 2,100 students, how many would you say 

came from Ohio?

Air. Ford. I would say at least 60 percent.

Mr. Boland. Th at’s interesting. I have been in Cincinnati and 

think it’s a great city. I ’ve been at Xavier University, too. I think it’s 

a great university. I join with Air. Fascell and the Chairman in 

complimenting all of you on this statement. It is a fine statement,
156

and again I say they all have been fine but some a little more impressive than others, and this is one of them.

Mr. Findley. Air. Hicks? Mr. Thomson? Mr. Mize? Are there 

any other questions? Well, you can tell tha t we’re very impressed 

and appreciate very much your statement. Than k you.

The next witness on the schedule is Kirk Portm an. Is Air. Portman present? He had not checked in a few minutes ago, so we will 

move on to the next one. Air. Bruce Taylor of Rutgers University. 

Is Bruce here?

STATEMENT BY BRUCE W. TAYLOR, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Air. Taylor. Air. Chairman, members of the committee, fellow 

studen ts: I welcome the opportunity to offer the following statement on behalf of the Direct Political Action Committee of Rutgers— 

The State University. We would say, however, tha t we do not consider such a statement to be a sufficient presentation of our position. 

We only offer this statement as one further way to express our 

opinions about the U.S. involvement in Southeast Asia.

Air. Chairman, the conflict in Southeast Asia has dominated the 

lives of many students at Rutgers and in the State of New Jersey. 

AVe have grown up while the war has widened. Our lives have been 

dated by deaths. According to the Defense Department, by the 

week ending February 26, 1970, 1,094 New Jersey residents had been 

killed in Vietnam. Alany of us know of a fellow student who has 

graduated, been drafted, and died.

Alore young people have been brought into the political process 

on this issue than any other issue of our times. Despite all this, it 

has only been in recent weeks tha t the opinions of the young have 

been sought out. It has been and is our feeling tha t where attitudes 

have been ignored or disparaged, where minds have remained shut, 

there is a basis for much of the violence so casually attributed to 

the young.

To many Americans, the events of the past 3 weeks have been 

shocking as well as revealing. Americans who had supported three 

Presidents in their foreign policies, finally took the time to stand 

back and make a careful and logical analysis of what has happened 

over the past years. None of this is new to students. What is new 

is the growing demand on the Congress of the United States to 

represent the interests of the people on this issue.

It is with dismay tha t we have witnessed that, while administrations have changed, foreign policy has remained the same. The 

presidential elections of 1964 and 1968, the first many young people 

took an active role in, were, in part, calls for a new foreign policy. 

It is our belief that those calls have gone unanswered, tha t the 

changes tha t have occurred have had little effect on the posture of 

the United States around the world.

The policies of the past did not serve us well when they were new; 

a determination to act by them now can only lead to tragedies similar to the one we now see in Southeast Asia. Our foreign policy has 

been unimaginative, almost unthinking. Blind reflexiveness has been 

substituted for creative problem-solving. We have responded to the 

overthrow of democracy in Greece with sublime apathy, while com-
1.57

mitting half a million troops to Vietnam, where democracy has never been. We have offered assistance to nations and then demanded tha t they allow U.S. military bases to be built on their soil. We have spoken of our alliance commitments to Southeast Asia where those commitments are so tenuous while we have observed the weak­ ening of our European alliance. Isn ’t it ironic tha t much of tha t weakening is due to the fact of our involvement in this war? The results, then, have been the loss of 45,000 American lives and the lives of more than half a million of Vietnamese, the waste of bil­ lions of dollars to war while in our own country we have not dedi­ cated ourselves to resolving grea t internal crises, and a growing disillusionment on the part of many concerned Americans. It is our feeling that the President of the United States has dictated policies and ordered actions without, at the same time, providing leadership to the people. “C redibility gap ” was a popular phrase during the last administration but, certainly, there has been no gap quite as wide as the current President has left with us. Reports tha t the Secretary of State and the Secretary of Defense did not support the Cambodian actions do little to garner support among the people. Early reports on the success of Cambodian operations based on the flimsiest of evidence, also suggests to Americans that all is not tha t it is stated to be. President Nixon’s recent actions have not added to a foreign policy consensus on the part of Americans. 

Indeed, quite the reverse has occurred. We feel that the President of the United States serves the people poorly when he speaks of the defeat and humiliation we face if we do not pursue his current policies. The President should be re­ minded, as should those of his supporters in Congress, tha t our in­ volvement in Indochina in the past 15 years has proved to be a continuing erosion of American prestige around the world. We feel tha t the President misled the people when he spoke of the United States as the “peacekeeper in Asia.” The President should be reminded that, for whatever reasons, we are viewed as warmakers rath er than peacekeepers. To perpetuate the myth tha t we are re­ garded widely as mediators there is to further the divisions at home 

and among our allies. It is our position tha t Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon have committed the ir country to a policy which is inconsistent with the reality of Southeast Asia. The history of that area of the world is one of foreign domination and peoples versus peoples. The Chinese, the French, the Japanese, and now the United States have played a role, whether we admit it or not, of interloper. The fact tha t the U.S. initial involvement in Indochina was a stand-in for the French and that many of the political “leaders” of South Vietnam since 1954 were pro-French multiplies the confusion of our people and 

our policies. It is our position that the President has not served the people with his remarks about “the most powerful Nation in the world.” The President should be reminded, as should his supporters in Congress, tha t power can be creative and constructive as well as absolute and destructive. Nations should not be judged on the basis of brute force or of stubbomess but on the basis of whether their power can be used effectively towards the peaceful resolution of conflict. Vietnam
158

lias certa inly not been an exercise in efficiency. It would, perhaps, not 

have been an important criticism if the results had not been so 

tragic. We have not only lived with these mistakes and miscalculations but many have died because of them and will continue to do 

so until radical shifts in our way of foreign-policy thinking and 

action occur.

How can you in Congress respond to these problems? We firmly 

believe that the issue now is whether the representatives of the people can reassert their constitutional perogatives in matters of war 

and peace. Some say this is a hopeless task, that too many years 

have gone by to accomplish it. Tha t is the talk of men who are 

resigned to the continuing erosion of constitutional protections of the 

people. Those tha t argue tha t the President must have the power 

to protect troops in the field ignore the fact that, had the Congress 

been vigilant, those troops may not have been in the field. We are 

as interested in protecting American lives as anyone who speaks for 

the current administration. In fact, we believe more so. To this end, 

we urge passage of the Church-Cooper and McGovern-Hatfield 

amendments with the addition concerning air support which are 

presently being discussed in the Senate. In addition, it is long past 

the time when the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution should have been repealed. These actions would, in our view, be active reassertions of 

the perogatives we have spoken about.

Some Congressmen have voiced reservations about the constitutional delicacy of limiting Presidential war powers. Where were 

those Congressmen w’hen the constitutional right of the people’s 

representatives to decide on this war were being ignored? Where 

were those Congressmen when the executive branch committed the 

people of the United State s to such a dishonorable task? Where 

were they when the Congress abdicated its responsibilities in the 

face of executive power? Our representatives have defaulted to the 

Executive in almost every area? Unprecedented executive actions 

have led us into war—unprecedented congressional actions must get 

us out of war.

For many years, this Congress has disavowed tha t it had any 

responsibility for the war in Vietnam. Why, after the Cambodian 

invasion, many Members of this House said, “I disagree but what’s 

done is done.” You can no longer take such a position! We will not 

let yo u! We wish to make clear tha t we hold you responsible for 

this war in the future.

History books tell us that the debates between the Jeffersonians 

and the Hamiltonians were resolved a hundred and seventy years 

ago. And yet, we face the same crisis now as we did then. We would 

remind you tha t tha t debate ended in a victory; those tha t favored 

the power of the people’s representatives over the power of the 

Executive. We can afford no other conclusion in tha t same debate 

today.

Thank you.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much, Mr. Taylor. Mr. Fascell?

Mr. F ascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Taylor, your statement is a very clear presentation and very pointed. I think I can 

agree with everything you said, except I think I must add this, tha t 

where you say had the Congress been vigilant, those troops may not
159

be in the field today, you are absolutely rig ht; except that the 

Congress by voting for all the appropriations, the Congress by passing the practically unlimited authority contained in the Gulf of 

Tonkin resolution, supported all the actions of the President, and 

tha t regardless of how it is interpreted, there is one fundamental 

interpretation, and that is th at the Congress interpreted the will and 

desire of the American people at tha t time.

Mr. Taylor. I agree with that.

Mr. F ascell. So as tha t predicate, you see, I thin k we can lead 

to your next step, which I have no trouble concurring with.

Mr. T aylor. I agree with that, but on the specific issue of military 

appropriations, it lias been clear that these questions on the Vietnam 

war have not been made an issue except by a very few Congressmen. 

I don’t know how many Congressmen voted last year, very few, 

under 40 in the House, I think, voted against military appropriations.

Mr. Fascell. Of course, the vote is picking up as the Congress 

responds to the mood of the country-----

Mr. Taylor. This should be no excuse to continue the position 

which Congress has taken which has really been acquiescence.

Mr. Fascell. Only if the Congress decides or interprets tha t at 

the grass roots that is the real feeling that exists.

Mr. T aylor. I would hope that you would be leaders of the people 

as well as representatives.

Mr. Fascell. When are you a leader and when are you not? One 

thing is for sure, if you’re not in the Congress you can’t be a leader 

in the Congress. As one President has reportedly said, “I t’s tough 

nowadays to tell when you are a leader. You’re never sure whether 

your people are following you or chasing you.” [Laughter.]

Mr. Taylor. My own Congressman’s votes on issues are not consistent with many of the opinions of the people in his district. They 

may respect his opinion because he does try to provide leadership.

Mr. F ascell. I can’t characterize all of the Congress as courageous 

men, and I can’t characterize them as all cowards, but everybody in 

the Congress has cast votes which had a political liability in his 

own district. He had to go home and face it and try to educate his 

people and get re-elected to Congress. But it is a question of interpretation, and I quite agree with you. The only point I wanted to 

make was that at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution there 

were only two votes against it in the entire Congress. All the grea t 

peacemakers were here but they weren’t hearing what their people 

were saying, evidently. Now we are all hearing it. That’s the big 

difference.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Boland?

Mr. Boland. I don’t know tha t actually the Members of Congress were not hearing what the peacemakers were saying back when 

the Gulf of Tonkin resolution—as a matter of fact, we d idn’t have 

any peacemakers in those days. I think t hat was pa rt of the problem. 

I imagine, Bruce, that you were not at Rutgers in those days. I don’t 

know what the attitude at Rutgers was at tha t time. I know what 

it has been over the past few years, though. [Laughter.]

Mr. Taylor. It will continue to be tha t for a long time until this 

war ends; and I believe tha t is 75 percent or 80 percent of the student 

population, not 50 percent.
160

Mr. Boland. And I think you recognize there is a split of opinion 

back home over this issue, too, and I dare say tha t a great number 

of Members of Congress who share your views, have a constituency 

back home tha t perhaps does not share those views. There is a great 

split in middle America and there is a great split among age groups 

with respect to this issue. There are many Members tha t do have 

problems back home-----

Mr. Taylor. I would hope that Members of the House especially, 

who felt tha t they had this kind of opinion back home, could make 

a decision, and then go back to the people and try to influence the *

people; and I think tha t hasn’t been done to a large extent.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Well, I would just point out to the young man what 

he probably already knows, that Senator Morse I believe was one *

of the two who voted against the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and 

while I understand tha t the young people think tha t his replacement 

is very adequate, nonetheless that is just one of the practicalities.

If the country moves, the people in Congress move, maybe not quite 

as fast as you would want to have them move, but as Mr. Fascell so 

pointed out, you can’t lead the people if you are not here. So you 

can be out in front a little ways, but you can’t be out as far as p erhaps you would like. So you want to help, all of you young people, 

and many yesterday saicl tha t was what they intend to do. I applaud it. And the young man tha t pointed out tha t only one-third 

between 21 and 25 registered and voted is some indication. I assume 

all of those over 21 are registered.

Mr. T aylor. I hope so.

Mr. Fascell. If they’re not working in any other campaigns, I ’d 

welcome them in mine. [L aughter.]

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson? Mr. Mize?

Mr. Mize. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You say there has been no 

change in our foreign policy for too long. What is your opinion of 

the announced Guam doctrine of Mr. Nixon?

Air. Taylor. Well, first of all, I think that the President of the 

United States had to make that statement sometime during his 

administration. It is clear tha t if people in this country support the 

President’s action in Vietnam right now, they surely do not support «

any extention of these activities in the future. And his was a statement of limiting involvement around the world. But I don’t think 

tha t the Cambodian invasion, for example, is an extension or a 

following of the Guam doctrine. I think it is an abrogation of tha t 

doctrine. I think it is saying we are going to take the burden, and 

we are going to keep taking the burden. So I don’t know if the 

President is sincere in tha t statement, but I don’t thin k the Cambodian invasion, which is the most recent example, follows th at doctrine. I thin k it is against it, it ’s contradictory.

Air. AIize. Thank you.

Air. Findley. Air. Taylor, I wish tha t all the American people 

could be piped in, so to speak, on the dialogue we’ve had these past 

2 days. I find much to admire and agree with in your statement.

There is one part that I question. On page 2 you have at the top, “It 

is with dismay tha t we have witnessed tha t while administrations
161

have changed, foreign policy has remained the same.” Now that’s a generalization, bnt I wonder if yon can fairly apply tha t to Vietnam, because the buildup of military force in Vietnam came to an end and the reverse occurred, and the force level is definitely down. Can you really say that our policy in Vietnam has remained the same?

Air. Taylor. I agree with tha t, but that’s in numbers. The Cam­ bodian invasion was defended on the same grounds tha t we got into Vietnam, tha t we had to protect troops in the field, which is the same exact reasoning. Now we do have lower numbers of troops, but certainly until every troop has left Vietnam many people are not going to be convinced th at we’ve reversed our position. And I think that is a fai r point; we’ve been in Vietnam 10 years now. The indi­ cations are that it ’s going to take many, many years to get out of Vietnam, not 2 years or 4 years but many more years. So until that happens, until we settle these entanglements, which I thin k we 

shouldn’t enter into-----

Mr. Mize. W ouldn’t you agree though, that foreign policy cannot 

be static?

Air. Taylor. Oh no, definitely not. And I don’t advocate isolation or anything of that sort.. I say the power we do use, should be used effectively. I don’t thin k it has been used effectively.

Air. F indley. Any other questions ? We’re very grateful to you for 

this very fine statement. Our next witness is Dave Kramer.

Air. Kramer. I ’d like to introduce Alerl Arnold. He too is a former Alarine and a Vietnam veteran. l ie is the recipient of the Silver Star, Bronze Sta r with a Combat V, three Purple H earts, the Vietnamese Legion of Merit, Navy Unit Citation, two Presidential Unit Cita­ tions, Navy Commendation, four Vietnam Campaign Ribbons, 13 Combat Air Aledals, was a member of the 2d Force Recon in the Marine Corps, and spent 26 months in the country of ATetnam.

STATEMENT BY C. DAVID KRAMER, STUDENT ASSOCIATION 

PRES IDEN T, SHIPPENSBURG STATE COLLEGE

Air. Kramer. I am here today to relate to you my views concerning the war in Southeast Asia. It certainly is not necessary to have been in Vietnam to understand our involvement in the war. But, I do feel it is important for me to preface my remarks by saying tha t I have been there. As a former Alarine and as a veteran of the war in Vietnam, I have not reached my opinions solely on emotion. I am not basing my opinions solely on what I have read in newspapers, on what I have seen on television or on what I have discussed with my friends and 

colleagues. Aly present opinions are based on all of these factors. In recent months, I have asked myself many questions: —How many students are sincere in their protest of the war? And how many students are merely joining the “bandwagon” ? —Flow many Congressmen are sincere when they say they want peace in Southeast Asia? And how many Congressmen are merely joining the political “bandwagon” to reap the profits of peace at 

the November election ?
162

—Wliat is the price of a human life? How many lives were lost 

at the siege of Khe Sahn and who has it now? How many lives 

were lost at Hill 881 and who has it now ? How many lives were lost 

at Hamburger Hill and who has tha t now?

The list of questions is an endless one and touches many facets of 

the social, political, economic and moral life of America.

Answers to the questions of war and peace are expressed on the 

college campuses in many and diverse ways.

On some campuses, students have fire-bombed military-related 

buildings. This does not contribute positively toward a solution to 

this complex problem. *

On some campuses, strikes and boycotts of classes have been called.

On other campuses, memorial services and peaceful demonstrations 

have been held. These tactics collectively have stimulated a response. 

President Nixon sought out demonstrators 2 weeks ago at the Lin- *

coin Memorial at 5 o’clock in the morning. These hearings were set 

up, in Republican Findley ’s words, “to help make our representative 

form of government work for our young people.”

On my campus, Shippensburg State College in Pennsylvania, 

classes were suspended for 1 day for a Day of Dialog, during which 

more than 1,000 students, and faculty members met in small groups 

to discuss the war in Southeast Asia and, in particular, the invasion 

of Cambodia.

But the relevant topic today concerns the cause of student dissent 

on the college campuses.

We see this dissent manifested in many ways, b ut are we seeking 

the reasons fo r this dissent? If we were to investigate the problem, 

we would find, f or the most part, young people who are frustrated.

They believe tha t killing is wrong, but they see their country hopelessly involved in the game of war. They believe tha t war is not the 

answer to international differences. They see thei r leaders murdered 

in Dallas, in Memphis, and in Los Angeles. They see their brothers 

and sisters die senselessly in Kent, Ohio, and Jackson, Miss.

We do not seek revolution.

We do seek to change what is wrong in this country and we resent 

being ignored when we speak.

There are injustices in this country and we will not rest until they 

have been corrected. ' •

We must understand that frustration is the root cause of dissent 

on the college campuses—frustration tha t was started by an unresponsive Government and is being deepened by an unresponsive 

Government. -

The foes which threa ten the future of America are not to be found 

in a jungle 10,000 miles from home. These real foes are the enemies 

at home. And these enemies are not college students. They are not 

the “bums.” They are not the “effete corps of impudent snobs.”

These enemies are ignorance, incompetence, and superstitution.

These enemies can be found in every facet and on every level of 

American life. They can be found on college campuses, in "the ranks 

of the military and the police, in high schools and at PTA meetings.

They can be found in Hometown, U.S.A., and, indeed, they can be 

found in the Halls of Congress.
163

I think the message from the college campuses and, indeed, from America, is pointedly c lea r: End American involvement in the Southeast Asian war. Obviously, this cannot be accomplished in one week. But I am here today to encourage your supp ort of the amendment to end the war, which is being prepared for a vote in Congress. Passage of this resolution would, in effect, end the conflict in Indochina by De­ cember of this year unless there is a specific declaration of war. Passage of this resolution would appear to allow American fighting men to be withdrawn from battle zones safely. Passage of this reso­ lution would restore the faith of many of our people—both young and old—in the representative form of government. In my opinion, there is a special role for youth in the making and changing of policies. This role was well defined recently by Marvin E. Wolfgang, chairman of the department of sociology at the Un i­ versity of Pennsylvania. He sa id : “One of the privileges of youth is having the ability to afford to complain and question. The older generation becomes immersed in runn ing the system and must rely upon the younger to provide the pressure needed to question and reform it. Even when they show displeasure at the tactics of student protest and riot, the older generation may have sneaking suspicions tha t youth could be right about many things.” I think Air. Wolfgang is right. Concerned young Americans are complaining. They are questioning. They are pressing for political action to end a futile war in Indochina. The overwhelming majority of concerned young Americans are working peacefully and per ­ sistently to reach this goal. And, in my opinion, the majority of concerned young Americans are right.

Mr. Arnold. To go along with what David said, I find myself along with many other veterans for the first time questioning the reasons for some moves. For instance, I was at the siege of Khe Sanh. Why do we use so many people and then just get out? Why did we take H amburger Hill four times and then leave it? I was also on 881. Some people, mostly the veterans, are now wondering why. These are the reasons veterans are now starting to question. As fa r as students rioting, any time students use violence we pay no atte n­ tion, but to see this go on and then expand the war into other coun­ tries and keep the same policies that we have, as far as limitations as to what we can and cannot do, th at the veterans are now question­ ing, and I find myself now asking many, many questions.

Mr. F indley. Thank you, gentlemen. Mr. FasceTl.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Air. Chairman. Air. Kramer, on page 3 of your statement, let’s take a quick look at that. Sta rtin g with the paragraph, “AVe must understand tha t frustration is the root, cause of dissent on the college campuses, frustration that was started by an unresponsive Government and being deepened by an unresponsive Government.” In light of the two paragraphs t ha t follow, don’t you think that we very well and probably should amend tha t language 

to be an unresponsive people.

Air. Kramer. Yes, I think that’s quite correct.

Air. F ascell. Tha t’s what we really mean?

Air. K ramer. Yes.
164

Mr. F ascell. Mr. Arnold, with respect to your view, don’t you 

thin k that the problem is the inability in modern times to apply 

military strategy in order to bring about a political decision? In 

other words, if taking Hamburger Hill m ilitarily had no purpose except to maintain your military position in South Vietnam which was 

to bring about a political decision, the question then is, which you’ve 

raised: How long is it going to take to bring about the political 

decision ?

Mr. Arnold. One of the main questions I raise is, we spend so 

many lives taking this hill, then we get off of it; we leave it. The 

enemy then retakes it, and then we have to retake it again. Not 

once or twice, but three or four times.

Mr. Fascell. All I say is tha t the difficulty in understanding that 

as pa rt of a military tactic is tha t the whole military operation is 

designed to bring about a political decision which isn’t coming 

about.

Mr. Arnold. I just want to make one statement. One of my main 

questions is tha t we’ve spent so many lives ta king these hills, areas, 

and then we leave it to bring about this political situation. Then why 

do we expand into other countries and continue on the same level 

that we are ? When I was up at Khe Sanli when we were bombing, the 

enemy had very little supplies, we started to get relief, they weren’t 

hitting us as much. When the bombing had stopped, they put us on 

the front line again ; there we are facing new supplies. Now this is 

what I mean. To me this just doesn’t make sense. Eithe r do it or 

don’t do it.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. II icks. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ’m interested in what these 

young men have to say because they were there. Rased on a newspaper article tha t I released objecting to the Cambodian incursion, 

I received a number of letters from parents who have young men 

in Vietnam at the present tim e advising me tha t my view was wrong, 

that the young men who are over there—99 percent of them—approved of what was going on because they had been frustrate d so 

long in going so far and stopping such as you were at Khe Sanli. 

Are you saying come home or go all out, invade everything over 

there, smash it and get a military victory?

Mr. Kramer. In my opinion the time for a military victory is 

probably 3 years past. At least 3 years past. The time right now, as 

times are now in 1970, a military victory in South Vietnam is a 

futile attempt and we could never do it. From the point tha t you 

say parents who presently have sons in Vietnam, I can speak from 

personal opinion tha t a person who is in Vietnam has an entirely 

different mental outlook on the situation while he is involved in a 

combat type situation. Many times if I would have been permitted 

to do certain actions while I was in Vietnam I certainly would have 

done it. I can’t elaborate any more than that. I think when persons 

who currently are in Vietnam come back home to America for a 

year o r so, they will look at the situation in an entirely different light.

Air. Hicks. Ho you say then tha t if we’re going in, we should go 

in like we did in the Dominican Republic or like the Israeli’s did— 

all out, smash—if you're going to do something, otherwise don’t do 

it. And tha t we’ve erred in the past ?
165

Mr. Kramer. No longer. No longer. Maybe in 196—-—

Mr. Hicks. Well th at’s what I mean, when we did it, or if we’re

going to go again any place, tha t it’s an either/or proposition, is that 

your view?

Mr. Kramer. No, s ir; it’s not. I maintain a dove-type position as 

far as war goes. As far as any type of war goes.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. T homson. No question.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. No question.

Mr. Findley. You gentlemen come here with a unique background shared. I would say only by one previous witness, and undoubtedly Mr. Arnold’s background in Vietnam far exceeds that of the other one. Mr. Arnold, from your extensive experience in the field, do you have any appraisal or estimate as to how quickly our Commander- in-Chief could withdraw our forces from Vietnam?

Mr. Arnold. Are you asking me for a time?

Mr. F indley. Yes. How quickly could he do it, with due regard for the safety of those who remain during this withdrawal period ?

Mr. Arnold. To be honest with you, my scope of the situation was very limited, and I ’m afra id I could n ot answer tha t question tru th ­ fully except to say that I wouldn’t want to be one of the guys left 

behind.

Mr. Findley. With that in mind, the Commander-in-Chief can be, I think, forgiven fo r resisting some of the public pressure brought against him in the interest of men remaining in the field. Would you 

not say th at is true ?

Mr. Arnold. Oh, yes.

Mr. Findley. In the same light, it is conceivable that military initiatives like those in Cambodia can be justified in order to facili­ tate the withdrawal of forces. Is that beyond possibility ?

Air. Arnold. I do believe this, from being on the Cambodian border and chasing a hard-core NVA unit up to the river and then having to stop. And they proceeded to mortar us from the other side of the rive r; we were not allowed to call in air strikes in our own defense. The only thing we could use was small weapons fire. Therefore we had one other choice, get out of tha t area. I can see the frustration. We knew the supplies were over there, and I can see a military reason for going into Cambodia. But the one thin g I do question is there were so many restrictions on us at times like that, tha t unless this is changed, I feel that to be quite honest, it’s like getting guys killed or wounded for an illogical reason.

Mr. Findley. Are there other questions? For my par t, and I know I speak for my colleagues, we very much appreciate your appearance here. You’ve made a great contribution. Thank you very 

much.

Air. Arnold. Thank you for your time.

Air. K ramer. Tha nk you.

Air. F indley. The next witness is Richard Ball, of Alicnigan 

State University, East Lansing. Is Richard Ball here?

STATEMENT BY RICHARD BALL, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVER SITY

Air. Ball. I feel somewhat uneasy and hypocritical here today be­ cause, even though I am a college student myself, I am of the firm
166

belief tha t students are the last people the President should listen 

to when he makes foreign policy decisions. So, I am not here to 

make some emotional plea tha t “I just want to be listened to.” 

Rather I am here because I feel obligated to present a viewpoint 

that, I would guess, will be in the minority during these hearings, 

and, in fact, to plead with the P resident not to listen to the irrational 

rantings of my fellow students.

Originally, when I began writing this statement, I had launched 

into a systematic defense of the President’s position in Vietnam, but 

all of this had to be cut out in the interest of time.

Thus I will not start at the beginning, but rather with a brief 

defense of Mr. Nixon’s Cambodia decision.

All seemed to be well with the President’s critics until April 30 

of this year when Air. Nixon decided to take military action in Cambodia. The President decided he had to order the Cambodian sanctuaries, held by the North Vietnamese, cleaned out if our troops in 

.South Vietnam were to be safe and if our troop withdrawal program was to proceed on schedule.

I believe this action to be perfectly reasonable and sound. Remember tha t when the President announced his troop withdrawal 

program, one of the three factors th at were to determine its pace was 

specifically the level of enemy activity. Through continued use of 

the Cambodian sanctuaries, the North Vietnamese had been increasing the level of fighting in Southeast Asia. Mr. Nixon was 

faced with an obvious dilemma, either clean out the sanctuaries, or 

risk the lives of American troops. This risk would be especially 

great if the enemy were allowed to keep up its activities while 

American troops were being steadily withdrawn. Not only were 

American lives a t stake, so was the success of the troop withdrawal 

program.

By taking no action at all, the President would have obviously 

abdicated his role as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces. 

Given all the factors involved in this decision, I believe the President made the right and sensible choice.

It is a fallacy to believe this action was an escalation of the war. 

The President has clearly explained the inten t of his decision was 

to capture or destroy vital North Vietnamese supplies tha t would 

be directly responsible in the coming months for American lives. 

These goals will be accomplished and American troops withdrawn 

by July 1. Penetration into Cambodia will be no more than 22 

miles. I f the North Vietnamese reenter the sanctuaries, they will be 

driven out again by South Vietnamese soldiers. This point, and the 

fact tha t the South Vietnamese are handling a major portion of 

the present Cambodian operation, is significant proof that the Vietnamization program is proving successful.

I want to emphasize tha t, if we look at what has happened in 

Vietnam since the President took office, we can see definite progress 

being made there. I am of the opinion tha t gradual withdrawal, 

training the South Vietnamese to handle their own fighting, is the 

best possible way to bring our troops home. If this real progress was 

going to continue, the President had no choice but to take the action 

which he did.

It is my opinion tha t the uproar that ensued on our college campuses after the Presiden t’s decision was grossly unfounded and
167

highly irrational. And, it is reprehensible that educated, intelligen t people of the press, as well as respected Members of Congress would have publicly contributed to this disorder caused by a minority 

of college students. To the aforementioned elected officials I say that, though the publicity of joining hands with the students may today look attrac ­ tive, you will lose in the end for substituting politics for reason. An act, I am proud to say, the President of the United States did not 

follow. But there is an important point I wish to discuss to day; that is the charge of war critics tha t this war is somehow “immoral.” I believe t ha t the communism professed by the North Vietnamese is a suppressive type. And, although I do not necessarily feel tha t a democracy is the best form of government for every society, I do think all societies should be allowed to choose their own govern­ ment. The North Vietnamese leave no room for choice. In this regard, as the leader of the free world, the United State s has a distinct responsibility to protect smaller struggling nations from totalitarian rule. Let me qualify that by saying that in Vietnam, we are not trying to force on the people a democratic govern­ ment. We are attem pting rather to protect their basic rig ht of self- determination. I believe this to be a noble act, an obligation, a 

moral duty. When Mr. Nixon took office and was given the opportunity to change our policy in Vietnam, he decided he could not leave tha t country unprotected, for we would then be a party to the massacre of tens of thousands of South Vietnamese by the Vietcong. It is apparent tha t the North will stop at nothing to place the South 

under its totalit arian rule. It is clear that the aggressor in Southeast Asia is the North Viet­ namese. The U.S. Government has made repeated peace offers to Hanoi and been rebuffed. Hanoi has said that if the United States stops the bombing and begins to withdraw troops, both of which have been done, they would negotiate. They have not. The United States has offered to negotiate every point made by the North, save the fundamental righ t of the South Vietnamese to choose their own government. Still Hanoi refuses to talk seriously. Let us also remember that the North has consistently violated the 

Geneva accords of 1954, which they signed, by carrying on aggres­ sion in neutral Laos and neutral Cambodia. The Communists had 

been in Cambodia for 5 years before the President took action. Hanoi has further violated the Geneva accords by using American prisoners as hostages, not telling worried families if their husbands, 

sons, fathers are alive or dead. There is evidence tha t the United States has been involved in war atrocities, and our military is directly responsible for many of these actions. But it seems to me tha t no reasonable person can defend the actions of the North. Let me reiterate tha t the United States has offered to negotiate on every point but one—self-determination of the South Vietnamese people. We are not tryi ng to force our political ideas on a poor ignorant people, rather we are protecting them from a Communist government that would resort to wholesale slaughter and political oppression to gain its objectives.
168

I cannot help but feel that our cause is noble and just. Yet we 

must constantly listen to the idealists who claim the war should 

not be fought because our actions are immoral.

I agree tha t killing another person is never a righteous act. In 

this respect a war can never be justified. But I maintain, realistically, 

tha t wars are necessary if a maximum number of people are to live 

in peace and freedom.

Then there are those who would say that we should stop spending 

money in Southeast Asia and use it for domestic problems. These 

people are, of course, motivated by the highest of humanitarian 

ideals.

But since when are the South Vietnamese people less human than 

Americans? I submit it would be a selfish and immoral act for this 

country to quit and give up the defense of the South Vietnamese 

people. For some mysterious reason, would not the slaughter of 

the Vietnamese harm the liberal conscience to which human dignity 

and freedom are of the highest order ?

I do not see how the position of the radicals makes any sense at all.

Who are these people who claim that the Vietnamese war is immoral ?

From my experience as a college student, I have observed that the 

ranks of demonstrators are filled with several types of people.

Some protest the war because it is unjust and immoral. But one 

wonders whether they are simply afra id to go into the military, to 

face th e horrors of discipline, or to stand up and defend the ideals 

of a country that guarantees them the right to dissent.

Some are lured by the fantasy of the mass movement with its 

publicity and potential for power.

Some are thrilled by the fact tha t a wonderful opportunity is 

presented where they can lash out and throw rocks at the authorities. 

This is really great because they are proving they don’t have to listen 

to anybody. And, too, the thou ght of being caught up in a real 

revolution is an exhilarating one. Unfo rtunately, these types don’t 

stop to realize tha t the result of their revolution will be the very 

repressive society they thin k they live in now.

I cannot believe tha t most of those who make up the youthful 

masses really know why they are there. The movement is simply an 

environment tha t offers an escape from the competition and frailty 

of the real world. F or the real world is where their idealistic fantasies 

will be shattered. Perish the thought of their discovering tha t the 

earth is not a place of peace and love, and never will be.

On the night of the Presiden t’s news conference I was depressed 

by the unrest in our country. I was especially depressed by the fact 

tha t college administrators allowed the rights of the serious-minded 

majority of students to be trampled upon by a vocal, violent and 

irrational minority, in fact using the ir students to voice their own 

dissent against the President’s policies.

I was depressed as I listened to members of the press malign the 

Presiden t’s decision, actively contributing to the upro ar by misrepresenting the President’s action as an escalation.

As I drove through the streets of Washington on tha t Frid ay 

night, it was plain to see that most of the young people were wandering aimlessly, not quite knowing why they were here or where they
169

were going. The next day these same people protested the war and mourned the death of four Kent State students by basking in the sun, frolicking in the city’s pools and fountains and generally cele­ brating a holiday from the classroom. Two weeks after observing Earth Day they iined the streets with trash and raised an unhealthy 

cloud of dust over the ellipse. But the most depressing thin g of all durin g tha t weekend was tha t the President indicated he might listen to these people. The thought tha t the President of the United States might actually let a group of mindless wanderers influence his foreign policy frightened me. My faith in Mr. Nixon was shaken a bit until I realized tha t no reasonable and responsible person could be influenced by the garbage mouths of David Dellinger and Rennie Davis. The real reason I ’m here today is not so much to defend the Presi­ dent’s foreign policy, but to plead with responsible Government officials not to let a small band of irrational youths influence Gov­ ernment policy. Let them wield their influence the same way millions 

of Americans do, at the ballot box. Let us pu t student violence and unrest in its proper context. Who can really believe that those who resort to violent actions are upset because they oppose Government policy? Their troubles are not political, they are socio-psychological. They make up a listless mass, at the mercy of a few power-hungry, attention starved leaders. Hardly a problem tha t a change in Government policy would solve.

Mr. Findley. Air. Fascell.

Air. F ascell. Mr. Ball, your statement is certainly a clear ex­ pression of your point of view, and I would dare say, however, t hat afte r listening to the statements of the students who have been here these 2 days so far, I can’t quite characterize them all as a list­ less wandering mass who don’t know what they want and don’t know what they are doing. That might be true of those running around the reflecting pool, I don’t think it is true of those who have 

appeared here.

Mr. Ball. T hat point, Mr. Fascell, was made, and I took it right 

out of the W ashington Post.

Mr. Fascell. Yes, well, I understand that, I have been in a lot of groups myself, in fact, I have raised a few so I could get elected. But the only point I was making, I was asking you, if you have been here any time at all, you would agree that there is a difference between the presentations made here before this panel and whatever observation you would care to make or characterize a group that is 

protesting.

Mr. Ball. I listened to the presentations this morning. I agree tha t they are excellent, although we have to remember tha t the opposi­ tion and I are arguing from two very different basic points of view, which I believe are idealism versus realism. I listened to the three students from John s Hopkins and these were the three I was most impressed by. They say t hat they will go out and work in this com­ ing election, even though they may not be of voting age, for peace candidates. Th at’s fine. Because people like me will be working 

against them.

Mr. Fascell. We understand that, and I think a point is well made to draw the distinction between idealism and pragmatism.

46 -4 87— 70-------12
170

However, somewhere between the two there may be some people, too.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. H icks. Mr. Ball, wouldn’t you say that we have been Vietnamizing tha t war since President Eisenhowever first sent the advisers 

over there? That was what we had in mind the entire time with 

the possibility when we took over in 1965. Would you agree that 

that’s nothing new, this Vietnamization ?

Mr. Ball. I believe tha t Mr. Nixon is a significant change from 

tha t of the Johnson administration from the limited knowledge I 

have of this war, and I believe my resources-----

Mr. ITicks. Well, go behind the Johnson administration, go back 

to President Kennedy and President Eisenhower. Weren’t we trying 

to Vietnamize at tha t time ?

Mr. Ball. I guess tha t I would have to accept that.

Mr. Hicks. We were trying to train them to defend themselves. 

Now don’t you think the country has moved, tha t is, a substantial 

portion—whether it’s the majo rity or not we will have to determine 

this fall—but don’t you thin k tha t they have moved to where the 

country is tired of this war regardless of how moral or immoral it 

is? They are just tired of it?

Mr. Ball. Exactly. I feel that way myself. The point is, when 

Mr. Nixon took over—and here is another basic difference between 

me and the demonstrators tha t I believe what he says when he 

speaks on TV—he said that he could not completely and immediately 

withdraw those troops because, and I pointed this out in my statement. the South Vietnamese would be submitted to massive killings 

by the North. So the point then is, how do we get out of there as 

fast, as soon as we can given the circumstances right now, today 

that we have there? I believe th at the President’s policy is the best 

way.

Mr. Hicks. And you think, do you not, that the country was 

fairly well calmed down after the November 3 speech and up until 

April 30, you mentioned, when all this rose again. Now don’t you 

suspect tha t was because these fears immediately jumped up again 

tha t he wasn’t going to continue?

Mr. Ball. Exactly. But I believe those fears were the result, like 

I pointed out in here, that the papers, those who analyzed the 

Pres iden t’s speech immediately after he made it, contributed to the 

fallacy tha t this was an escalation-----

Mr. Hicks. That’s your point of view and their point of view is 

that they are, I guess, a little skeptical. Thank you.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Mize.

Mr. Mize. Well, this would be pure conjecture on your part, I ’m 

sure, but of the million students, what percentage would you 

sav support the President as opposed to those who oppose his 

policies?

Mr. Ball. That’s a very difficult question. Now on my own particu lar campus, I would say one-fifth of the 40,000 there, and tha t 

I believe would be a liberal estimate. However, if I were to guess 

at the number of dissenters on the U. of M. campus, which is only 

90 miles away from us, the numbers probably be more.

Mr. Mize. You mean one-fifth would support the President or onefifth would be in opposition?
171

Mr. Ball. One fifth would be in opposition. Of the 7 million-——

Mr. Mize. Well, maybe I had better w ithdraw the question as it is 

a little impractical.

Mr. Ball. Well, it would be pure conjecture, but the thing is, a lot of these people are, I believe, opposed because now i t is fashion­ able to be opposed to the war. A lot of people are indeed tired of it, like I am myself, and would oppose the war for those reasons because they are simply tired of being there. I believe that those who are against the war because of immoral grounds, so to speak, not because they are just tired of being there, but those who oppose on immoral grounds, I would guess are in a small min ority; that 

would be my guess.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Ball, we appreciate your appearance for a lot of reasons. You helped to give balance to the testimony that we have received and this is an appropriate occasion, I think, for me to state that already no matter what transpires from this moment on in today’s hearings the impact of the presentations made by col­ lege and university students here during the past two days has certainly done much to counter-balance the totally distorted im­ pression of these students which so many people have. It has demon­ strated quite clearly that there are responsible voices, voices tha t don’t always agree on the war, and they are willing to present their argu­ ments in a very logical, sensible, constructive, manner, and we thank 

you very much for it. Thank you. The next witness on our schedule, Joyce Kossak from Chatham College, has sent word tha t she will not appear today. May I ask if Robert Walsh is here at this time? Is Robert Walsh here? Will 

he stand if he is here? We are jus t a bit ahead of schedule and one of the witnesses sched­ uled this afternoon who is here now, John Hunter, is willing to go on the stand now. We appreciate it very much because your coopera­ tion will enable us to be on schedule and maybe even get a few minutes off for lunch in about an hour. So we appreciate your testi­ mony. Jon athan Hunter, Junia ta College, of Huntingdon, Pa. You have a companion with you, please identify yourselves and 

proceed.

Mr. Hunter. I would like to identify the gentleman sitting with me as Carl Kendik, whose home is in Clearfield, Pa. He is a fellow 

student of mine at Jun iata .

STATEMENT OE JONATHAN C. HUNTER, JUNIATA COLLEGE

Mr. Hunter. By this time, the war in which we are engaged and the problems growing out of this conflict have been studied and scrutinized by almost every segment of our society. Consequently, there is little opposition tha t I can personally raise which will be new or more eloquent than tha t which has preceded. However, I still feel it necessary to iterate our contentions again and again until such time that we can find some movement toward what we seek. I also feel it necessary to reiterate these contentions to build the groundwork for proposals that we don’t take the same actions as we have, for I feel those actions to be mistakes.

My contentions, then, basically are these:
172

1. It is time to live up to the fact tha t we have no right to break 

international commitments, no matter how right we think we are. 

It’s time we lived up to the Geneva accords, even when they go 

against us. We can no longer obey only those laws which benefit us : 

tha t is anarchy. We can no longer delude ourselves with statements 

tha t our original armed intervention was completely just, aboveboard and in pursuit of democratic ends.

2. We had no right to introduce troops into a neutral country 

without their request. Military expediency doesn’t justify violation 

of international rights, especially by a supposedly moral nation.

3. It is time Congress, or the people, made the President live up 

to his commitments. We were promised tha t the war would not be 

widened and tha t there would be no commitment of ground troops 

in Cambodia. Where are we now ? A few months ago we were 

emphatically assured tha t there would be no commitment of ground 

troops in Laos, and yet where are we now ? If the administration can 

no longer be trusted to live up to those goals which were the basis 

of its election, which stirred the hopes of the American people, and 

if we find hope squelched and bitterness rising, dividing brother 

from brother, then Congress, representing the people, must act. At 

the very least, it is the constitutional duty of Congress to set up 

limits within which the President can act. Even more important is 

insuring that those guidelines are enforced. We can no longer afford 

to play “Chinese roulette” throu gh war by Presidential edict.

These, then are the contentions which are behind my opposition 

to the expansion of the war into Cambodia. I suppose the most important challenge I have raised is to cynical expediency. We can no 

longer call ourselves a just nation, if we continue to wage war for 

reasons of expediency, be it financial, military, or political.

The question now is how best to go about making wise changes, 

how best to alleviate the dangerous and frigh tenin g rift between 

young and old, how best to steer our country into commitments for 

life rather than death, how best to go about the business of alleviating, with a little hopeful idealism, the pessimism which riddles our 

Nation? Always, before this day, my recourse was to demonstrate, 

which all too often resulted in riot, the foiling of my goals and, 

more recently, the killing of my peers. Today I have been given the 

opportunity to speak directly to my government. Finally we are 

being listened to. However, I must ask, is there yet any real assurance that we will be heard? Is there any hope that we will have real 

effect on our Government?

NIy peers and I have learned our lessons well. The schools we 

attended for 12 or more years have taught us many things. The 

streets have also taught us bitter lessons. One of the things I have 

learned best is th at all too often our political machines respond not 

to what is righ t or wrong or best for us, but to power—financial 

and electoral power. The body tha t can deliver votes speaks more 

loudly than any other.

Suppose the vote extended to 18-year-olds; our Government would 

be forced, for the first time, to take a new look at its approaches to 

programs and problems. I believe, frankly, it is time tha t the instrument of international “debate,” the youth used by our army, had 

some say in the course of that debate. We are here dealing with the
173

original revolutionary ideals of America; it is not legitimate that a man be asked to be a tool of Government, either military or eco­ nomic, unless he has some voice in tha t Government. This struggle for representation caused a revolution in 1776, and it is causing one in 1970. If you really want to get youth off the streets, do something constructive rather than destructive for a change. Give them the 

vote. Some of you may still raise the question of maturity. Well, gen­ tlemen, you spend 12 years educating a person, you spend 12 years teaching him about our Government and its ideals, goals, and

* institutions. Don’t you trust the establishment? There is one other issue which I would like to deal with here. I am not naive enough to believe t ha t grantin g the vote will eliminate all violence in the streets. I think, then, tha t it is time we took a

* serious look at what is really happening out there when people get clubbed and shot. You know pa rt of the responsibility for what happens rests on Congress and the administration. If your watchdog bites somebody a court of law will hold you, rather than the dog, responsible. So you, along with the rest of us, have to deal with something very serious. Because a youth is throwing rocks and busting up things he is clubbed senseless. When a man loots in Chicago he can be shot. You know what’s happened? We’ve placed the value of a store window above the value of a human life. We’ve justified the destruction of human life for material goods. Ju st how 

sick can we get? So you see it is time, it is really time. Congress has a responsibility. Let's level with each other. Don’t be naive enough to thin k we're dumb. As I said, we have learned our lessons well. We know “where it’s at.” We know we need power to accomplish our goals. We know you can give us part of tha t power. We’re tired. We’re tired of listening to the same old justifications over and over, year after year, president after president. We’re tired of our wise leaders tal k­ ing to us about w inning this war as if they were football coaches urg­ ing us on to a conference championship. We’re tired of what we see as an immoral war tha t has lasted almost half our lives and all our conscious life. We know tha t if our Government wants to play King George and Parliament, there are plenty of people around 

» who will be more than willing to play Thomas Jefferson.

It’s time.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much, Mr. Hunter. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. I ’ll pass.

» Mr. F indley. Mr. Hunter, on page 2 you use the word expediency— “we can no longer call ourselves a just Nation if we continue to wage war for reasons of expediency, be it financial, military, or 

political.” President Nixon, in explaining his reasons for sending forces into Cambodia, described it not as expediency but as a military necessity to save the lives of American forces remaining in South Vietnam. There is, of course,, a conflict that you recognize on page 1 where you say we had no rig ht to introduce troops into a neutral country. The President has grave duties because he 'is Commander in Chief as well as President. He has grave responsibilities to men that were in the field when he took office. There is a conflict there, between his
174

responsibilities as Commander in Chief and, as you put it, the broad 

general proposition tha t a nation has no right to introduce troops 

into a neutral country.

How do we resolve this conflict? Have you any suggestions?

Air. H unter. As you say, i t is a very serious conflict, and I wonder, 

though, whether resolution can be as we have done? Saying that, 

well, for saving lives and the military withdrawal, we must invade 

a n eutral nation. I wonder if it was really necessary to invade Cambodia to protect human lives or American soldiers in Vietnam in the 

withdrawal. I wonder whether any move into Cambodia could even 

really do that. I wonder if because of the very nature of the type 

of w ar we are fighting, an d even though the fact that we have seized 

many arms and many tons of food, the very nature of the war and 

the enemy we are fighting, I wonder if it even is possible, m ilitarily 

possible to achieve such a goal. You know I really feel tha t it is 

impossible. Tha t as it was announced yesterday the headquarters 

which we are afte r has now been reestablished something like 23 

miles into Cambodia. So now we can’t attack it because of our 21- 

mile limit. When we are fighting and dealing with such a mobile 

enemy it seems so hard to think that we can militarily accomplish 

such a goal, and so T thin k we must consider even more seriously 

the political and moral ramifications of that act.

Mr. Findley. Any other questions? Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Your statement here, “Will I be heard?” That really 

translates into, “will I win,” does it not?

Air. Hunter. No; not necessarily. I believe tha t when we understand the system of a vote, a person, you know, you can sit here and 

you can listen to me, but if you do not have to listen, I am not necessarily heard. Now i f my peers and I had the vote, then we would 

become a constituent of the power structure. And then we would 

have to be heard.

Air. Hicks. Hid you hear the statement this morning tha t some 

young man made that only one-third voted between 21 and 25 in 

1968?

Air. Hunter. I think that’s irrelevant; I really do.

Air. Hicks. If you’ve got the vote but don’t use it, you think that’s 

irrelevant ?

Air. H unter. AVell. the thing tha t is irrelevant about the statement 

is that we don’t have the vote. So it’s impossible to predict how many 

would or would not vote.

Air. H icks. Well, the 21’s have the vote, do you consider them old?

Air. Hunter. No; I do not, but-----

Air. Hicks. In your other analogy here between King George and 

the Thomas Jeffersons, do you think today tha t t hat is analogous?

Air. Hunter. Not completely, but I think some of the analogy 

holds true-----

Air. IIicks. You are not represented, is tha t what you mean?

Air. Hunter. Yes: I ’m not represented because I cannot exercise 

a vote in my Government and at the same time because of my age, 

I ’m 19 so I ’m prim e dr aft age, I may be asked to be an instrument 

of my Government.

Air. Hicks. If you could vote, you would more willingly be 

drafted ?
175

Mr. Hunter. Yes.

Mr. H icks. Thank you.

Mr. F indley. Any other questions? You had a comment to add to 

this ?

Mr. Kendik (from Clearfield, Pa., Junia ta College). Aside from 

the military considerations of the movement into Cambodia, which I am sure the President and his advisers probably have more in­ formation on than we do, I think the President’s true responsibility lies to the majority of the American people, and it seems to me tha t either he did n’t consider or he gravely misjudged the social ramifica­ tions of his move within this country when lie sent the troops into Cambodia. Junia ta College was unfortunately required to close the school for a week, about 3 weeks ago, and this is very sad because most of the students there came for one purpose—to get an education: and this was denied to them. The reason tha t Jun iata College closed was that there was so much tension between the college community and the community of the town of Huntingdon in which J uniata is located, that the admin istrators of the college, and I believe wisely so, decided tha t it was not safe for the students to remain at tha t 

institution.

Mr. F indley. May I ask at tha t point, what happened tha t caused the administration to feel t hat it would not be safe for the students to remain there? Were there episodes of stones being throw n or 

rifle shots or anything of tha t sort?

Mr. Kendik. No sir; there was absolutely no violence. We held 

a peaceful rally on one of the lawns on campus. It got very good coverage in the local newspaper, and there were some threats made against the college from the community. The point tha t I would like to make is th at it seems that the President has succeeded, whether he had intended to or not, of dividing the country to such a degree over so many issues that reasonable discourse between the parties is no longer possible. And when reasonable discourse between people is no longer possible then education stops. I think that is basically why 400 colleges and universities had to shut down. Like I said, I don’t honestly believe tha t the President intended this to happen, but I thin k the Congress as pa rt of our checks and balance system should have the wisdom, perhaps, collectively, to see these things. And I thin k the Congress must now exercise its authority and its power in our federal system to advise the President and maybe limit some of his actions which the Congress may see as damaging 

to the country.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much. Do you have a question, Mr. 

Mize?

Mr. Mize. J us t one brie f question. In my State, the University of Kansas with about 18,000 students shut down. Down the road 80 miles, Kansas State University with about 15,000 to 16,000 students stayed open. Fo r the life of me, I can’t understand why some shut down and some d idn’t. Do you think it was because of feeling the community more than what was actually going on on the campus?

Mr. Kendik. Certain communities, college communities, and their 

surroundings react differently, of course, due to the fact that there are different situations, but I think as you look across the Nation the reaction—you know, I thin k you could see tha t this was a time
176

of great tension among all people in the college communities and 

all the communities. And I thin k any action tha t perpetrated this 

type of tension would be, you know, should be considered a very 

wrong action. And I ’m afra id when you consider the total ramifications of President Nixon sending troops into Cambodia, I just consider it a wrong action.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much, gentlemen, for your presentation. I ’m sorry the time is up.

The next witness is Robert Walsh, of Rhode Isla nd School of 

Design, Providence, R.I. We’re very glad tha t Congressman Tiernan 

has joined us and appreciate your participation here today.

Mr. Tiernan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

STATEMENT BY ROBERT WALSH, RHODE ISLAND 

SCHOOL OF DESIGN

The Case Against the Strikes

Mr. Walsii. Members of Congress, I am indeed grateful for the 

opportunity to address you this morning on behalf of the antistrike coordinating committee of Rhode Island. This group is a coalition of students from seven colleges and 15 high schools united in 

their opposition to the current student strikes in progress across the 

Nation. I do not intend to represent the views of the ASCC as being 

indicative of the opinions held by the vast majority of college students in Rhode Island. On some liberal campuses such as Brown 

University and the Rhode Islan d School of Design, we are almost 

certainly in the minority. We do feel, however, tha t our views are 

shared by the overwhelming majority of high school students, the 

general public, and by numerous coliege students, faculty, and administrators throughout the State.

My qualifications for addressing you this morning are as follows: 

First, I am State chairman of the anti-strike coordinating committee of Rhode Island; secondly, I am a junior at Rhode Island School 

of Design and vice president of its student council. I am also a 1961 

graduate of Brandeis U niversity, a bastion of liberalism at which I 

bought ham sandwiches from Abbie Hoffman while listening to 

Herbert Marcuse vilify the society th at gave him refuge, placed him 

in the upper income bracket for academics, and heaped honors upon 

him for openly advocating the destruction of that same society. 

After Brandeis, I served in the U.S. Air Force for nearly 5 years, 

first as a guided-missile launch officer and then as a staff officer in an 

airborne early warning and control squadron. Upon my return to 

civilian life, I became an assistant editor of a smalltown newspaper 

and subsequently was employed by General Electric as a specialist 

in advertising and sales promotion. I returned to school to study 

industrial design at Rhode Island School of Design in 1968.

I mention all of this because I feel tha t this experience has given 

me a broader outlook on world affairs and the domestic crisis than 

is possessed by most of my college contemporaries. In spite of this, 

I am forced to admit that I, for one, do not know all the answers 

to the great issues of our times. I am somewhat envious of my university colleagues who are so secure in the knowledge tha t they are
177

righ t and the establishment is wrong; I am awed by the erudition they display on their picket signs and at the certainty—nay, the ferocity of their convictions. Perhaps if I had limited my educational inputs to antiestablishment invective from the left and socialized primarily with radicals and other campus agitators, I would also know how to effect the immediate elimination of the numerous ills afflicting our society. Unfortunately, I remained rather apolitical, placing my educational goals on a h igher priority than advising the 

President on how to conduct his affairs. During the past year, however, I witnessed a series of crises and campus disorders, and found myself unable to remain aloof from the issues, both local and national, tha t have been creating such out­ rage at the college level. I wanted to learn objectively what was behind the turm oil; I wanted to do something to help ease it if I could. The more I became involved, the more I noticed a strange coincidence: at the heart of every local issue, whether it was the Vietnamese war, the ecology movement, or agitation for more scholar­ ship aid, the same core group seemed to be leading the fight against the Nixon administration, the military-industrial complex, and the college administration. Certain radical elements were always ready to ridicule or shout down students or administrators with a more moderate viewpoint or who attempted to refute the perverted “facts” promulgated by these radicals. Led and encouraged by a young humanities professor who teaches a course entitled “Ideology and Utop ia,” a committee of “concerned students” released a list of de­ mands to the Providence papers in which they suggested th at i f their demands were not met by the end of the month, physical violence would occur. At the same time, the more militant ecologists were openly discussing direct physical action against industrial polluters; strangely enough, many of these ecomilitants were also “concerned students.” Throughout the months of March and April there were demonstrations and angry meetings over one issue or another: as soon as one would die down, another would erupt. The committee of concerned students brought in Karl Braden, a so-called community organizer, to assist them in their war with the school administration. At a rally during which Mr. Braden was to speak, one of the “con­ cerned students” made a highly emotional speech during which he gave out a good deal of misinformation regarding the administra­ tion ’s response to the ir demands. As a member of the financial aid committee and vice president of the student council, I attempted to set the facts straight, but was immediately made the object of ob­ scenities and other verbal abuse by several coed members of the “concerned students.” It became apparent to me that they were not interested in hearing facts—it might cost them an issue. When the President sent U.S. troops into Cambodia, and the tragedy at Kent State occurred, the ultimate issue was provided. On Monday evening, May 4, the news became widely known on our campus. I discussed the possibility of a strike or similar gesture with the student council president ; we felt that it would not be pos­ sible to hold an assembly in which voting could occur until some time on Tuesday, and no official action was taken. By 11 p.m. the local radio stations were announcing that Rhode Island School of Design was on strike, and tha t classes were suspended. By Tuesday
178

morning, the word was out to most of the student body, and large 

numbers of students did not atten d their classes. A meeting was 

hastily called, attended mostly by those students who had not gone 

to their regular classes, and a strike vote was pushed through, 

thereby sanctioning an illegally called strike.

Unsure of my position, but fearful of the supercharged emotionalism that was present, I called vainly for moderation; I suggested 

that the proposed march on Washington would be dangerous and 

counterproductive; I suggested tha t it would be more fruitfu l to 

work within legal means and to investigate the possibility of holding a national referendum to determine how the Nation felt about 

the war. Again I was shoved aside by one of the same radicals who 

had earlier mouthed obscenities at me. It was then I came to realize 

tha t it was time to assert my rights; to cry out in vigorous protest 

at the usurpation of political power by a talented, vocal minority, 

at the educators and administrators who so readily relinquished their 

responsibilities, and at the radical altering of my life by forces over 

which I had no control and no effective voice.

On May 8, a very few of us formed the ASCC because we found 

ourselves, as one of our members put it, in the position of defending 

the basic principle upon which the universities were founded: free 

exchange of ideas in an atmosphere devoid of political, religious, or 

philosophical commitment, as well as the Nixon administration’s 

policies in Indochina. The strike has caused the violation of the 

former in protest of the latter.

In the days following the strike, so many issues were added tha t 

one wonders why the students ha dn’t struck before; the issues ranged 

from university involvement through investments in war-related industries, the political neutrality of the university, to military recruiting, social and racial injustice, and even women’s liberation. I 

think it has become quite clear tha t the strike can no longer be regarded as an act expressing opposition to one Presidential act, but 

rather an all-inclusive movement designed to destroy our present 

form of government.

I believe tha t the arguments used by those opposed to the war are 

both politically and militarily naive, and contrary to the facts. The 

strikers claim President Nixon “violated the neutrality of Cambodia” when he dispatched troops to clean out the privileged sanctuaries existing within that nation, and further limited their radius 

of operation to about 22 miles inside the border. The fact of the m atter is tha t the Communists sent approximately 40,000 troops into 

Cambodia beginning in 1965; neutrality, as defined in international 

law, is the refusal of a nation to allow itself to be used as a base for 

any belligerent nation. I fail to see how President Nixon violated 

Cambodian neutrality since neutrality ceased to exist when Cambodia became a sanctuary for the Communists. If the strikers are 

truly concerned with Cambodian neutrality, why have they never 

spoken out against the presence of VC and NVA troops there? At 

the present time, a fter all, NVA troops are besieging the capital and 

several other major cities, are they not?

Perhaps as a result of a backlash against the excesses of the McCarthy era, the domino theory has been discredited among the 

liberals. I hold that this theory is more valid today than it was 10
179

years ago; you have only to read the published aims of Chinese communism and to note tha t in all 10 countries of Southeast Asia there are occurring incipient wars of national liberation, regardless of whether the country has a history of colonialism or not. Even Ind ia is under attack by revolutionary Maoist parties, as witness 

the February issue of Chingari, the monthly organ of one of the 

Indian Communist pa rties:

“We assert tha t this is the era of total collapse of imperialism and world-wide victory of socialism . . . This is because the revolutionary people the world over have accepted Mao Tse-Tung Thought and grasped the limitless power of peo­ ple’s war, and the fighting masses in various countries of the world have already begun their sacred struggle to destroy Imperialism with revolutionary determi­ nation and boundless confidence . . . Today, China is the centre of world revolu­ tion and the base area of the revolutionary struggle of every country.”

Remember, too, that IIo Chi Minh was appointed leader of the Indochina Communist Party in Moscow in 1924; whether he has used nationalism to furthe r Communist goals, or vice-versa, it matters little—the danger is equal. Vietnam is no more a civil war than was Korea; South Vietnam has every bit as much right to exist in­ dependently of the North as West Germany has to remain separate and distinct from East Germany. Any government bent on export­ ing revolution becomes both morally repug nant and dangerous to its neighbors when it fails to make any distinction between foreign nations and its own subjects: Red China and North Vietnam are both cases in point. If Indochina is abandoned, then Ind ia will surely fall, too. W hether Indonesia and Malaysia can hold out is at best questionable; even Japan is not safe from Communist encroach­ ment. The reason for U.S. presence in Southeast Asia is sound; to deny its peoples and resources to a self-minded agent of world 

revolution, i.e. Red China and/o r its satellites. We have failed to win in Vietnam because we didn’t prosecute the war more vigorously from the very start—we have nearly always announced our moves in advance and fought with one hand tied behind our back, allowing the enemy to pick the time and place of each engagement; we have given him incredible aid and comfort. We have never bombed the dams in North Vietnam or the harbor of Haiphong, yet we have expended millions to knock out bamboo bridges and earthen bunkers in the South. Lack of will on the home front has committed us to a perpetual no-win policy in Vietnam. Ho Chi Minh once told the French: “You will kill ten of our men and we will kill one of yours, and in the end, it will be you who will tire of it.” Like France, it is collapse of will on the homefront that will defeat us, n ot defeat on the battlefield. The President and his field commanders must not be furt her fettered by Congress; if Hanoi believes tha t public opinion or a divided Congress will force the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Vietnam, there is little reason to negotiate anywhere. Historically, there is no credibility to appease­ ment; the only choice is whether to fight here or there. Thank you for the opportunity to address this distinguished panel.

Mr. Findley. Thank you Mr. Walsh. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. I ’ll yield to Mr. Tiernan.

Mr. Tiernan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Walsh, I would like to congratulate you on a very fine statement and welcome you here to the committee. I think the members of the committee have
180

been impressed by your statement. We certainly will heed the words 

you have included in the statement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Walsh, President Nixon has stated that we are 

trying to end the war. He chose his words carefully. Not to win the 

war, but to end the war. And he has embarked upon a withdrawal 

program that he describes as irreversible. What goal do you think 

our Government should have as its military policy in South Vietnam ? 

Do I assess your statement correctly, tha t you feel -we should embark 

upon a policy tha t will have the defeat of the military forces of 

Hanoi as its objective?

Mr. Walsii. I think tha t the Communist forces, especially the Defense Minister of China, have made it quite clear tha t Vietnam is to 

be the testing ground for the whole world to see whether wars of 

national liberation, power growing out of the barrel of a gun. 

whether this concept shall be valid, whether it can be proved once 

and for all tha t wars of national liberation can succeed throughout 

the world, Latin America as well as Asia. If the United States is 

not able to prevent this war, so-called war of national liberation, 

from becoming viable in Southeast Asia and from spreading into 

the adjoining countries, I thin k tha t our credibility the world over 

will be seriously jeopardized. Everyone is aware of the fact that our 

forces in Europe are only token. If it were the aim of the Soviet 

Union and its satellites to push to the English Channel, they could 

do so on short notice.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Walsh, you have had considerable opportunity 

as a student to observe trouble-makers on campus, judging by your 

statement. Could you give us an appraisal as to the extent to which 

the trouble on campus is caused by outsiders, so-called floaters, 

people who move from one campus to another with the objective 

of causing trouble?

Air. Walsii. As I mentioned in my speech, Mr. Carl Braden was 

brought in by the so-called committee of concerned students to 

address them. He indicated during his introduction tha t he had long 

been harassed by the U.S. Government and was considered to have 

been associated with subversive organizations. He also made the student body feel t hat this was unjust, tha t it was another instance of 

repression because he was not allowed to organize the poor people 

of the South. He was given rousing cheers for his attempts at organization. He met consistently with members of this rather radical 

group of students on campus, and other people from outside the 

campus have been on the Rhode Island School of Design campus 

scene for perhaps as long as 4 years, actively agitating and creating 

issues. This has been revealed to me by members of the administration of tha t school.

Air. F indley. Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh, we appreciate 

very much your contribution to our discussion.

The next witness scheduled is James Diamond.

STATEMENT BY JAMES W. DIAMOND, BROWN UNIVERSITY 

T he Nation and H er U niversities

Mr. Diamond. Members of Congress, ladies and gentlemen: I 

speak to you this morning as the official representative of the Rhode
181

Island Federation of College Republicans. The federation is com­ prised of the College Republican Clubs at Brown University, the University of Rhode Is land and Bryant, Roger Williams, Providence, and Salve Regina Colleges. The federation’s executive committee has unanimously voted to issue the following statement:

College Republican students all over Rhode Island strongly endorse President Nixon’s Southeast Asian policies. Our fellow students who never complained about the occupation of large area s of Cambodian territory by the Hanoi forces are striking this week in protest over the limited, temporary movement of U.S. troops into the enemy occupied borderlands of Cambodia. These students’ reli­ ance upon mass demonstrations and their tragic unwillingness to listen to view­ points other than their own is a disgrace to the colleges they attend. For our part we resolutely oppose the strike. We applaud President Nixon’s courageous decision to fight in Cambodia and, proud of his magnificent leadership, we have, this night (Wednesday), sent him a telegram pledging him our total supp ort

In his inaugural address, President Nixon appealed for national unity and he said tha t he would try to “bring us together.” As a doctoral candidate in history I know th at, with the exception of the 

last Sy2

 years of World Wa r II , the American people have never been unanimous in their support of any war. In addition, as Kevin Phillips suggests, we are now passing throu gh a major political re­ alignment such as we experienced during the late 1820’s or the early 1930’s, and this, too, decreases th e possibility of a complete national unanimity. On the other hand, except in the Civil Wa r period, our Nation has always enjoyed, first, a fundamental political unity based on a common tradition of democratic constitutional government, and second, an even broader social unity of common American na­ tionality, founded in a common language and a shared national heritage. At this point in our history, we cannot reasonably expect to enjoy political unanimity, but we must preserve t hat deeper, more fundamental unity of constitutional government and common 

nationality. While it is always difficult to make accurate historical judgments about contemporary events, I believe that these fundamental unities are now endangered, and I am convinced th at one of the sources of this danger is the growing estrangement between the American Na­ tion and its academic communities. This estrangement long ante­ dates the Cambodian crisis and even the war in Vietnam, and it will last long after our intervention in Southeast Asia has ended. Unless we resolve it, our Nation’s futu re is imperiled. Within our country’s universities, this estrangement from the Nation-at-large is due in pa rt to ignorance; many of the students, faculty, and administrators literally do not know that there are reasonable men who hold views different from their own. Faculty and administrators, particularly at the most prestigious universities, are liberals. For instance, at Princeton the faculty was polled and asked for whom they were planning to vote for President. Only 7 percent supported Richard Nixon, the same percentage which sup­ ported Dick Gregory. Similarly, at Brown the faculty is very nearly unanimous in its opposition to the President. Our club at Brown had been unable to recruit a single faculty member to speak or de­ bate in support of President Nixon’s Southeast Asian policies. This situation is further complicated by the university’s selection of speakers on political topics. The speakers hired by Brown and other liberal universities almost invariably advocate left-w ing posi-
182

tions. Moderate and conservative views are seldom heard on these 

programs. Our Brown club received national publicity this spring 

for publishing a detailed, scholarly report on Brown’s selection of 

speakers by two Brown graduate students in history. This report 

demonstrated tha t Brown “consciously has favored left-wing views 

in preference to all other political persuasions” in its speaker selections for the last 3 years. For instance in the academic year now 

ending, Brown hired five major speakers to demand an immediate 

U.S. withdrawal from Vietnam, including a special convocation on 

October 14, 1969, staged in the words of Brown’s acting president, 

Merton P. Stoltz, “for the benefit of those were supporting the 

Moratorium” and not for academic purposes. Apparently, it has 

been over 2 years since Brown has hired a speaker to defend any 

position on the war other than immediate withdrawal, and then the 

speaker was merely a University of Rhode Islan d graduate student.

Under these circumstances many faculty and most students at such 

schools seldom he ar intelligent, articulate persons defending nonleft 

points of view, even though such points of view are widely held 

among the general population. Consequently, as the current strike 

indicates, it is only too pathetically apparent that the majority of 

the students and many of the faculty are completely unable to understand how intelligent, informed citizens outside our Nation’s 

universities can disagree with them on the war and the other problems facing our Nation. At the same time, these students and faculty 

are aware tha t they have far more formal education than the average citizen. Natura lly they are proud of this educational superiority 

and they consequently expect the American people to pay special 

attention to their views.

In practice, however, public opinion at large has refused to accept 

the views of our intellectual community on a large number of matters. 

On campus, this discrepancy is rationalized in various ways. Some 

students and faculty simply deny its existence and believe, in spite 

of all the evidence, tha t the majority of the American people do 

agree with them. This explanation is particularly attractive, for it 

allows advocates to claim tha t the National Government is being unresponsive when i t fails to gra nt their demands for immediate withdrawal from Southeast Asia. Apparently while almost all Americans 

favo r withdrawal, a strong majority both in Rhode Island and in 

the Nation also support President Nixon’s program of gradual withdrawal, Vietnamization, and the temporary incursions into Cambodia. However, when the administration acts on the basis of this 

broad popular support, these students and faculty see the administration as unresponsive because to the best of their personal knowledge and observation, almost all rational people oppose the President on the war. Nowhere is this naivete more apparent than in the 

sincere belief of many student radicals in the feasibility of a student-workers alliance against the war or their self-destroying slogan, 

“Power to the People!”

Another common method of rationalizing away the refusing of 

public opinion to accept the intellectual community’s solutions for 

the war and our Nation’s other problems, is to treat with contempt 

the opinions held bv the bulk of the American people. Again, since on 

the major university campuses, the intellectual seldom sees compe-
183

tent, scholarly defenses of these opinions, many students and faculty 

have come to believe tha t these opinions are so inferior that no intellectually respectable person could possibly hold them. Repeatedly in debates these past weeks with faculty and students from colleges all over Rhode Islan d, I have personally encountered this blank in­ credulity at hearing an apparently rational and informed person de­ fend the Pres iden t’s Southeast Asian policies in a scholarly man­ ner. Indeed, quite frequently these persons have been so unused to serious scholarly criticism of their opinions that they have been forced to retreat into passionate emotional arguments, essentially devoid of factual content and based rath er on their self-proclaimed superior “sensitivity” to the problems of mankind. Thus ignorance resulting from the one-sided nature of campus debate, a debate whose only choices are liberalism and radicalism, a debate which totally ig­ nores the middle-of-the-road and conservative positions held by many Americans outside our Nation’s colleges, combines with an arrogant 

pride in our alleged moral superiority as intellectuals. At the same time conformity, the spirit of the herd, is just as omnipresent on our campuses as it is elsewhere. In some respects this sense of community is particularly strong among American intellectuals because of the long-standing tradition of anti-intellec- tualism in our country. Thus between an arrogant, ignorant, con- formistic intellectual community and the Nation-at-large with its latent tradition of anti-intellectualism, a major split has arisen. It long antedates the present crisis although two aspects of that crisis, the intellectuals’ bitter hatre d of Richard Nixon since the Hiss case and the conduct of the war in Southeast Asia, exacerbate it. Unless this split between our Nation-at-large and our academic communi­ ties is healed, the futu re of our country will be imperiled. To resolve 

it I propose these measures: (1) We should recognize that this divergence between our in­ tellectuals and our people as a whole exists and is a deep-seated problem in its own right, not merely a function of the war in 

Vietnam. (2) Eit her the Congress or the executive branch should conduct a thorough inquiry into the causes, nature, and possible solutions to this split between ou r people and our academic community. While I do not believe a problem of this nature can be solved by legislation or other governmental action, it can perhaps be somewhat alleviated by these means. This possibility should be closely explored in the 

inquiry. (3) Pending the results of such an investigation, every effort 

should be made to improve communications between the academic world and the Nation-at-large. Today we see many efforts to explain the universities’ positions to society often motivated by a missionary expectation on the part of students and professors tha t as soon as the general public understands their ideas, it will embrace them. This is not enough. We also must make efforts to explain the non- left positions held by so many of our people to our closed insular 

academic communities. (4) Fina lly, Members of the House of Representatives have an excellent opportunity to begin immediately and individually, this two- way exchange, and at the same time, to benefit yourselves politically.
184

As we all know, organization and manpower are key components 

of a winning campaign. You know the situation in your own districts better than almost anyone else. Why not try to organize at 

least a small permanent campaign organization of your party in 

every college and later on in every high school in your district ? The 

political benefits to you could be considerable and at the same time 

you would be providing continuous involvement in politics to interested students as a constructive alternative to demonstrations. You 

would increase student participa tion and confidence in our representative institutions, the very reason these hearings were called. Even 

more important, on every college and high school campus in your district there would be a small, well-organized group of politically 

capable and responsible students. Such groups are one of the best 

possible defenses against such a radical manipulation of student 

bodies as we have witnessed this month across our Nation.

Gentlemen, I hope what I have said will be of some utility to you 

and I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you.

Mr. Findley. Thank you, Mr. Diamond, for adding a very important new dimension to our survey here. Air. Boland.

Mr. Boland. I share the opinion of the chairman and commend 

you for coming here today and giving your views as you have. You 

indicated tha t there is a necessity for a two-way exchange between 

the academic community and the Congress, and tins is precisely what 

this ad hoc committee is, as you know, attem pting to establish. I 

think perhaps we are doing it pretty well. And the fact tha t we have 

had some diversity of opinion here on how this matter has been 

handled on the campus indicates that there are those who are concerned about conditions on the campus. I must say tha t 1 could 

not agree with you more when you stated tha t on the majority of 

campuses the debate has been one-sided. I happen to have some 

diversity of opinion on our Government’s activity in Southeast Asia, 

but at the same time I recognize that on campus, the ability of those 

to articulate against the policies of the Government are really lodged, 

as you have indicated in the faculty itself and the vast majority of 

them are opposed to these policies and very little, if any effort is 

being made to familiarize the students with the other side of the 

question. I think this is a very important matter. I am delighted tha t 

you highlight it here, and I think what you state is precisely correct. 

I thin k we do need this two-way dialog, tha t there are other factors to many of th e issues in which students are now involved. There 

are diversities of opinion, they ought to be listened to. One of the 

problems I have, you indicated here Air. Walsh did too, a number of 

these issues are being taken by the radical community; they take 

the issue of ecology and other issues he mentioned you are concerned 

with, and use it as a vehicle to swell thei r own ranks. I hope tha t 

the past month or so has indicated to the silent majority on the 

campus tha t there is a way to meet some of these problems by their 

joining in the discussions on a campus, those who have stayed away 

and refrained from becoming involved. If they do become involved 

their voices will be heard and their voices may well be the voices of 

the opposition to some of the statements and some of the positions 

taken by those who are the loudest on the campus, and your statement here indicates that this is happening and I ’m glad tha t it is,
185

because it augurs well not alone for the system but for the universities themselves. So I appreciate your coming here and expressing 

yourself as you have.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. I yield to Mr. Tiernan.

Air. Tiernan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I concur with some of 

the remarks of Mr. Findley and Mr. Boland, but would you tell me 

Mr. Diamond, whereabouts in Rhode Island do you live?

Air. Diamond. 15 Euclid Avenue, Providence, R.I., about two 

blocks from your district, sir. [Laughter.]

Air. Tiernan. From it or in it ?

Air. Diamond. I live there, I'm a voter. I ’m a legal resident, I 

have been f or 2 years. Before that, I lived in Alichigan.

4 Air. Tiernan. What year are you in at Brown University?

Air. Diamond. I ’m a doctoral candidate, sir. I hope to graduate 

in a year or so. I have only my dissertation left, only.

Air. Tiernan. The group tha t you represent before the committee 

today would have to be characterized as being not the silent majority , but the silent minority, at Brown University, wouldn’t you 

say?

Air. Diamond. Well, sir, we have never claimed to be a m ajority at 

Brown. We have over 100 members, we are the largest single political club there, one of the fastest growing. We hope to have 300 

next year on a campus of 8,000. There is no doubt tha t there are 

many more radical students, but not as many as you would think.

Air. Tiernan. Well, merely because they have viewpoints different 

from yours, does th at automatically make them radical ?

Air. Diamond. Oh, heavens no. Some of my best friends disagree 

with me on the war, and are quite liberal. The strike committee at 

Brown and all over Rhode Island, I think you would agree, sir, is 

a coalition of everybody, from people who just sentimentally dislike 

killing to really hard-core radicals. It is a huge tent tha t covers 

everything, rather like most political parties.

Air. Tiernan. I think tha t you have indicated in your statement 

tha t we who are in the political stream probably know the district 

better than you yourself have stated. I find tha t some of the statements are very broad, and I fran kly question some of them because 

I find that there are many students who are not liberal but are very 

concerned about our participation in the war. I think we have to 

be careful when we speak of those things. AVhat Air. Boland said 

I find very interesting. You know tha t I have had an internship

* program where we take two students from all the schools and universities in the State into my office each week, and we have had very 

few students from the University of Brown. I don’t think we have 

in the three years I have been down here, had more than two students apply to come down to our program. I find this incredible 

because I look on Brown University as one of the top institutions 

of learning not only in our State but in the country. But, I question, 

sometimes, their interest because they do speak of it on one hand 

in papers with academic conversations but then when it comes to 

actually doing it, I don’t find the interest. I want to congratulate 

you for taking time to come down here. How is it you appeared as 

a witness? Were you contacted or did you learn of it throu gh the 

newspaper ?

4 6- 48 7— 70 ------ 13
186

Mr. Diamond. Dean Ackleman sent a batch of the press releases 

that Congressman Findley issued around together with a statement 

stapled to it about Senator Pell’s meeting with students Sunday 

at Providence College and there were six or seven lying around and 

I was shown one of them, and we decided t hat I should come.

Mr. T iernan. Well I certainly want to congratulate you and also 

Mr. Walsh for coming down here, but I ’m kind of disappointed tha t 

there wasn’t someone who represented a different viewpoint than 

both you and Mr. Walsh have portrayed today.

Mr. Diamond: There was supposed to be, sir. My understanding 

is the man’s name was Je rry Zeldis from the Brown University delegation of 14 members headed by Chancellor Tillinghouse. It was 

our understanding tha t he was to appear. I don’t know about other 

people.

Mr. T 'iernan. Tha nk you, sir.

Mr. Findley. Mr. AIayne from the State of Iowa, we are glad to 

have you with us today.

Air. Mayne. Thank you Mr. Chairman. I want to congratulate 

you, Mr. Diamond for your very excellent statement. I gather tha t 

you are working toward your doctorate degree and already have 

the baccalaureate degree?

Air. Diamond. Yes, and the masters and the pre-lims.

Air. AIayne. Where did you get those two degrees?

Mr. Diamond. From Michigan State University in East Lansing.

Air. Mayne . Are you generally familiar with the situation at the 

undergraduate level at Brown?

Air. Diamond. T o some extent, sir. Not as much as i f I had graduated from there, but I ’m supposed to keep an eye on it; it is one 

of the things I ’m supposed to do in the College Republican Federation. Almost all of my friends are undergraduates; the graduate 

school is relatively small, political friends, I mean.

Air. Mayne. I know that in many of our institutions of higher 

learning throughout the country, much of the instruction at the 

undergraduate level is falling to graduate students. Is tha t true at 

Brown, to your knowledge?

Air. Diamond. At Brown, in the history department, we have only 

one course where graduate students normally teach. It is the introductory course in European history, and they teach sections in it tha t 

meet once or twice a week. The main lectures are all given by a 

senior faculty member, the former department chairman. This is 

true at Brown to a much lesser extent than at other schools. We 

have a requirement t hat to receive a Ph. D. you must first teach, but 

they have to waive this requirement for most people because we 

literally don’t have enough classes for the graduate students to teach. 

So this is relatively not true at Brown.

Mr. AIayne. Thank you.

Mr. F indley. Thank you very much, Air. Diamond. I might say, 

Air. Tiernan, tha t we did have Wayne Braffman from Brown University as a witness yesterday. He gave a very excellent statement, 

provoked quite a bit of discussion. AVe also had scheduled yesterday 

a James Zeldis and a group from Brown but even though they were 

set for 10 they were not able to appear. So we are very happy to 

have you Air. Diamond, and I feel tha t your suggestions are very 

constructive. Than k you very much.
187

Mr. Diamond. Thank you.

Mr. Findley. The next witness on our schedule is John Connolly. 

Is John Connolly here? He had not checked in a moment ago. Is he 

in the hearing room? If not, I ’ll call for Terry Easton. Terry 

Easton I understand is here and prepared. Welcome.

Mr. Easton. Hello. Other people better than I who are more 

versed in foreign affairs and perhaps more capable of succinctly stat ­

ing their views have already testified this morning from John s 

Hopkins. I unfo rtunately could not be here this morning. Third, 

you may ask the question, “how is it I was contacted?” The dean 

of students made letters available to certain people at Hopkins and 

that’s how I found out about this. And perhaps I can read this 

statement now, I won’t read all of it, and you might ask some questions. Gentlemen I am employed full time by NASA ’s manned space 

flight network. I started working about three months ago. I ’m on 

my lunch break here. The Division of the Executive Branch was 

kind enough to give me off an hour and a half to be here. Quite a 

few people at NASA are concerned, and there have been quite a 

few debates. Certainly this is the least militaristic of any of the 

Federal agencies, and we have had some lively debates on the subject. 

STATEMENT BY TERRY EASTON, JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVER SITY

Mr. Easton. Gentlemen, I wish to take this opportunity to thank 

you for allowing me to present my views on the United States’ involvement in Southeast Asia by way of this short statement. As 

you know, I am a graduate student in Computer Sciences at the 

Johns Hopkins University where I graduated this past semester 

with a B.S. degree. I was born and raised in a relatively conservative 

north Baltimore area suburb which is noted, among other things, 

for enabling the president of my high school PTA to become Vice 

President of the United States. My views, I feel, do reflect the 

growing numbers of younger people in my district and country. 

(Ju st for the record, my Representative is Congressman Long.)

Let me first comment about my personal philosophy of any military action by any country or group of people anywhere. I am opposed to participation in war in any form, and consider myself to 

be a conscientious objector as defined by current Selective Service 

regulations. Consequently, my personal views are perhaps more pacifistic than those of my fellow students. I believe that it is wrong to 

kill in any war, and for these personal beliefs feel that we should 

withdraw immediately. This view, of course, is not sufficient justification for my presence here today. There are much more concrete 

reasons why we should remove our forces from the Southeast Asian 

countries immediately.

As a student not only of computer sciences but also of the machinations of Washington politics and Government, I feel that the 

President has gravely transgressed his Executive powers and has 

placed our country in a crisis in which our direct security is t hre atened. I will develop this in detail shortly.

There are four major areas of dissatisfaction with our present 

foreign policy and the administration.

Fir st is the Nixon administration’s unpredictability, tha t is, where 

is the administration moving? Who knows outside of the Executive
188

Office Building what our next day’s policy will be? Certainly, some 

of you must have, in the course of dealing with the administration, 

been frustrate d in your attempt to obtain information which had 

been extended by past Presidents as a matter of courtesy. This unpredictability, which Mr. Nixon has repeatedly said is one of the 

strongholds of his administration, could by others be termed his 

irresponsibility—to Congress, to the American people, and to our 

NATO allies ( as will be commented on later).

The second area of dissatisfaction is closely related to the first 

and centers about the question of legislative versus executive branch 

powers—Who makes the decisions? The justification to ship 7,200 

M2 rifles to Cambodia made by Ellsworth Bunker recently (after 

the President denied we were shipping arms to tha t state) was the 

Foreign Assistance Act—yet this act clearly states tha t the President consult with Congress on such gifts. How many of you were 

consulted. As you are aware, repeated attempts by various colleagues 

of yours (and the American people’s representatives) to discuss our 

U.S. foreign policy have repeatedly been thwarted by the President, 

Other examples which could be cited would include Congressman 

Friedel of Maryland who wrote to the Pentagon about important 

information and never received a reply. Do any of you have the 

sneaking suspicion that the President would be much happier if 

the Congress did not exist at all? Mark Twain called Congress “th at 

grand old benevolent national asylum for the helpless” ; many people are beginning to believe tha t it might be better if it were 

phased out—put to sleep due to lack of exercise. Now is the opportunity for Congress to reassert its important role in checking the 

powers of the executive branch and redefining our national goals and 

international foreign affairs policy.

The third area of dissatisfaction is also closely interwoven in the 

same fabric with the above two areas. It concerns the integrity and 

honesty of this administration. I will not develop this topic further 

than to point out that many of our Nation’s leading news commentators are now raising this question daily.

The fourth area of dissatisfaction is the one I alluded to earlier, 

and concerns our national security. Under the present policies, the 

direct security of the United States is grieviously being threatened 

due to our search for indirect security in Southeast Asia. Let me 

develop this.

First, there is no proof that Southeast Asia is, or ever has been, 

a direct security area of vital interest to the United States. Even 

Clark Clifford admitted that. One asks of oneself “how do they get 

from there to here ? ” In many boats ?

Second, because of our new actions in Cambodia (and to a lesser 

degree in Laos), the Sino-Soviet split threatens to be patched up. 

This is truly a grave situation to concern every American. There 

has been more activity between Russia and China in the past few 

weeks than in the past few years.

Third, the SAL T talks, meetings which were repeatedly delayed, 

are in danger.

Fourth, our invasion of a n eutral country (not arguing if the regime of Cambodia is a CIA front or really genuine) causes our 

position against Russian and Arab invasion and aggression to lx* 

eroded.
189

Fifth, the lack of consultation with our NATO allies about this 

latest tur n of events has been considered by all of them to be an 

insult, and this action represents a new enlargement of the war. 

Britain and France have been extremely hurt. Say, who are our real 

allies? Who do we really care about? Several corrupt Asian governments or the critical West European powers!

Sixth, and finally, it has been argued by others fa r more versed 

in economic theory than I that the war is undermining our entire 

economy. The results are obvious: Unbalanced budget; inflation; 

depression of the stock market * * *

For these and other reasons I believe tha t we should immediately 

extradite ourselves from this costly current foreign policy.

One final comment: I voted for Mr. Nixon in the 1968 presidential 

election with the hope and belief tha t he would be able to lead us 

back to a more honest and peaceful world society. I feel he has let 

me down, and am changing my registration to the Democratic 

Party. Thank you for allowing me to present this paper to you.

Mr. F indley. Thank you very much, Mr. Easton. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. I want to congratulate you on your statement. I also 

want to commend you on changing your registration to the Democratic Par ty. [Laughter.] In your reference to Mark Twain, I suppose when Mark Twain wrote it years ago it was probably true. I 

don’t know that it is true today though. I think perhaps for the 

first time in many years the Congress is starting to assert its powers 

and its influence and its concern about foreign policy. I could not 

agree with you more than perhaps those down the avenue, I don’t 

mean the White House alone, I ’m ta lking about some of the depar tments of the Government, would wish that Congress would go away, 

and I thin k they would be delighted if there were no oversight by 

the Congress with respect to the programs of the departments tha t 

all the departments are engaged in. Without this oversight, of course, 

I ’m afra id that the Government would be much more helpless than 

people feel it is today. But Congress is exercising some power and 

some influence now, and I thin k everyone would agree to this. So 

the statement you made is one tha t does concern Members on both 

sides of the aisle in this Congress, and again I say tha t I thin k we 

are perhaps moving to exercise the power tha t does remain in the 

Congress that is given to it by the Constitution. Thank you very 

much.

Mr. Mayne. I just thou ght I ’d ask you to develop a little 

further your reasons for believing tha t this development in Cambodia is threatening to patch up the Sino-Soviet split. All of 

the evidence available to me would be ju st to the contrary, it app earing tha t the Russians are extremely apprehensive about the fact tha t 

the new regime in exile has been incubated and hatched in Peking. 

Were you aware of the fact tha t the Russians are still recognizing 

the Lon Nol Government? They have their ambassador and other 

diplomats in other-----

Mr. Easton. Th at’s an excellent point.

Mr. Mayne. Yes.

Mr. E aston. The reason I stated this I think tha t both Russia and 

from the readings—an excellent magazine, I'm sure you have all seen 

it, incidentally, is Atlas, which is a compilation—it is an American
190

publication—a compilation of European or rath er other world 

papers translated for Americans to read and published monthly 

and many of my views are based on readings, including the Atlas 

and the Manchester Guardian and other papers—but from what I 

can understand if one can believe what one reads, the amount of 

diplomatic activity, true, Russia is concerned very, very briefly with 

the fact tha t Red China is essentially taking the ex-ruler of Cambodia under its wing. I think tha t more basically there is a basic 

fear now in Russia and Red China, from feelings I get, which may 

tend to override their differences. It may tend to cause th eir differences to be suppressed. I think they are really afra id of us in our 

actions in Southeast Asia.

Mr. Wayne. But the SAL T talks are continuing. They have not 

been broken off. I t would seem to me that while this prediction, tha t 

there would be a healing of the Sino-Soviet split, was something 

the President’s critics played very hard when the Cambodian decision was first announced, subsequent developments have shown this 

not to be the case, a t least up to the present time. I do not see how 

anyone can say tha t the Russians and the Red Chinese are moving 

in concert on this. It seems to be increasing their distress with one 

another rath er than patching it up.

Mr. Easton. I don't thin k it's a short term. I don’t think in the 

next few weeks at least, or perhaps even the next few months, you’ll 

see immediate short-term actions other than a continuing series of 

interchanges, but I think tha t, as there are many pebbles in the 

road, this is one I don’t thin k we should have allowed to be placed.

Mr. Mayne. Thank you.

Mr. Findley. Are there other questions? If not, we than k you 

very much, Mr. Easton, for a very good contribution.

The Chair will state that the next witness, Eric Shafer, is scheduled to appear at 12:30 and is present. But we are doing very well 

with regard to the schedule, and it is just about lunch time, so if 

there is no objection we will adjourn for 30 minutes, returning at 

12 :40, at which time we will hear Eric Shafer. We do have another 

cancellation later in the day so I think we can be righ t on schedule. 

Thank you very much. The committee is adjourned.

afternoon session

Mr. Findley . The committee will be in order. We will now hear 

Mr. Eric Shafer of Muhlenberg College. Mr. Shafer.

STATEMENT BY ERIC SHAFER, MUHLENBERG COLLEGE

Air. Shafer. We speak as the members of a generation with a 

strong desire for world peace. We think peace is possible in our time 

and within the present government system.

In our opinion the present administration has failed so far to 

move to this end. This peace is not accomplished through a military 

victory, yet th is is the apparen t course of the present administration. 

We feel tha t this point has already been elaborated by our fellow 

students.

Fa r from decreasing our international respect, an immediate peace 

in Southeast Asia would increase U.S. prestige both at home and
191

abroad. The widespread controversy throughout the world over our 

involvement in Southeast Asia is ample proof of this. Furth er proof 

of this can be seen on nearly every college campus, including the 

Muhlenberg College campus.

Those who protest the war have often been accused of being unpatriotic. However, it is patriotism that leads us to protest a course 

of action which is detrimental to the welfare of the Nation. We 

want the system to work; we want to work w ithin the governmental 

system. Radical elements say the system cannot work and must be 

overthrown. So far, the present administration’s policy lias proved

* them correct. We tell them that the National Government is aware 

of the need for a speedy end to the Vietnam war, and that violence 

at home will only hur t that cause; they tell us tha t the National 

Government is committed to great violence, and will freely use it 

on its opponents at home. The administration escalates th e war, the 

National Guard in Ohio murders unarmed students, and the radicals 

are proved right again. We want desperately to believe tha t they 

are wrong. The events of the last 2 weeks, both at home and abroad, 

do not lead us to this conclusion.

The majority of Muhlenberg College students have indicated 

through several referenda the ir support of the immediate troop 

withdrawal from Southeast Asia. The present administration’s 

actions have not followed this desire, leaving our students frustrated. 

This frustration was increased by the recent expansion of the war 

into Cambodia. Muhlenberg students gave a great amount of time 

in talking with people in the community, writing letters to national 

leaders, and other efforts to educate themselves and the public about 

the war. These efforts have fur the r committed the majority of Muhlenberg students in their opposition to the war.

We support the Hatfield-McGovern bill in the Senate and similar 

action in the House. You, as our national representatives, must find 

a way to stop the Cambodian invasion immediately, bring the Vietnam war to a far speedier conclusion, and totally disavow violence 

as a tactic at home, not only for radical students (most public officials have found this easy), but also for the various official policetype groups. The cost of this war in terms of lost opportunities at 

home has long been clear; its cost in political terms for a whole

• generation of Americans, and thus perhaps even for the American 

system of government as a whole, has now become equally so.

Prep ared by: Michael Kohn, editor-in-chief, Muhlenberg Weekly; 

Eric Shafer, president, class of 1972; Dennis Tribble, student body 

» vice president. Also supported by: Karen Hamm, former student

body preside nt; Ron Keegan, president, class of 1973; Karen White, 

student body president.

Mr. Boland. I don’t know that what you say at the bottom of 

your first page is true that the National Guard in Ohio murders unarmed students, or the radicals are proved right again. Why would 

this be so tha t the radicals are proved righ t again? I know of no 

one in any official position of responsibility who has not deplored 

what happened at Kent, and what happened at Mississippi, and so 

I don’t thin k this proves, th at this says, th at the radicals are right. 

I commend you for indicating tha t these are events which possibly 

could add to the radical movement, of course there is a radical
192

movement and there is a revolutionary group in the colleges, in and 

off the college campuses, as I have stated here before and I say to 

you now my concern is that those who have not been activists, can 

either be drawn into the revolutionary group on the college campus, 

on or off the college campus, and you see this possibility too, don’t 

you?

Mr. K ohn. The point is, what we are trying to say is tha t we and 

the students we represent feel tha t the system has allowed the murder in Ohio and Jackson-----

Mr. Boland. I don’t know, I don’t think you can say the system 

has allowed it. I think you have individuals who have exceeded their 

authority and gone way beyond the bounds of reason. So really it is 

not so much the system as it is some of the personalities within the 

system. In also with reference to the position of, I might assume the 

grea t majority of students at Muhlenberg—I presume you repre ­

sent, in your opinion, the great majority of students at Muhlenberg— 

how many students has Muhlenberg incidentally?

Mr. Siiaffer. 1500.

Mr. Boland. It has a great reputation, and it is a great college, 

and I ’m delighted tha t it does become active in some of the things 

tha t students are concerned with. What you are doing here and 

what you have been doing back at the college is precisely what a 

number of students are doing in many other areas of the United 

States and that is to bring your viewpoint home in a nonviolent way 

and proper way to those who perhaps have not tho ught about Southeast Asia very much, perhaps have not thought about some of the 

other problems and issues t hat have caused great distress not only 

to people but to the Nation itself. So I commend you for doing this. 

Wha t about the community of Muhlenberg itself? What about the 

people of Muhlenberg? Do you think you are getting anywhere, do 

you think you are getting across to them?

Mr. Kohn. We circulated a petition around the community, and 

I thin k Senator Scott received 4,000 signatures from our college 

alone, from this community, and from Allentown we feel it’s a 

fairly large number.

Mr. Boland. How would you describe the community of 

Muhlenberg or its environs—hawkish, dovish?

Mr. Koitn. Representative Rooney is the Representative from 

Allentown. He has taken a stand against the Cambodian invasion. 

I don’t, from the newspapers which I think represent the people to 

a grea t extent, they have taken a stand in favor of Cambodia.

Mr. Boland. Well, than k you very much Mr. Kohn and also those 

who accompany you today. I certainly appreciate your statement 

and your involvement in the issues that you and the students of 

Muhlenberg consider to be of prime importance, of transcending 

importance at this time in the history of this country. Thank you 

very much.

Air. Findley. Mr. Kohn, I sure appreciate your statement and the 

effort tha t your appearance here represents. The question that keeps 

lingering in my mind is whether in fact, what you want and what 

the President is determined to effect are really tha t far apart. He 

has said tha t the withdrawal policy is irreversible, he wants a 

speedy end to the Vietnam war, which is what you have said here.
193

He has not used the phrase “military victory.’* I recognize th at this 

is an interpreta tion that you have placed upon the actions he has 

undertaken. Let me phrase it this way, if you were President and 

inherited the problem tha t President Nixon did inherit and were 

determined to bring about a speedy end of the war and return all 

our forces at the earliest possible date, what weight would you give 

to the problem of getting forces out of the country ? In other words, 

you would have the necessity of promoting and preserving as much 

stability as you could in the local regions for as long as you could, 

would that not be the case?

Mr. Kohn. I thin k the Hatfield-AlcGovern bill covers the point 

as far as buying sanction for those South Vietnamese officials who 

would like to come here, and I thin k the elections should be held 

there supervised by a neutral force.

Mr. Findley. But if the Commander in Chief could take some 

actions which would help make it possible for our troops to move 

to the air fields, to the seaports, to disengage, that is, to get out of 

the country safely, he should take such action, should he not?

Mr. Koiin. We feel that when you press forward, when you escalate a war. you are not trying to get out. It’s just a roundabout 

way of doing it and not showing a strong desire for having immediate peace in this country and all over. You very safely get out by 

retreating, solely retreating over a year period, to air fields and 

pulling the troops out that way.

Mr. Findley. Do you have any furthe r questions Mr. Boland? 

Well we are very grateful to you. This is a great help to us, and 

thanks for coming in today. Thank you.

Mr. Kohn. Thank you.

Mr. Findley. I’m not sure about the pronunciation—Mr. Jauc h? 

From Wisconsin State University.

Mr. J aucii. Mr. Randy Surbaugh will be speaking, he is the vice 

president of the student body.

Mr. Findley. Than k you. Air. Surbaugh.

Air. Surbaugh. As you now know, my name is Randy Surbaugh, 

I ’m vice president of th e student body a t AVisconsin State University 

at Eau Claire.

STATEMENT BY RANDY SURBAUGH. WISCONSIN STATE 

UNIVER SITY AT EAU CLAIRE

Air. Surbaugh. AVe would like to express our thanks on behalf of 

ourselves and our fellow students at AVisconsin State UniversityEau Claire for the oppo rtunity to address the issues tha t concern 

7,100 students and others who are not fortunate enough to be here.

Students on our campus are frustrated by the same issues affecting students throughout the Nation.

The realization of the futility of the attempt to win in South 

Vietnam, the extension of the still undeclared war into neutral 

Cambodia, the increasing trend toward militarization, the dra ft, 

repression of student dissent, and lack of concern over domestic issues have resulted in constructive and destructive actions across 

the Nation.
194

Signs of major concern emerged at our university in October 

with the moratorium activities. Discussion of the issues continued 

with no further overt action until the recent invasion of Cambodia 

and the tragedy at Kent State. At this time, these issues gained new 

relevance. Dialog had resulted in further frustration. Students 

sought a new means of expression.

Phenominal interest was shown at an organizational meeting. 

From tha t point on, interest blossomed. A rally was held which 

drew a majority of our academic community. Continuing activities 

included a large, orderly march on the Reserve armory, a march 

on the Federal Building downtown, a boycott of classes and a treeplan ting ceremony as a living memorial to the four students who 

died at Kent State.

The activities were successful. They succeeded in enlarging the 

awareness and sensitivity of a larger portion of our community, but 

they achieved no changes. Concern took a new shape. Students sought 

to be heard, recognized and understood. A new and strong force 

was felt in Washington and continues to be felt. Students are a 

rapidly expanding political force. They realize they must seek effective channels so that this strength is felt, voices are heard and 

changes are made.

The interest shown in this committee and the number of students 

visiting Congressmen and administrative officials provides evidence 

of a new student commitment to change through channels.

Caution should be exercised so tha t lack of action does not result 

in alienation. The most important test ever of the responsiveness of 

the system is now underway. We realize tha t change is not rapid 

within a system such as ours, but this should not be used as a rationalization for postponing action.

Reaction should no longer take the form of repression. Instead, 

we think tha t certain changes are necessary to prove our Government’s responsiveness.

Government policy seems to be expansion in Vietnam rath er than 

the promised withdrawal. The death toll rises weekly and it is of 

paramount importance tha t we immediately withdraw from Cambodia. We urge supp ort of the Cooper-Church amendment and 

House Resolution 1000. It is time for Congress to assert its powers 

in determining policies of this country. All power to the people can 

be accomplished if Congress reassumes its position as representing 

the people on all issues.

We further feel that the Gulf of Tonkin resolution should not be 

considered a blanket approval of our actions in Vietnam. Impatience 

is rising again as a result of continuation of the still undeclared war 

in South Vietnam. It is not strictly the American Government that 

is involved in Vietnam; it is the American youth. Over half of the 

more than 40,000 war dead were under the age of 21, the college age, 

the age of those now taking action. We urge support of the 

McGovem-Hatfield amendment.

As a related point, we deplore the increasing militarization of our 

coimtry. We have witnessed increased attempts to place an ROTC 

unit on our campus. We have thus far repelled these attempts to 

change the composition of our academic community. We urge the 

limiting of military spending, and a reevaluation of priorities.
195

Military as well as economic and political involvement overseas will 

not prove our strength as a Nation. National unification is a more 

prestigious and advantageous show of strength.

We hope that attempts to establish an all-volunteer army are 

stepped up so th at anxiety over the draft can be eliminated.

Congress is at this time considering these points and we hope for 

serious consideration of our suggestions.

As a corollary to ending the war, we hope tha t the violence at 

home, particularly on our college campuses, can be eliminated as 

well. There are several ways of doing this. At present, those in positions of auth ority are resorting to repression. Repression only results in furthe r violence. We have witnessed the use of ill-trained 

police and National Guard units at Jackson College, Kent State 

University, and the University of Wisconsin. We have also witnessed the results. Dissent turn s to violence only when met with 

opposing force. The result of cooperation with a small number of 

law enforcement officials was seen at our university, where activities were completely nonviolent. We urge the very cautious use of 

the National Guard and Federal troops. We urge a review of mob 

control methods. The present system, based on State police tactics, 

has not been effective.

Violence also occurs when peaceful dissent does not produce results, when student voices are not heard. There is an increasing feeling that students are not being heard and that the only alternative is 

violence, civil war or revolution. A very simple method of changing 

the emphasis is by lowering the voting age so tha t constitutional 

rights are extended to our concerned youth.

Meanwhile, students throughou t the Nation will continue to 

demonstrate this concern, directing the sum total of their efforts to 

the upcoming elections and lobbying for issues. Activities of this 

type will continue, violence and dissent will decrease, and peace for 

all will be accomplished only if frustration is reduced and the 

changes students desire are realized.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. Mr. Surbaugh, than k you for your statement and 

the indication tha t you recognize tha t change is not rapid within 

a system such as ours, not as rapid as people would like it. I guess 

about the only time you get rapid changes in some forms of government would be in totalitarian or dictatorships, and I ’m sure tha t 

those of you at the Wisconsin State University would not want this 

kind of a change. Those legislative proposals which you are for 

are receiving consideration in the Congress. I would think maybe a 

couple of years ago they would not have gotten very far, but they 

are receiving considerable publicity within the Congress itself, and 

a lot of Members are becoming involved—a lot of Members of Congress are becoming involved in direct support of them. Though 

actually the nonviolent way the students have addressed themselves 

to the issues tha t they consider to be important to the Nation has 

made an impression here. As you have indicated, your group has 

talked to a great number of public officials and Members of Congress in the past few weeks, and you have been doing back home in 

Eau Claire many of the things tha t are being done in other areas 

in the United States. I do have a problem with your statement
196

about dissent turns to violence only when met with opposing force, 

in the sense t ha t I ’m sure that you and your fellow students would 

recognize th at there is a responsibility on the part of college officials 

to protect a college against destruction and I don’t know how you 

can actually do it if those who are committing the destruction, who 

are tearing the college down so to speak, don’t stop when they are 

asked to do so, even when they are enjoined to, th rough legal action. 

So I suppose at times some force is necessary to protect the college, 

to be sure tha t it does remain standing. Would you disagree 

with that?

Mr. Surbaugh. I would like to say tha t I repudiate anarchy on 

campuses or anywhere else just as much as any one of the honorable 

Representatives here. What I ’m saying in effect is tha t there has not 

been a necessary discretion used. I t has appeared to students, among 

other things, tha t the property has been more important than the 

lives. We feel that the people are more im portant than the property. 

Again, I uphold the rig ht to property among people, and there is 

much confusion in this aspect over what we mean by violence. I 

don’t feel, as was outlined, tha t the people, that the forces being 

used by the Government, have been properly trained or properly 

equipped, or maybe overequipped would be the word. And in this 

essence I feel tha t there needs to be some further work done on 

exactly the means to keep things from gettin g out of hand. I do 

not agree with the violence at Madison in any form. I do feel, however, that, well I know for certain by being there, that very often 

the police use much more, for instance, tear gas, than is necessary 

for the protection of a certain area. Perha ps different means or a 

bette r evaluation. I thin k that by taking some time and effort and 

devising better means of initial mob control the outcome will be much 

bette r for all those concerned. I want peace on the campuses too and 

I don’t think people will respond positively, students tha t is, to 

threats. If the cops threaten they will kick you off the campus if you 

raise your fists, then, of course, that’s the first thin g you’re going 

to do. This is childish, and we don’t feel tha t this is right but on 

the other hand we don’t feel the same way. Anyone would resist such 

a threat. And we feel tha t it must be a better reason, method of the 

use of force. I ’m not saying tha t it shouldn’t be used at all, merely 

that in a number of instances there has been too much use of these 

means for protection, and the opposite is usually the result.

Mr. Boland. Well, thank you. I appreciate your comments on it, 

Randy. Thank you very much.

Air. Findley. Air. O’Konski. AVelcome to this panel. You have 

intimate associations in the State of Wisconsin, so we’re doubly glad 

you’re here.

Air. O’Konski. These students are from one of the eight, and the 

largest university, in my district. I met with them for about 2 hours 

yesterday, and we had a very good exchange of views. They are 

sincere, they are concerned, and they are serious, and I want to compliment them for taking the time to come over here and rep resent tha t 

great university and making this statement before this committee.

Air. Findley. Th ank you Mr. O’Konski. Air. Surbaugh, was there 

any point at which police force was utilized during your protests, 

your marches and other activities on campus and in the community ?
197

Mr. Surbaugii. No, at Eau Claire we have been, successful in this 

effort for a number of reasons. During the October moratorium we 

did have some slight difficulty which is not, I don’t think, the direct 

fault of the police depar tment; rath er of one officer who really d idn’t 

know what he was doing. In our subsequent rallies, marches, and 

so on, we have tried very hard, and we have received very good police 

cooperation. For instance, if there is a small disturbance the police 

do not move in, and we haven’t had anything like this in connection 

with a war protest. We have had in another incidence tha t hap ­

pened on college campuses. We received good cooperation. We have

* instituted our own marshal corps, so to speak, for our marches. The 

People’s Pigs, they’re called. [Laughter.] But this is for regulating 

our own order. We’re able this way to have a buffer force, and we 

can keep these two groups from confronting each other. The police

* cooperation at Eau Claire has been good. This is especially necessary

in light of, there is, I wouldn’t want to say how large, but there is a 

minority or a small group of people however, who are very antagonistic toward our types of actions, especially when they reach into 

the community, which we have tried to alleviate through a number 

of means. So at Eau Claire we have not had this problem because 

we have had the cooperation, and we were able to work with these 

people. The initial-----

Air. Findley. May I interrup t at tha t point to ask you a question. 

I assume from what you say t hat you have been able to isolate pr etty 

well the lunatic fringe of the student group. How were you able to 

accomplish this, and keep them from being in a position to cause 

trouble ?

Mr. Surbaugii. A number of, well I wouldn’t call it lunatic 

fringe. They were more radical members perhaps, a revolutionary 

contingent or “bush radicals,” they are called. [Laughter.] Not to 

deemphasize the point. However, we do not feel tha t violence was 

the means in this case, it has not come to that point yet. I don’t think 

tha t the means we did this are too significant, other than through 

our use of marshalling in between. We tried to keep the group together. We stressed unity in the whole group. We tried to keep it 

from splitting. We tried to keep from isolating any one group such 

as the more radical group.

* Mr. Findley. Are there any other questions?

Mr. O’Konski. Incidentally, I might mention tha t the college 

newspaper “The Spectator,” complimented the police of Eau Claire, 

Wis., for their tolerance and for their good behavior as a whole 

- during this recent demonstration on the campus. There is good feeling between the two. There was little use of excessive force as a 

whole. The student body was pretty well satisfied with police behavior except for a very few incidents. They complimented the police 

for their action, am I correct in that?

Mr. Surbaugii. Yes.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. How much do you think the dra ft has to do with the 

unrest on the college campuses? Or on your college campus?

Mr. Surbaugii. I hate to try and isolate it as such. Pa rt of our 

problem is alleviated in tha t we’re fairly close to Canada. 

[Laughter.] No, actually I didn’t mean to be facetious in my answer,
198

I wouldn’t want to isolate—this is certainly a factor, and the fact 

that I know some of the counties where I come from further north 

of Eau Claire have rather high proportionate draw rates than what 

there are, and there are a number of people who, we are quite opposed to the means tha t have been used in draftin g people, at the 

present time.

Mr. Hicks. Would this volunteer army, if it came about serve to 

alleviate a lot of the tension on the campuses, do you th ink? Despite 

what happens in Southeast Asia?

Mr. Surbaugii. Well, of course, the practicality of a volunteer 

army is affected definitely by what happens in Cambodia, and I 

feel tha t this is one thing that would alleviate. I ’m afraid I have 

not had the in-depth research accomplished as far as proportioning 

out exactly how much of the problem this would alleviate. I would 

say that’s certainly an important consideration of the tension at 

Eau Claire.

Mr. Hicks. You have read the speculations though tha t if we can 

get the troops down to a certain level, maybe it can be maintained 

on a volunteer basis, of those who have to go to Southeast Asia. The 

draft is not so onerous is it, if you don’t have to go to Southeast 

Asia?

Mr. Surbaugii. This too is another consideration. Taking the 

same problem, the problem of the draft is not the draft itself, it ’s 

the effect. If this is eliminated I think this would by a unifying 

factor in that people would not be so opposed to serving their country. It would, I feel, sort of bring back together the place of the 

military as the protecting agency in the United States.

Mr. Findley. Ladies and gentlemen, we thank you very much 

for your presentation here today, bringing a report from one of the 

largest campuses in the country. This has been a big help to us.

Next witness is Mark D. Nozette, student body vice-president of 

Colgate University. Mr. Nozette.

Mr. Nozette. Mr. Chairman, I just want to say I made my statement purposely short so we could have more questions from you 

as well.

STA TEM ENT BY MA RK D. NOZETTE, STUDENT BODY VICE 

PRES IDEN T, COLGATE UN IVER SIT Y

Mr. Nozette. Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the committee for 

affording me the opportunity to speak this afternoon. I believe your 

initiative is a good one and I am sure you realize tha t the success 

of these hearings will not be measured by the number of witnesses 

tha t appear or the number of statements you elicit, but ra ther by the 

affirmative action you take after we have gone.

The enormous and spontaneous campus reaction to the President’s 

invasion of Cambodia and the murders at Kent State illustrate 

beyond any doubt the sheer depth of feeling held by many young 

people against the current direction of American foreign policy. 

The heart of the matter is really very simple: Many of my peers 

do not wish to see lives taken—fee they Vietnamese, Laotian, Cambodian, or their very own—for what tfeey consider to be a worthless
199

cause. What you have been seeing on the campuses then is no youth­ ful fling, but concern and frustration over a matter of life and death. The actions taken to protest this latest escalation have been as varied as the campuses which have initiated them. Yet, other than creating a sense of turmoil or crisis, I doubt whether these exercises have been very fruitfu l. The war goes on, lives are lost, and the 

Nation’s malaise deepens. We at Colgate have had our own special project. More than half of our student body asked one of our alumni, Secretary of State William P. Rogers, to resign either from the Cabinet or from Col­ gate’s board of trustees. Our hope, however, impolitic, was tha t his departure from the Nixon administration over a policy with which he was not in agreement, would underscore feelings against the war and raise doubts in the minds of those who have heretofore remained silent. While we failed to get the Secretary’s resignation, two points did 

become abundantly clear to us. Fir st, there is no communications gap between the Nixon admin­ istra tion and tha t segment of y outh opposed to the war. They know what we’re saying and we know what they’re saying. The difference is one of basic policy—of adm itting a mistake and acting accord­ ingly, or of clinging to the same outworn slogans and premises which have been so m anifestly disastrous and tragic in the past. Secondly, we learned that regardless of how courteous this admin­ istra tion has recently been, it is not going to heed a bunch of students, especially when they have no political clout. We all know how successful the President has been in using the media; we all know how easy it would be for him to isolate or dis­ credit any one segment of opinion—especially youthful antiwar sentim ent; and we all know how much this ability has allowed him 

to continue to hope for some kind of victory. This increasing power of the President corresponds with the de­ clining power of the Congress—a theme with which I am sure you are familiar. Besides all its other effects, this war is raising serious questions rega rding the viability of a system of diffused power. The Executive is clearly the one closest to the people. And he shapes the opinion in your district, opinion which you then follow. Is this what 

is meant by an independent legislative branch? We on the campuses and you on the Hill are thus in very similar predicaments. Neith er one of us has been able to move popular opin­ ion ; neith er one of us has been able to get the President to end this war. As long as he continues his slick and singular use of the media he will control popular sentiments. And as long as Members simply follow those sentiments, he will control the Congress as well. Regardless of how you might wish to label yourself; regardless of how you might feel about the opinions expressed during these hearings; I am sure you cannot help but realize your own position. We are witnessing a crisis in leadership, a crisis stemming from the ability of the Presiden t to make the Congress his prisoner; and the inability or unwillingness of the legislative branch to escape. This fall, students in all parts of the country will be working to change the situation. Elections are the only means which provide such an opportunity. We will be attempting to gain that illusive
200

political power for ourselves by restoring the legislative branch to 

a responsible position in the execution of foreign policy. We will 

be challenging members who have sat passively by while lives have 

been needlessly spent.

I believe, however, tha t this situation need not be one of confrontation for I think th at your interests and ours correspond. There 

is no reason why you cannot use the opportunity of this fall’s election to speak out—if not against policy then certainly against the 

process of its formulation.

Maybe this will force you to lead your district instead of follow; 

maybe you will have to endure political or personal discomfort for 

it is not an easy th ing to oppose an incumbent President on foreign 

policy. But this war demands tha t kind of action, for considerations 

here go beyond military tactics to the heart of the constitutional 

system. I suppose I may even be asking you to risk your career but 

gentlemen, you have been asking us to risk our lives.

You know, with the various meetings and then Congressmen responding in their offices and everything like that. But you know 

afte r the thing dies down, after the excitement wears off what we 

are left with, it seems to me, is the same situation.

Mr. Boland. Well, I would agree tha t a fter the excitement has died 

down, there will be a problem of falling in the same situation, tha t 

is a possibility. I don’t agree that will happen myself, from my own 

viewpoint. Looking at the discussions th at have been held with students since a week ago Thursday, we’ve seen thousands of students 

and addressed thousands of students and addressed a few at a time. 

I think tha t these exercises have produced some results, some very 

dramatic results.

Mr. Nozette. Mr. Congressman, I wonder if I could say something? I ’ve been privileged the past couple o f weeks to participate 

in our university’s Washington study program where I have been 

working in Mr. Rosenthal’s office and seen a number of Congressmen, a number of other people participa ting in the program. I don’t 

really believe tha t the students are going to sway people or going 

to get policy changes in essence ju st by going throu gh the halls of 

Congress. I don’t believe that Members, you know, think in those 

terms. They go back to their districts, and that’s w hat is important. 

You know anything is good, that’s not the point, but I just question the effectiveness in the long run.

Mr. Boland. I really don’t think that the Executive is clearly the 

one closest to the people. He certainly is not in congressional districts. I ’m of the opinion, I ’m sure that it is shared by the vast 

majority of the Members of the House, tha t really the one public 

official who is closest to the people on a national level is a Member of 

Congress. I suppose the one public official back home who is closest 

is either the mayor or those who are on the board of selectmen in a 

small town. But in the consideration of national policy I have the 

firm conviction tha t Members of the Congress are. Because they are 

home an awful lot. They speak to a great number of people in the 

course of the 2 years tha t they serve here, and as a matter of fact 

I think that probably a Member of Congress does shape opinion 

in his district, He doesn’t always follow either, often times he leads. 

I would venture to guess that in very many districts, and you can
201

comment on this, tha t there are a m ajority of people who agree with 

the President’s policy, and yet there are a number of Members of 

Congress who take the opposite view in those very districts.

Mr. Nozette. You made a number of points. You know that I 

recognize that Members of the House would feel that they are the 

closest to the people; they very well may be. I haven’t had that much 

experience with public life. I just base this on a number of factors— 

the studies that have been done at Dartm outh and Michigan State 

concerning voter identification with the Congressman where the 

number of people tha t know the Congressman’s name is something 

like 60 to 65 percent and the number of people that know the President’s name—you know you might talk to a lot of people but how 

many living rooms did you get into? You can compare it with how 

many living rooms through the television media tha t the President 

gets into. Concerning the idea of leading, it’s a good thing, it ’s a 

courageous thin g to see Members do that. But from experience I ’ve 

had, both in courses and from working here, it seems quite clearly 

and maybe possibly good tha t Representatives, in a certain sense, 

tha t they follow the district. That is representation—that’s one of 

the values that we have. The point is, there are times for other 

things—tradeoffs.

Air. Boland. You mentioned voter identification. That bring s to 

my mind, Air. Chairman, the actual occurrence in my district some 

years ago when one of the large corporations was holding a seminar 

on public affairs and the identification of public officials. During the 

course of the seminar it would flash on the screen pictures of public 

officials and ask those who were there to identify them. These were 

people who were in supervisory capacities with the company, and 

this was back in the early 1950’s.

They put on Senator Jack Kennedy from my State and of course 

the vote identification there, that is the identification of him, was 

about 98 percent. Of Senator Saltonstall the identification was very 

high. They flashed my picture on the screen, and I think 65 percent 

of them there said I was Dominic DiAIaggio so I was [laughter] 

tha t was back in the early 1950’s, but it has changed since then, and I 

think perhaps you’ll find it a little bit closer. It takes time but I 

think we do accomplish these things.

Air. F tndley. Air. Hicks.

Air. Hicks. Well, tha t wasn’t bad identification, was it?

Air. B oland. AVell, no, because he was playing pretty good baseball 

in those days. [Laughter.]

Air. Hicks. Thank you, Air. Chairman. I just was wondering if 

you really believe, though, tha t the students haven’t had an effect? 

Certainly they had an effect on President Johnson in the New H amp ­

shire campaign. Do you have any doubt that President Nixon is not 

going to be out of Cambodia by June 30th?

Air. Nozette. I don’t know, I mean I would do anything to be 

wrong.

Air. Hicks. Do you have any doubts?

Air. Nozette. Yes, I do have doubts. Even if he is out, even if he 

gets out of Cambodia, there is no guarantee tha t he won’t get back 

in. There is no guarantee-----

Air. Hicks. As a result of the student movement I have no doubt 

tha t he will not go back in. I have no doubt tha t he will bring peo46-4 87— 70------ 14
202

pie home this summer to show how effective that Cambodia venture 

was, where I do have doubts tha t he would have, if the students 

had n’t come down here. I hope tha t they do what so many of them 

have said they are going to do, become interested in the political 

aspect of the fall election and 2 years hence. Because th at is the only 

way tha t they are going to really make their voices heard. You 

can’t come down here and say to Congress, “we know what’s right 

so you go ahead and do it and if you don’t do it you are not leaders.” 

That isn’t going to do it.

Mr. Nozette. Sir, I ’d give anything to be wrong, if you’d be right. 

I mean, I think the President’s sincere in his desire to get out. The 

only questions I would have is the question of how you do it. And 

I don’t believe in talking about the first President to lose a war and, 

you know, wrapping yourself around the flag is really going to do 

that. Henry Kissinger made an interesting statement in a book tha t 

was prepared by Brookings Institution. He said, “when a guerrilla 

army does not lose a war, it wins; when a conventional army does 

not win a war, it loses.” By tha t token, we have lost the war and if 

the President does not want to lose the war or he doesn’t want to 

suffer defeat, you have to raise some questions about what he is 

going to do in the future.

Mr. F indley. J ust one question I ’d like to have you comment on 

briefly. Once we are out of Vietnam with our military units, and 

I believe tha t day will come and I hope soon, what role do you 

think our Nation should have militarily in the South Pacific-Southeast Asia area? Should it have any role whatever?

Mr. Nozette. I don’t believe tha t we should pull out into an isolationist position. I do thin k the key to anything we do should be 

to our national interest as one Nation. I don’t believe we should help 

other nations militarily, especially those nations that do not help 

themselves. I feel th at the kind of powers we should have is to look 

to the middle powers—Jap an, the Philippines, and people like Australians, nations like th at, and they should have their responsibilities. 

We have our problems at home and that is what we should be looking to, and they have the ir problems there and that’s what they 

should be looking to.

Air. F indley. I can almost conclude from this that you would 

embrace the Guam doctrine as the President stated it?

Mr. Nozette. I ’m not exactly clear as to what the Guam doctrine 

is. I don’t want to—Attorney General Mitchell says “judge us not by 

what we say, but by what we do.” So I ’ll wait and see what the 

President does.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much.

Air. Boland. Let me say, Air. Chairman, I ’m delighted, Mark, to 

hear you say tha t we ought not to withdraw into isolationism. I 

think this is one of the grea t dangers tha t faces the Nation—to become neoisolationist, to withdraw into the fortress of America. Students ought to recognize that perhaps better than anyone else except those of us who serve in public life, tha t we do live in a world 

of reality, and it’s not the kind of world all of us want, of course, 

and I guess we’ll never get that kind of a world. But we have to 

contend with forces which perhaps are alien to our own and consequently withdrawing into America or becoming isolationists I
203

think probably would sound the death kneel of this Nation, and I ’m delighted to hear you say tha t that’s not the direction you would want to travel. It is not the direction in which I would want to travel, although I disagree with the way in which we are traveling.

Mr. Nozette. Congressman, I too am pleased tha t you would say tha t you want to deal with reality, because I think tha t to consider ourselves the policemen of the world or act that way, whether our rhetoric indicates that, is too dangerous a situation, and we have to 

be aware of tha t as well.

Mr. Boland. Than k you very much.

• Mr. Findley. Thank you very much. The next witness is Miss Sara Mrsich—I ’m sure I don’t have the pronunciation righ t—of Good Counsel College, White Plains, N.Y. Sara, tell us how to pronounce your name as a starter.

• Miss Mrsich. It’s Mrsich, you w’eren't too f ar olf. Good afternoon. 

I ’m very pleased to be here.

STATEM ENT BY SARAH MRS ICH, GOOD COUNSEL COLLEGE

Miss Mrsich. What I will do is express how U.S. foreign policy as a whole, since 1945, appears to me and some of my fellow stu­ dents. Then look specifically at the Vietnamese war and the Cambodian issue. In 1951 Edward Hallet t Carr in his book, “The New Society,” summed up what was then, and still seems to be the guiding force of 

America’s foreign policy:

The new American displomacy is directed to the establishment of power in British nineteenth-century terms. It does not want to fight any more than nineteenth-century Britain wanted to fight; it does not seek to conquer terri ­ tory ; it does not seek to defend or promote an ideology. It wants to see power so comfortably balanced in Europe (and Asia) tha t it can leave Europe (and Asia) politically alone, and get on with the business of running the international 

economy.

I am sure the point on ideology will be challenged, for this is the point tha t is essential. The Government has presented all their foreign policy decisions in terms of ideology—we are the bastion of democracy, we must keep the world free, the whole concept of our policy of containment. The obvious contradictions of what we

* say and what we do has caused a credibility gap and yielded a 

cynical, unbelieving youth. "When the Government’s policy is challenged, all too often the only answer offered is that we must be practical. Youth interprets

* this “practicality” as vested self-interest, economic self-interest. From our conduct in foreign affairs questions have arisen which no one in Government has attempted to answer. I ask them again: Who are we to dictate to other countries how they should run their affairs, or which form of government they should establish? Would we ever accept tha t kind of treatm ent? How can we expect other nations to accept it? And more importantly, what will it reap for 

us and the world in the future? We are a nation in a world in revolution. Former colonial pos­ sessions, who once thirsted for freedom, want more now. They real­ ize tha t freedom is an empty promise if they do not have the means
204

to subsist and to compete in the world. Economic and industrial 

development is now their goal.

For all the factions existing in Asia and Africa one thing unites 

them—hatred and distrust of the former colonial powers. For it 

was Western Europe who zealously guarded the ir progress, their 

industrial capacity. Only token attempts were made to develop the 

nations they ruled—more often they drained these nations of their 

natu ral resources and sent back the finished product. Everyone was 

happy, at least for a while.

But as Europe’s grasp began to loosen and finally yield, dissatisfaction caused by this policy was obvious. Revolution wracked the 

third world; there was tremendous internal conflict caused by attempts to establish stable governments and move into the modern 

world. The nations of the th ird world are faced with problems which 

no Westerner can fully appreciate.

They are also faced with a dilemma—they must have help in 

order to develop. The only one they can ask is the West, or 

even more pointedly, the United States. Considering all things, we 

were in a fairly good position—we had pretty much avoided the 

stigma of most of the Western powers. Today we are probably the 

most stigmatized. Why?

F ir st : We were not ready; we did not have the background, nor 

the knowledge, nor the desire to assume the position of world leader.

Second: We were practical, which meant we followed no cohesive 

plan, except containment, which really had little relevance to the 

third world, despite what we thought. Our foreign policy was hit 

or miss.

Thi rd : Our foreign policy was topheavy—military aid far surpassing our economic assistance. Besides, the economic aid had strings 

attached and was poorly handled, on our part and tha t of the recipients.

Fourth: We were very self-centered—never sharing the responsibilities, problems, or decisions. We preached self-sufficiency and 

independence but we never tried to develop it within the third world.

This critique is not idealistic nor ignorant of the vast problems 

we faced then and are facing now. What it is, is a demand for a 

new program. A program which involves more time, thought, and 

effort than the policies we have been following. A program, which 

in the end, will be able to stabilize the world. It 'is the only wav the 

United States can hope to survive. I hope tha t President Nixon’s 

doctrine is followed and is given the chance it deserves.

Vietnam, because of the lives lost, the longevity of the war, and 

the futi lity of our situation, has finally made some people stop and 

think and react. Both sides involved in the debate over Indochina 

are guilty of mishandling the discussions, and if this continues, I 

fear to consider the consequences. Both sides must try to develop a 

true dialog, as we are having here, a continuous dialog. The 

Government is faced with the most responsibility here—because it is 

the Government.

I first would like to look at the Cambodian issue. I cannot condemn the President’s action—I do question his judgment in not 

receiving permission—formal diplomatic permission from the Cambodian Government. I do question the shortness and simplicity of
205

his presenta tion—I could understand his reasoning but many of the 

students and professors in my school just could not appreciate it. I 

must disagree with the reaction on the pa rt of some of our congressional leaders.

It appears that there are two main reasons why a move in Cambodia was necessary:

1. The stated reason was that this arms buildup threatened our 

boys tha t were in Vietnam and the ones going out (estimates of 

withdrawal, losses if major withdrawal begins). I think tha t is 

obvious.

Also, if Vietnamization is at least to have a chance to work and 

develop, this thr eat had to be eliminated. It gives them a short but 

hopefully lifegiving breathing space.

2. The unstated reason is tha t politically it will have a lot to do 

with the making or breaking of the President and will also have an 

effect on the congressional elections this November.

If the President is successful, his action would be viewed as positive, active step in a war tha t has been weighted in negativism and 

would increase his prestige with the silent majority.

He will also have crippled the Vietcong plans to begin major 

assaults which would undoubtedly affect our congressional elections. 

This, they (Vietcong) are very much aware of. I think one thin g 

which should be pointed out to the American student and some 

congressional leaders is that we should not underestimate and misinterp ret Hanoi.

From a moral point of view it will probably save more lives than 

will be lost. Tactically, it is the only thing tha t is really practical.

A sidelight is the plight of the Cambodian Government itself. 

Under attack bv the Vietcong and the North Vietnam regulars, it 

could not even hope to hold its own. Therefore, an added feature 

of this action is that by diverting the Vietcong we help stabilize, 

to some small extent, the new Cambodian Government, thus preserving its “neutrality.”

As to Vietnam itself—discussing the morality of our physical intervention is senseless in tryi ng to deal with it now. The worth in 

this is that it has opened new lines of thought which had lain 

dormant before but will not in the future.

What we must look at now is the moral and practical consideration of our present position!

Immediate withdrawal now is the most immoral program that 

could ever be followed. The blood that would flow then could never be 

washed off. The cry is heard that we are killing more than would 

be killed if we withdrew. Tha t is pure speculation or blindness— 

any form of tota lita rian government depends on terr or for its security. The murders committed in North Vietnam when the Communists took control will never be known as in the past when 

totalitarian forms of government were established. To knowingly 

submit a whole nation to this death and suppression, in order to 

escape from a very difficult problem, is despicable.

In practical terms we would put ourselves in a position more 

harmful than the position we are now in because of our involvement.

Wh at can, what must we do? Perhaps we should live up to our 

public announcements. Really try to aid in establishing a stable
206

government. Do not play games undermining the existing government, weakening them so they have to do as they are told or fall 

(Diem). I do not suggest tha t the present government is perfect— 

but then neither is ours. It. does, however, offer some freedoms. It 

is the lesser of two evils for ourselves and for the Vietnamese. Now 

it is tryi ng to develop a nation which has been at war, in one way 

or another for almost 40 years. We must realize and appreciate this.

National survival sometimes necessitates superseding individual 

liberties. Did not we do this ourselves when we entered our own 

wars?

What can we do?

1. We must realize tha t no Asian nation likes the thought of 

having white men fighting on the ir side. Sometimes in dire necessity 

they must call for aid, but as soon as they are strong enough they 

want us out.

Selfish? Yes. But we would not be there if we did not feel we 

were getting something out of it, would we? What we get out of it 

depends on how we handle ourselves during the crisis.

2. We must realize the mentality of the Asians in this respect, the 

whole history behind it. Then perhaps we will realize we must, for 

foreign and internal reasons, avoid this policy of direct intervention.

3. We must realize tha t not every revolution means a Communist 

expansion. Also, that a democratic form of government is not essential in having good relations with a nation and tha t a democratic 

government is necessarily the best form of government for everyone.

Wha t does this mean in Vietnam. Vietnamization is the only policy 

that can be followed. But we alone cannot do it. Nor can we expect 

the Vietnamese to want to do it if we have already condemned 

them and this program to failure.

We must begin to withdraw gradually, with each withdrawal 

followed by intensive study of all factors before the next one begins.

We must exercise patience. We cannot expect to do this overnight. 

We are dealing with human beings and human institutions.

While we withdraw, any decrease in cost of running the war 

should be poured in to repa iring the damages caused by war. Physical withdrawal does not mean we can then ignore the Vietnamese 

nation.

Meanwhile, at home, as much information favorable and unfavorable that is possible to release must be released. The Government, because of the past, must show tha t it can be honest. 

Dialog must become more frequent. You must realize that democracy 

to many of today’s youth is a farce; it does not work. It is a con 

game carried on by a bunch of politicians.

Politicians must make themselves more aware of what the United 

States is doing. I and many other students cannot accept what appears to us as hyprocrisv on the p art of our leaders. Reversal of stands 

in mid-stream—excused bv new “insight”—does more to weaken 

youths’ faith in our Government than you could imagine.

Vietnam is an international and domestic test for the United 

States. We can walk away; condone by omission a blood bath ; 

shrug off responsibility for the destruction and live as an example 

of duplicity and cowardice to the world.

Or we can finish what we began; fulfill the promises we made 

and help restore what has been destroyed. As we do this we must
207

examine what we are, and what we want to be, see the world in a 

new light, adju st ourselves and help form a world t hat is independent 

of our control rather than one which despises its “benefactor.”

Mr. Findley. Miss Alrsich, we are very grateful to you for this 

statement. During the luncheon break, one of our guests here told 

me that he wished the entire Nation could be listening in today to 

get a better appraisal of what student America is really like. Your 

statement, together with the other statements, presenting a variety 

of viewpoints today, would serve a valuable purpose if somehow 

the entire Nation could be listening in, especially the adult popu lation. I t’s my hope tha t the repo rt of these hearings we have held these 

past 2 days will be read by the leadership here on Capitol Hill and 

also by the President. While President Nixon, I know, would be disappointed and disagree with some o f the views presented today, I 

know also tha t he would be reassured at the understanding of our 

system, the confidence tha t students have expressed in it, and, pa rticularly in your case, the understanding that you’ve so clearly shown 

of the burdens of his office. Mr. Fascell.

Air. Fascell. No questions, Air. Chairman.

Air. F indley. Air. Boland.

Mr. B oland. Aliss Alrsich, what is your major?

Miss AIrsich. My major? History.

Air. Boland. I must say, you’ve done awfully well at it. Your 

statement is well prepared and beautifully delivered. I don’t necessarily agree with all of it. But it certainly shows that you have given 

an awfully lot of time and thought to it, and long before you ever 

arrived here this morning to present it to this committee, and present it as well as you have, you apparently have been studying our 

foreign policies. As you indicated, the policies since 1945 don’t seem 

to have changed much and you quote from Edwin Allen Ca rr’s book 

“The New Society,” tha t the foreign policy, as he describes it in 

his work, is the same today as it was in 1951 and sometime before 

1951 when he wrote the book. You disagree with his summation of 

what our American foreign policy is?

Aliss AIrsich. Do I disagree?

Air. Boland. Do you disagree with what Air. Carr says is the 

guiding force of our American foreign policy?

Aliss AIrsich. If I disagreed with it I wouldn’t have used it. I 

think he made a very true point when he published it in 1951, and 

I think it still holds true to some extent today, although I see it 

changing with President Nixon’s new policies on foreign affairs 

tha t have come out. I think the United States has presented to the 

population a program which has been, like so many of my fellow 

students say, wrapped in the American flag. Whereas within the 

Government chambers, more rational decisions are being made and 

the way these rational decisions are being made are never presented 

to the American public. What they do is they wrap them up nice 

and pretty and hand it to you when its time for elections and they 

never let you see exactly what is going on and what the true issues 

really are. And I think this is what Nixon is trying to do, but the 

whole thing is it ’s something tha t has been going on for 20 to 25 

years, and people aren’t tha t willing to believe anymore. Especially 

some of the American students.
208

Mr. Boland. Well, again, I want to compliment yon on your statement, and some of the thoughts you expressed there I think have been 

well put and well expressed. Thank you very much. Incidentally, 

how large is Good Counsel College?

Miss Mrsich. We have about 500 girls.

Air. Boland. Do you have a particular teaching order there?

Miss AIrsicii. The Sisters of Divine Compassion do run the school 

but we have a large lay faculty.

Air. Boland. Thank you very much.

Aliss AIrsich. You are welcome, sir.

Air. Boland. Air. Hicks.

Air. Hicks. I take it tha t, contrary to what we’ve heard from 

many students in the last couple of days tha t they aren’t being 

heard, that you haven’t felt tha t there was any great requirement 

for your voice to be heard. Is tha t correct? The system has gone 

along pretty well as far as you’re concerned?

Aliss Mrsich. I think the system has gone along pretty well, but 

I think any system has to revise itself periodically, and I don’t think 

the youth necessarily are the ones to do it, but 1 think that once in 

awhile we can offer some pretty idealistic ideas that maybe could 

be incorporated practically by the people who are running the Government righ t now.

Air. II icks. Do you approve of these students who say tha t they 

want to get out and get involved politically in the elections this fail 

to espouse their point of view, whichever it may be?

Miss AIrsicii. Definitely. I think that’s the only way to do it.

? fr. II icks. Thank you, Air Chairman.

Air. Findley. Air. Fascell, any other questions? Any further questions? Thank you very much for your presentation.

Aliss AIrsich. Thank you, sir.

Air. Findley. The next witness is Peter Burling. Is Peter Burling 

here, from Ohio Wesleyan University, Delaware, Ohio? Air. Burling.

Air. Burling. Right.

Air. Findley. And you have some company too. Please identify 

your companions.

Air. Burling. This is David Bowman and Rick Alellott.

Air. Findley. Thank you. Air. Burling.

Air. Burling. A fter sitting here for three hearings yesterday—to 

justify preformed and relatively inflexible positions.

STATEMENT BY PET ER BURLING, OHIO WESLEYAN UNIVERSITY

Air. Burling. Silence is a crime. Ohio Wesleyan is no longer a bastion for Richard Nixon’s silent majority. We have talked, and we 

are talking. We have demonstrated, and we will demonstrate. We 

have acted, and we will act. Demonstrations by students may be 

inadequate. However, they do not create a false, unfair impression 

of college youth. We are concerned and we are frustrated.

We are frustrated tha t our 190-year-old system has deteriorated 

to the point where it does not work. The system does not work when 

it depends upon a silent majority. The system does not work when, 

in theory, it is dedicated to peace, but in practice, perpetuates war
209

on fluctuating grounds—and eventually justifies war by saying we 

are at war to protect troops at war. We are frustrated when our Congressmen concern themselves with individual acts of violence spawned 

from large groups of people and overlook that large countries, especially the United States, intent on economic, political, and cultu ral 

domination of other countries spawn massive organized violence.

We are frustra ted because our system has become a cop-out. It 

has forgotten the people. It has replaced the people with corporation 

lobbies. I t has replaced representatives with professional politicians. 

It has encouraged competition to the extent tha t cooperation has 

been made almost impossible. It has replaced law with the pig ethic.

What is a pig? A pig sits. A pig is fed, but it doesn’t care who 

feeds it. It doesn’t grasp why it is fed. The more it is fed, the more 

it wants. The more it eats, the closer it gets to the slaughter. We 

are imperialists. We dominate other countries politically, economically, and culturally. If we don’t stop feeding ourselves we will go 

blindly to the slaughterhouse. The good we could do in the world 

has been lost in our quest for greatness in the world. Mr. Nixon, 

Representatives, we will be defeated if you insist on carrying out 

the system of imperialism. The third world is being born. It is 

time we stopped being a Nation of gluttons. An immediate, complete 

withdrawal from Southeast Asia would not be a loss of face, but a 

change of face.

We at Ohio Wesleyan have left the towers of the university to 

start a revolution of participation. You must do the same. We have 

an organization of almost the entire student body involved in a 

campaign of public information. We are out to stop the pig from 

killing us, from killing the world.

We have been joined by a coalition of other schools in Ohio. Our 

purpose is to educate, to stimulate examination of the roles in 

Government, and to bring economic power on Washington, when 

words do not work.

The communities surrounding us are receptive. They greet inf ormation. They are beginning to notice that free debate is foiled in 

deletions from the record. The Senate debate on Laos by Air. Ellender and Mr. Fulbrig ht on December 15 was deleted. To the people 

tha t means th at even th eir “representatives” are deleted. The system 

has grown so large that it cannot report to the people that gave birth 

to it.

Peaceful protest has been tried. Our reception has been limited to 

Beagle dogs, football scores, and excuses by the legislative branch 

for relinquishing their responsibilities to the executive.

What will happen? If violence increases, it is not the instigation 

of radicals; it is not a subversive “red” organization. It is because 

the system has become massively incompetent, rigidly foreboding, 

and iost to the people. These hearings could have been viable 5 

years ago. Today they approach an academic exercise. Action is 

needed. You have heard our opinions. What will you do? Will you 

remain silent? Is Congress the home of the silent majority?

Tluit is the end of my formal statement, which is relatively informal. I came from Ohio State yesterday morning. Ohio’s hot. 

Schools are hot all over the Nation. One of the reasons they are hot 

is because we hear a lot of talk and no action, on either side. I ’d
210

rather spend the rest of the time rapp ing and maybe really get 

through to this. There is no press here now. One of the men who 

works in one of the committees down the hall said they gave up in 

disgust. Then he said—Mr. Thomson’s back, Mr. Fascell’s back— 

and he said even the committee’s given up in disgust. Then he said 

the gallery has given up in disgust, because the only people in the 

gallery tha t are here are going to testify. So, let’s rap, and Mr.

Fascell, you’ve been shaking so, let’s talk.

Mr. Findley. Air. Burling, I ’m sure if anyone was dozing, you’ve 

at least awakened the audience here with these comments. Mr.

F ascell. *

Mr. F ascell. I don’t know who this news guy is that got disgusted 

and went down the hall. You know, you punch pretty good. I just 

wonder whether or not you can take a punch ?

Mr. Burling. Yeah, shoot. •

Mr. Fascell. Well, I ’m not going to punch! [Laughter.]

Mr. Burling. Okay. Well done. Well done.

Mr. F ascell. It’s not well done. It’s not even humorous or funny.

It’s a question of basic philosophy. You can’t tell me tha t you’re going to educate me and then start out by telling me I ’m a liar, I ’m a 

cynic, and tha t I have prejudged the testimony.

Mr. Burling. Wait a minute. I ’m not here to educate you.

Mr. Fascell. Then why did you come?

Mr. Burling. I wanted to state my position. I wanted to tell you 

what a lot of other students are thinking today, Mr. Fascell. That’s 

all.

Mr. Fascell. Okay. You’re punching again I ’m not.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. Well, I would think, Air. Burling, tha t you say you 

sat. here a couple of days, and you think it’s an exercise in frustration, 

it isn’t worthwhile and, fortunately, this is not the opinion of a 

great number of students who have traveled many miles to come 

here. I thin k the very indication tha t there are Members of Congress who come and spend the time as we do—this is not an easy 

task in these days, whether you believe it or not—to spend the time 

we have spent yesterday and today to listen to college students, because we want to listen to them, because we think they have somethin g constructive to offer. I don’t know whether you have offered »

anything constructive here today, yourself, but I must say what has 

been offered by a great number who have come here has been listened 

to by not only members of the ad hoc committee, but other members who have been joining us during these past 2 days. You, ap- *

parently, don’t like the system, i t’s a system of imperialism, it ought 

to be overturned.

Mr. Burling. Not necessarily overturned, sir. I ’ve been caught in 

the middle of all this violence in Ohio. I was not an activist. I 

worked for Fd May in Connecticut. He was a Republican. I saw 

a lot of frustration on the pa rt of students, and I tried to get in so 

I could find out how students were thinking and express tha t—this 

frustration. I myself am not for a violent overthrow of the Government, but you hear a lot of talk about tha t today. You have a lot 

of kids going off the short end. But I think a lot of modifications 

have to be made. Because the third world is growing. I had a con-
versation with a man named Edward Borstein, who worked with 

Fidel Castro and Che, and he has been intimate in Latin America. The third world is being born and if we continue on a type of policy, whether we intend to dominate politically, culturally, and economi­ cally—whether we intend to or not, we are doing it. See, I mean we can have good intentions, but these basic policies, these basic at titudes, see, I really think have got to be reversed.

Mr. Boland. Well, I thin k it’s fine to get your opinion. You’ve indicated tha t this 190-year-old institution of ours has deteriorated 

to the point where it doesn’t work.

Mr. Burling. Yeah, it doesn’t work at all.

Mr. Boland. Well, in your opinion it doesn’t work, and one of the reasons why Members of Congress are willing to listen to people like yourself and a lot of others is to find out what’s wrong with it and how we can make it work and can we make it work better. I don’t say it works perfectly—I don’t think there is anyone in the establishment, or in the system, who thinks it works perfectly. But I don’t know of any other form of government tha t works any 

better. Do you thin k it works any better in-----

Mr. Burling. No, no, I tried to make that clear before when I 

said Russia, to me, is just as bad.

Mr. Boland. Or Cuba ?

Mr. Burling. And Cuba has got its problems too. Everybody does. I think there’s some things you can do to get closer to the people. I ’ve worn a tie and coat all my life, until 2 weeks ago. I ’ve been going to boarding schools. I took it off and I went into a factory. I didn’t tell anybody who I was, whether I was a student or not. My hair was shorter then. My hair has grown out in 2 weeks. And I started to listen to people in the factory and their frustrations. I really went to the people—I took off the tie and coat for just 2 weeks. Two weeks, that’s all that’s happened. And I remember Ed May and Abe Ribicoff and their campaigns, and they’re so far away from the people, it’s not even funny. So far away. So perhaps you can get to them by changing the politics within each of your parties. That might be a good way. Having, in other words for instance when a man is nominated to run for office, the nomination is usually controlled by a relatively small number of people in the party and— 

you could have like a referendum-----

Mr. F ascell. T hat’s absolutely not true.

Mr. Burling. Well, I certainly can’t say your politics represent peoples’ opinion, that is, people en masse. They represent a small group. I ’ve seen manipulations of them. In Chicago, I saw, and 

Florida.

Mr. Findley. I guess Mr. Hicks is next. Is tha t correct? Do you 

have a question, Mr. Hicks?

Mr. Hicks. I just wanted to make the observation that if this young man wanted to get adrenaline running, he did. He was very 

effective.

Mr. Burling. T hat’s really what I wanted to do, so maybe you’d 

pop up on me and start thinking yourself.

Mr. Hicks. I will point out tha t this is a pretty big country and officeholders are selected in a great many ways so you can’t very well generalize how nominees get selected. But I was just wonder-
212

ing, if you want to change things, it’s fine to come here, and you 

say, well we already had our minds made up. Let’s assume that we 

did have them made up. At least it gave the students who came, who 

wanted to come, an opportunity to all come and put these views in 

one focal spot instead of just having them spread out in their own 

community where they may be considered to be nuts anyway, as they 

frequently are, in some college communities.

Air. Burling. My followup to that, sir, is what are we going to 

do with these hearings? As you said, I ’ve got adrenaline going.

Maybe you don’t feel like mine was a constructive thing, mine was 

an attack to get adrenaline going. What are you going to do with *

the constructive things? Are you going to cut out some of those 

tha t didn’t agree with your opinions? How are you going to publicize these hearings?

Mr. H icks. This group rig ht here doesn’t have one opinion. You’ve *

got six opinions.

Air. Burling. All right, I ’ve got Air. Findley’s opinion. Okay.

But let’s work and publicize these hearings. So, what are you going 

to do? Are you going to drop them dead? You said let’s get them 

here—you’ve got them here. What are you going to do with them 

now?

Air. Hicks. Air. Findley, do you want to answer tha t question?

Air. F ascell. I ’d like to comment on that. As far as I ’m concerned, no agreement has been reached. I got your psychological gambit when you started, before you finished your statement. And it 

worKs sometimes, and sometimes it doesn’t work. But I don’t think 

punching is a good way to have a dialog. And I don’t thin k it comes 

in here very well-founded, for you to accuse me, because t ha t’s what 

you did, and I ’m going to he human. You prejudged mv position, 

and you don’t know what it is. You prejudged my decision with 

respect to the publication of these statements tha t have been made, 

in order to elicit an answer, which you haven’t gotten yet, because you 

don’t know what my position is—but you prejudged it.

Air. Burling. Well, then, shoot your position.

Air. F ascell. The point is, why d idn’t you ask me outright, instead 

of accusing me?

Air. Burling. Go ahead. State your position. State it.

Air. Fascell. We haven’t decided yet, as far as the panel is con- *

cerned, and I haven’t decided, but if you w ant an answer right now 

I am very happy to give it to you. As far as I ’m concerned, if we 

decide to publish it, I thin k we ought to publish all of the statements, 

period. We should not excerpt, we ought not to pick and select. •

We’ll let somebody else do that who wants to read it, if they do 

want to read it. I ’m not sure yet that I ’m willing to go to the 

expense and trouble to publish, because this is a personal decision 

since it’s not yet an official act of the Congress. This is an ad hoc 

panel. We felt it would be useful to have the hearings, that’s all— 

to furnish a forum. Now, is there anything else you want to know.

Air. Burling. I ’d like to see what Air. Thomson has to say.

Air. Findley. Well, I ’ll have to introduce Congressman John 

Zwach of Alinnesota who is sitting in for Air. Thomson. John, we 

welcome you aboard, and you’ve heard a very stimulating statement 

here. Do you have any questions?
213

Mr. Zwach. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just came in here when this 

gentleman was p retty well finished with his testimony, so I have no 

specific comment in regard to his statement.

Mr. Fascell. Now if this was a clever plot to get us on record, you 

didn’t have to be that clever.

Mr. Burling. No. I was curious as to what this man would say.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Burling, we are rotating on this panel, as we 

have from the start, each member does have a chance to ask one 

question, and that’s why I didn’t interject my own thoughts at the 

very outset. The panel was organized by six Members who felt deeply 

tha t student opinion is valuable in this country, tha t it ’s a serious 

mistake for the adult community, tha t age group above the student 

group, to assume tha t there is a monolithic structure to “the students,” so to speak. We felt tha t we should provide the best possible 

forum. We have no sanction, no funds, as a panel, and the question 

of publication of hearings involves money as well as other decisions. 

For my part, I would hope that we can pu t the statements made here 

in print and do it in full. I would be completely opposed to any 

selection as a means of rooting out views with which I didn’t agree. 

But how far we can go, we don’t as yet know. Personally, I am so 

deeply impressed with the quality of statements presented since the 

first, and I think your statement belongs in whatever repo rt is made, 

tha t I am determined to do all I can to see th at the complete hearings 

are printed and made widely available. Beyond tha t I can’t report. 

But we do appreciate your appearance and we’re trying to stay on 

schedule. Our time is up. Go ahead and make one final statement, 

and we’ll call it quits.

Air. Burling. Okay. Perhaps I typify best the almost irrational 

frustration of students today. We’re not going to reach those stu­ dents, like myself, in a room like this. I have not got the answer, 

Air. Fascell, and I ’ll admit that. But somehow or other, you and I 

both have got to reach these people because kids are talk ing violence, 

heavy violence, and I mean they don’t know what the hell they ’re getting into. They probably haven’t seen a dead man except on 

television. And it’s going to get real hot this summer, and we’ve got 

to reach them before. Bight?

Air. F ascell. I totally agree with that, and one of the big problems is going to be the inability to communicate on a broad basis in 

an identifiable manner at a college campus. It’s going to be extremely difficult. It can be done. A group of Congressmen are now 

trying to arrange to go to the college campuses and have that kind 

of a dialog. Now how successful-----

Air. Burling. Sir, we have an immediate suspicion of Congressmen tha t are running.

Air. F ascell. Yes, but we run all the time. You know that. You 

worked in Ed Alay’s campaign. “Politicians,” and I do not like to 

use the word derogatorily and don’t really respect anyone who does— 

but politicians run all the time. What’s wrong with tha t? You say 

you spent 2 weeks in a factory, talked with the people. Well, I ’ve 

spent over 20 years doing the same thing. Now, maybe I ’ve read 

them wrong and maybe I can’t communicate. Alaybe they can’t communicate with me, and if so, I ’m going to be a dead dodo come 

November and they’ll get a smart man who knows how to communicate. AYhat’s wrong with that?
214

Mr. Burling. I don’t think people vote because a man communicates with them.

Mr. Fascell. Well.

Mr. Burling. Well, back to work with the money people, I guess.

Mr. Findley. Glad you came, Mr. Burling.

Mr. F ascell. He never took the chip off his shoulder.

Mr. Findley. The next witness is Lawrence Sutherland. Is MrSutherland here ? Let’s see, I don’t have your identification. Are you 

in college or not? I think you are not, is tha t correct?

Mr. Sutherland. I have gone to Mohawk Valley Community 

College, Utica, N.Y.

Mr. Findley. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY LAWRENCE SUTHERLAND

Mr. Sutherland. Congressman Findley and members of the panel. 

I should first begin by saying thank you fo r this opportunity to speak 

to you today, and I sincerely hope tha t similar channels of communication are left open for at least the near future. This may not 

bridge the so-called generation or communication gap, but at least a 

good start is being made here today.

I came here today to speak about the Indochina war. I did not 

come here to make highly emotional moral judgments on the rightness or wrongness of the war, neither did I come to accuse anyone 

of facism, as unfortunately some in my peer group have. Rather I 

have come to present, what I believe to be, at least one sound argument against the war and the need for all sides to be heard on this 

issue.

In this conflict, which has lasted almost 10 years we are reminded 

time and time again of the need for our country to remain strong, to 

be a leader among nations. Those who support the President say 

tha t to pull out immediately or without first attaining a “Ju st Peace” 

would fo rfeit our right to be called a g reat Nation. But is victory— 

in this case a just peace—always synonymous with greatness? Let 

me read you an opinion on this tha t appeared in la st Fr ida y’s Evening 

Star, by syndicated columnist Carl Rowan.

Victory Doesn’t Always Equal Greatness

As the agony continues over American involvement in Indochina, one grim 

question beclouds the prospects for American w ithdrawal:

How can the United States continue to be “a great power,” “a first-class 

nation,” if she walks out of this struggle with anything short of victory?

President Nixon has said tha t if the United States accepts “the first defeat in 

its proud 190-year history” it would prove itself “unworthy to lead the forces of 

freedom in this critical period.”

Pleading for public support for the venture into Cambodia, the President 

explained:

“It is not our power but our will and character that Is being tested tonight. 

The question all Americans must ask and answer tonight is th is : Does the 

richest and strongest nation in the history of the world have the character to 

meet a direct challenge by a group which rejects every effort to win a just peace, 

ignores our warnings, tramples on solemn agreements, violates the neutrality of 

an unarmed people and uses our prisoners as hostages?”

Millions of Americans surely found those words a powerful argument for 

supporting “Operation Total Victory.” Who can deny that this Nation’s future 

influence in much of the world is partly at stake in Indochina. Our strength, 

our integrity, our morality, our compassion—all these and more will be seen by 

the world as clues to our claim to leadership.
But the patriotic urge to have our country remain “a world power” can blind 

many of us to the true dimensions of leadership in these times. We take such pride in calling our country the “strongest nation in the history of the world” that we overlook the reality that the United States is far from 

omnipotent. The last 5 years have taug ht us that, unless we are prepared to unleash thermonuclear war, the United States is not a great power in the conventional military sense. We simply cannot cope with ground struggles against the North Vietnamese, the Viet Cong and perhaps the Chinese, even as we help protect 

Korea anti Europe. So there are some stark limitations on the amount of “leadership” a nation 

can maintain today through military force alone. If the ability to crush other countries with tanks and bayonets were the key to leadership, the Soviet Union would be far ahead of us. From Estonia to East Germany, in Hungary and Czechoslovakia, Russia clearly has taught us a thing or two about subduing and subjugating the weak. But who knows better than the Kremlin jus t how fragile are these victories of “leadership” that must be nervously safeguarded by occupying armies? I want America to be a leader, too, although I confess to wondering whether the average American knows as much happiness and fulfillment as, say, the average citizen of Great Britain, whose power has faded along with her empire. I am certain of one thing: Not even our nuclear arsenals can force the world to hold us worthy to lead “the forces of freedom” if in striving to prove our 

wickedness and stupidity a t home. If we become a racial hellhole, with blacks being shot down in the flaming 

streets of Augusta, Ga. If we become a sinkhole of fear and oppression, with students being shot down on campuses and war protestors being beaten by self-styled p atrio ts while 

the police look on in amusement * * *. If we ignore the hungry and harassed of our land and turn a deaf ear to the 

sick and needy of neighboring lands ♦ * *. ♦ * * No one will be following, however many scalps we manage to bring out 

of Southeast Asia. In these critical times, proving a worthiness to lead involves a lot more than capturing a Cambodian sanctuary. To forget th at, is to cause this Nation to lose 

its soul while tryin g to protect its ego.

I thin k Mr. Rowan’s article is worth careful consideration, not 

just by those who support the President on Indochina, but by some 

of those who would call for a policy of isolationism. The United 

States I believe, should help other countries in time of need, b ut we 

must face the reality tha t the military force has proven no real 

solution. As a practical solution to extricatin g ourselves from Indochina, 

and one th at will best heal our divided Nation at home, I feel tha t 

the McGovern-Hatfield amendment to the Military Procurement Authorization bill is the best solution presently under consideration. 

Unfortunately I don’t believe this amendment is very well understood or even known to the average American, the so-called grea t 

silent majority. When the Gallop or H arris people do a survey and ask the American people the ir opinion on the war, we almost always have a 

majority supporting the President. In New Jersey and Virg inia we 

recently have seen supporters of the President’s policy elected Governor of the ir State. And while these elections certainly involved 

more than supp ort or opposition to the President’s policy in Southeast Asia the indication seems to be t ha t most Americans, and particularly the average middle-American, does support Pres iden t 

Nixon in his conduct of the Indochina conflict. Specifically, most 

Americans—with a sizable minority dissenting—favor the gradual 

withdrawal of American troops as the South Vietnamese army
216

becomes be tter able to take over the fighting. A policy which could 

take years to complete, with highly questionable results.

This brings me to the main point of my message to you today.

What I propose is this: Tha t some weekend in June, preferably the 

6th and 7th, the American people be given the opportunity to hear 

all of the options for a settlement to the Vietnam war by responsible 

spokesmen. I f presenting all of the solutions would not prove feasible 

then possibly the debate, or weekend of reevaluation, should center 

on the two most obvious alte rnatives: The Hatfield-McGovern resolution and the President’s stated policy of Vietnamization.

To implement this “Weekend of Reevaluation” free television time *

should be given for a debate between the two opposing sides and 

every effort made to reach the largest possible audience. In order 

to reach as large an audience as possible, President Nixon, himself, 

should communicate to the American people the necessity of such a 

reevaluation and debate. If his present policy is really sound, then 

he should have no fear of a loss of public support. If it isn’t then 

the President, who represents a government of the people and by 

the people should consider another policy in Vietnam.

In conjunction with a forum on the national level, efforts should 

be made through local governments to educate their citizens on the 

war through debates among civic leaders and actual facts on the war 

not normally brought to the public attention.

It should be made important tha t this weekend become not just 

another time for protest, but a time for rational discussion of where 

we are and where we may be going under our present policy in Vietnam.

After the weekend is over, the people should write the ir Congressmen particularly their Representative, expressing their approval or 

disapproval of the Presiden t’s Vietnam policy.

Surely this is a fair and honest approach to a problem tha t has 

divided our Nation along ideological lines for too long.

I would be the last to guarantee the success of such a forum, public 

apathy and maintaining the status quo are always hard to alter. 

Counterproductive demonstrations in the past have also tended to 

make communication between opposing sides difficult, if not 

impossible.

But if our country is a true democracy, with majo rity rule and ’

the right of minority opinion to be heard, then the time for such 

a forum is long overdue.

I than k you for this time and hope that you will give this proposal 

your thoughtful consideration. •

Mr. Findley. Thank you, Mr. Sutherland. Well presented and 

well timed. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sutherland, it is an 

interesting proposal. Of course, we need the widest public debate, 

discussion and understanding of all the issues and certainly the one 

tha t is the most important should receive the kind of attention you 

are talking about. I would hope we could increase the dialog in 

every possible way among the people of the United States in order 

to arriv e at a fundamental decision as rapidly as possible.

Mr. Sutherland. May I ask the committee something?

Air. F ascell. Sure.
217

Mr. Sutherland. I s this committee in any way, as I understand 

it, empowered, or in a position, that it could recommend to the 

President such a proposal as I ’ve outlined?

Mr. Fascell. Anybody can recommend to the President. We on 

this panel could do so individually and, if we decided to do so, as a 

panel, could make a recommendation to the President. Wh at we 

will do in tha t case, I have no idea, but any of us have the rig ht to 

individually. We are not an official committee of the Congress. We’re 

an ad hoc group. I ’d like to just ask you a question, if I may—turn 

it around a little bit. I ’m curious. You were here when Mr. Burling 

was before the committee, weren’t you, the man tha t just preceded 

you?

Mr. Sutherland. Yes.

Mr. F ascell. He stated that he was extremely nervous in appearing 

here. Can you tell me why? I should have asked him if I had the 

chance.

Mr. Sutherland. Actually, I thin k I ’d have to agree with him 

myself.

Mr. Fascell. Do you feel tha t way, yourself?

Mr. Sutherland. Well, I did in the beginning, but I ’m not quite 

so nervous now.

Mr. F ascell. I ’m sorry I missed the opportunity to ask him because I think we got off on the wrong foot.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. What about your—yours is a community college, I 

take it?

Mr. Sutherland. Well, I did atten d Mohawk Valley Community 

College up in Utica, N.Y.

Mr. Boland. How old are you, incidentally?

Mr. Sutherland. I ’m 20. And I did attend that last year, but the 

Army gave me a place and I served there for 3y2 months until I got 

a medical discharge because of my knee.

Mr. Boland. Well, how hot is the campus at your college?

Mr. Sutherland. Well, when I was there it was more like lukewarm. I wouldn’t call it actually anything. I thin k there was more 

apathy than any kind of involvement. I can attest to this from 

personal experience. Last year I attempted two projects on the campus 

in conjunction with the Circle K organization on the campus. One 

was an aid to Bia fra campaign and the other was to lower the voting 

age to 18. And neither of these got any mass support from the 

students. Now, back in November I was up there and they did have 

a moratorium rally and about two, possibly three or foiir hundred 

out of a student body of about 2,000 participa ted or didn’t go to 

classes. Now, if the situation is changed, I don’t know. I haven’t been 

up there in a half-year.

Mr. Boland. Thank you very much.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Zwach.

Mr. Zwach. No questions. I ’m a good listener.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Sutherland, your statement is not completely 

unique, but I would say in a class, a rather select group among those 

who have appeared, because you have made a specific proposal, and 

I appreciate tha t very much. It’s one of perhaps 10 specific proposals tha t have been presented to us which are each, in my view,

4 6 -1 8 7— 70 ------ 1 5
218

new at least. It was my hope, and I ’m sure the hope of the other 

members of the panel, that something new and constructive and 

helpful could emerge from these 2 days of hearings. Your statement 

helps to assure that tha t will be the case. Thank you very much.

Mr. Sutherland. T hank you very much.

Mr. Findley. The next witness is Steve Orlov. Steve Orlov of 

Colby College, Waterville, Maine. Steve, you’re welcome.

Mr. Orlov. This is William Alfond.

STATEM ENT BY STEP HE N R. ORLOV, PR ES IDEN T OE 

STUDENT GOVERNMENT, COLBY COLLEGE

Mr. Orlov. I am here today because you asked me to come, and 

because I believe tha t you gentlemen sitting before me have a sincere 

and concerned interest in what the youth of our country are trying 

to say and do. I congratulate you and I thank you for this concern.

But in coming here today, I am asking for more than concern 

from you. It is a long step to travel between concern and constructive action. I do not question tha t President Nixon has a concern 

for student opinion; I do not question tha t President Nixon has a 

concern for the welfare of our country; and I do not question that 

President Nixon has a concern for the people of Vietnam. Wha t I 

do question is the basic logic and motive behind his concept of 

constructive action.

I would like to classify myself as an average student in this 

country. I am frustrated. 1 have not yet reached the point at which 

I will resort to violence; however, I know I am approaching that 

point as time goes on. This feeling has stemmed from my educational development. I am not as ignorant or as naive as I once was.

As my education continues to broaden and grow, I see myself becoming more and more objective. Because of this objectivity, I 

question what I am told, no m atter who may say it. I speak out and 

I dissent and I demonstrate when I feel tha t something is wrong.

Well, I know something is wrong. Our Government realizes we do 

not belong in Vietnam. They admit it. Yet, the fact remains tha t 

we are still there.

Our President is seeking a military solution to a political problem. Cambodia did not have a large army because its former ruler 

operated by persuasion and negotiation. For 15 years—or until the 

United States presence finally forced a broadening of the war base 

into Cambodia—that small country was neutral and peaceful.

Our Government is supporting in Thieu a dictator who shut • 

down the newspapers and the universities, and who jails his political 

opponents. The runner-up in the “election,” a Vietnamese patriot,

Mr. Dzu, sits in a Saigon jail, along with the president of student 

government of Saigon University.

Some say we are in Vietnam to fight Communism. Well, I question 

what they mean by Communism. The Vietnamese people who are 

fighting the Saigon government are not the friends of Red China.

In fact, they have been fighting the Chinese for 1,000 years. Ho 

Chi Minh was not fighting for Red China; he was not fighting for 

a worldwide Communist movement ; he was fighting for Vietnam 

and for the Vietnamese people.
219

I strongly believe th at the Chinese actually hope tha t the United 

States will remain in Vietnam. They realize the internal problems arising within our country because of this action; they realize tha t by staying there we are quickly losing the position of respect we once had in the world; and moreover, it allows them the opportunity to have an increasing influence in Vietnam for the simple reason tha t as long as the United States backs the Saigon government, the Vietcong must depend upon military aid from China. This de­ pendency on the part of the North Vietnamese stems from the fact that they must fight Americans; it does not stem from a need of

* help to fight South Vietnamese. The best way to prevent Red China from increasing its influence in Vietnam is for America to with­ draw all her forces from Southeast Asia and allow the South Vietnamese and the North Vietnamese to unite in whatever way 

the majority so desires. In saying this, you must realize that I put no faith at all in President Nixon’s Vietnamization of the war. The Saigon gov­ ernment is corrupt; it is unstable; and of most importance, it does not have the support of the people of Vietnam. It simply cannot and should not exist now or when we do leave Vietnam. As for the mass-slaughter so strongly prophesized by President Nixon—The people we are fighting in Vietnam have been fighting against the Japanese, the French, and now the Americans for 25 years. Their countryside is destroyed, their villages are burnt and bombed con­ tinually, they have no economy, and peace has only been known to many of them as a goal they are striving for, rath er than as a reality in which they have lived. They are not interested in killing off the remaining Vietnamese. Yet, even if there are some Vietnamese who do fear for their lives once the United States withdraws, then we could offer them asylum. Aft er all, they are just as human as 

Americans. The rig hts and wrongs of our intervention in Southeast Asia are the subject of continuing debate by you gentlemen in our Congress. Simply stated, our purpose supposedly was to buy the people of Vietnam time to build a country. But in doing tha t very act, we are dictating to the people of Vietnam exactly what image they should mold the ir country into. We do not have that right.

* Moreover, we have bought that time at a tremendous cost to our­ selves in an inflationary economy; in an internal political-intellectual 

conflict ; and in the lives of Americans and Vietnamese. The leaders of our Nation have made many promises to us, yet

* the action which soon follows has too often been contrary to those 

very promises. Just 10 days before his Cambodian speech, the President made another speech, announcing the withdrawal of 150.000 

more troops in the next 12 months. He said he made the decision after 

full consultation with his commanders in the field. He expressed no reservations, no doubts, no security risks to the troops. The Presi­ dent told us that negotiations are the key to a settlement of the war. 

And yet, just 10 days later, he told us tha t the Cambodia venture 

was indispensable to that troop withdrawal and to the attainment 

of peace in Vietnam. Our Government has lied to us about our military involvement in Laos. I read in the papers that American soldiers were not in Laos;
220

yet, I also spoke to a Marine lieutenant who had been wounded in 

combat duty there last year. In view of these happenings, how can 

anyone expect me to believe what is being said by our governmental 

leaders? I can no longer listen to their rhetorical promises; I can 

only judge by concrete action and results.

And so I am here today asking you where are these concrete actions? It is exactly this that student dissent is asking you today.

You question why the student movement is tending toward violence

more and more. Well, one could compare it to the experience of

riding in an airplane with a man who has his elbow jutting into

your throat. You feel the pain and the pressure, so you ask him to *

remove his elbow from your throat. Yet, his ears seem to be closed,

so you ask a bit louder. Again there is no response, so you start

demanding tha t he stop it. You begin making threats, but again

there is no response. There is nowhere to run and you are choking 4

to death. The only alternative left open to you is to push him away.

Well, I personally am not pushing him back yet; I have not resorted to violence, ye t; but I am screaming loudly in his face telling 

him to get out of Vietnam. It has been 7 years now, and I do not 

know how much more pressure or pain I can take before I begin 

pushing back.

Yes, gentlemen, I come here today to ask you what shall I do?

Mr. Findley. Air. Fascell. There is a question mark at the end of 

that last sentence, so maybe you have the answer for him.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Air. Orlov. It’s a very 

fine statement, obviously given with a grea t deal of commitment, 

conviction and emotion. AYlio will you push back? Because that’s 

important, it seems to me, the whole point.

Mr. Orlov. Well, it seems to me there are three alternatives open to 

the students in this country and to the people who are fighting for 

peace. They can either sit back, and continue the status quo, or they 

can demonstrate peacefully, or they resort to violence. Now what 

I ’m questioning is the results we have gotten from demonstrating 

peacefully.

Mr. Fascell. Maybe they have been counterproductive. I don’t 

know. I haven’t been able to evaluate it myself. I ’m not sure tha t 

a violent demonstration would be productive, it might be counterproductive. That’s the reason I asked you, in your illustration at »

the end of your statement, who are you going to push back in order 

to get your way? Because th at’s important. If you said, “AVell, now 

wait a minute, Congressman Fascell, you don’t agree with me so I ’m 

going to go out and get hold of you. Next time we’ll have a new »

representative up there,” I would understand your point easily.

Air. Orlov. I t’s too slow of a process.

Air. F ascell. T oo slow of a process. T hat’s what I was afra id of 

and that’s the message I got with this other thing. So the way to 

effect change is to go around all the elected representatives some 

way?

Air. Orlov. No, the way to do it is to make your views known as 

quickly as possible.

Air. Fascell. W ithout having to wait for the November election.

Air. Orlov. AVell, it’s been 7 years now.
221

Mr. Fascell. I see. O.K. I ’m trying to grasp tha t point. In other 

words, the issue wasn’t hot enough in the last congressional elections 

in order to get Congress to act?

Mr. Orlov. T ha t’s right.

Mr. Fascell. But it is hot enough in this congressional election 

coming up in November. But th at’s too slow a process, by the time 

the Congress gets back in—reconvenes in Jan uary or February, it 

will be too late—is that the point ? I n other words, this is the last clear 

chance, as you see it? That’s what I ’m trying to find out.

Mr. Orlov. Well, in coming here today I ’ve tried to express the 

frustration of the students in this country.

Mr. Fascell. I think you’ve done that extremely well. As student 

after student has done here.

Mr. Orlov. Are you questioning whether or not I feel tha t the 

election coming up in November is our last chance?

Mr. F ascell. No. no. W hat I meant was, I passed over the theory 

of replacing the men in Congress who do not support your point 

of.view. You said that’s too slow. So I ’ve tried to relate tha t to the 

coming election in November. Then I was trying to find out from 

you whether the last clear chance for the Congress to act was between now and November in your view? Th at’s what I was trying 

to get at.

Mr. Orlov. Well, it depends-----

Mr. Fascell. You see the new Congress won’t come in, obviously 

until afte r the 1st of Janu ary.

Mr. Orlov. Maybe what I ’m trying to say is this. What we’re trying to do—I don’t know if you want to use the word such as 

pressure, it’s the only word I can relate to-----

Mr. F ascell. Th at’s all right. There’s nothing wrong with pressure. We live with it all the time. Sure, use it.

Mr. Orlov. Well, this is the thin g we are trying to place upon 

the Congressmen right now, and what I ’m trying to sav is tha t for 

7 years now we’ve tried to do this peacefully, and we haven’t seen 

many results.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. You’ve seen no results at all, you don’t think?

Mr. Orlov. I ’ve seen some results, but I ’ve heard a lot of promises.

Mr. Boland. I think one of the dangers, Steve, and I can appreciate your position, and I would hope tha t some of us could 

help you push back the pressure and the pain that you experience 

and you ask—what shall I do? I guess, doing what you are doing. 

Demonstrating, by getting involved personally perhaps, in campaigns 

tha t might change the makeup, or the image, of not only this body, 

but other bodies. You think tha t process takes too long though. And 

I don’t think it can be done bv violence, and I don’t know whether 

you really deeply believe tha t it can be done by violence. I t’s simple. 

Violence begets violence. There isn’t any question about that. There 

are a great number of people today who are concerned with violence, 

and they are not very easy to handle either. So, I don’t thin k you 

attain the objective by resorting to it. I think, perhaps, it takes 

awhile, which is what people are disturbed about. There’s no question 

about that. But tha t again is part of the process of the system with 

which we live and the change has to come, I think, through non-
222

violent methods rather than throu gh violent methods. Now, I can 

understand, and you know I admire your passion and your emotion 

and that you are deeply involved in this, and I think that’s good. 

But I think you have to look at it dispassionately too.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Boland. Do you want to respond?

Mr. Findley. (Excuse me, please go ahead.

Mr. Orlov. Well, maybe I can try to relate it to the racial problems in the country. For 200 years the black people sat back, and 

did nothing. You saw what that got them. Now they are starting to 

demonstrate, and they are resorting to violence to a certain extent. 

And they are making people aware of their problem, making people 

aware of the suppression tha t is being placed upon them. Again, 

what we’re trying to do is to express to you as loudly as possible 

the frustration we are going through, and it just seems that we 

haven’t been able to do that through peaceful means. Because Congress hasn’t responded to us yet.

Mr. Boland. Well, you are saying Congress has not responded to 

you yet. I think there has been great response for the position and 

the feelings that you hold on both sides of this Capitol. A few years 

ago, you know, you could count them on the fingers of both hands. 

But I think actually this has grown because people have become 

concerned and they have been impressed bv the way in which those 

who oppose particular policies tha t are enunciated by the Government do it the right way. I th ink it h urts your cause, and it certainly 

hurts the cause of those of us who are in the Congress, or those 

who are in the Congress, who feel as you do, to resort to violent 

methods to obtain that objective. Th at’s one way you can’t attain it. 

Now, you say well, all of these changes come too lately, they’re too 

slow. Yet the progress this Nation has made over the past years in 

areas of health, welfare, education, poverty—I think we’ve made 

tremendous strides here. Now we haven’t solved all our problems, 

and T guess probably a lot of them are not soluble, but the fact of 

the matter is th at this body has responded, I think, in rather dramatic 

fashion in a number of these areas tha t you’re interested in, tha t 

the blacks are interested in, and so many Members of Congress are 

interested in. But we don’t do it because there has been a violent demonstration, because we fear the violence. I don’t think we react to 

the violence. I think we do react to an expression of public opinion 

that carriers with it the kind of weight that dedicated people such 

as you carry. I thin k we get more accomplished that way and I’m 

concerned that in violent demonstrations, of course, the reaction is 

just the opposite. And I don’t think we get very far with violent 

demonstrations.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Air. Hicks. Mr. Orlov, you’re from a Maine college. Supposing 

that you demonstrated violently in Maine, whom would you hope to 

change? In Maine? Mr. Fascell from Florida probably doesn’t get 

too concerned over the violence that you may perpetrate in Maine, 

so you’ve got to be directing your actions at somebody. I notice 

you’re from Hull, Mass. Who represents Hull?

Mr. Orlov. Excuse me.

Mr. Hicks. Who represents Hull in the House of Representatives— 

do you know? Hull, Mass.? Th at’s where it says your home is.
223

Mr. Boland. I would think it would be Congressman Burke. 

Aren’t you around Nantasket?

Mr. Orlov. Tha t’s right.

Mr. B oland. Eithe r him or Hastings Keith.

Mr. Orlov. Mr. Keith, I believe.

Mr. Hicks. With violence, could you change his views? Would 

you want to change his views, Mr. Keith’s views?

Mr. Orlov. Certainly.

Mr. Hicks. Is he opposed to your view, do you think ? Or do 

you even know?

4 Mr. Orlov. No, I don’t know him. Most of my political activity

has been in Maine.

Mr. Hicks. Well, who in Maine do you want to change?

Mr. Orlov. Well.

Mr. Hicks. You don’t want to change Mr. Kyros, you don't want to change Mr. Hathaway, you don’t want to change Senator Muskie.

Mr. Orlov. We had Mrs. Smith and Mr. Muskie up at Colby the other weekend. I wrote a telegram asking them to come, and I had it signed by the presidents of the student governments in every single college and university in the State. It was a very fru stratin g thing, because I had to stand up at the podium next to Mrs. Smith and repeat the questions that were being asked to her from the students. I had met her a few minutes before, and I had some feeling for the woman, yet she wasn’t relating to the questions being asked. I mean, when you consider how much power, and how much respect this woman has in the Senate, I just wonder what our Con­ gressmen are doing. She simply could not relate to the questions 

being asked her.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Orlov, I ’m sorry tha t the time for your par tici­ pation is gone, but we do appreciate your being here, and we feel 

you have made a very dramatic presentation. The next witness is Marc Krizack of Johns Hopkins University. 

Mr. Krizack.

STATEMENT BY MARC LEE KRIZACK,

JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY

* Mr. Krizack. America’s involvement in the Vietnam war has forced many people to reevaluate our foreign policy in order to see where that policy errs and where it is in need of revision. It is my con­ tention tha t a drastic revision is needed in American foreign policy

« if we are to avoid future Vietnam-like situations and if we are to create a world in which America can maintain her leadership role. America’s foreign policy has been based, in part, on three interre­ lated ideas. The first is what Arthu r Schlesinger, Jr . calls “Stim- sonianism,” the view tha t “an orderly world requires a single durable structure which must everywhere be protected against aggression.’’ The Stimsonian view declares tha t aggression must not be allowed to go unpunished, or it will quickly spread to other countries, de­ stroying the world order. Related to Stimsonianism is what is known as liberal evangelism, America’s selfrighteous view of her saving mission to the world. Stimsonianism and liberal evangelism flow to­ gether in America’s almost pathological anticommunism.
224

It is here that the hypocrisy of American foreign policy is blatantly 

revealed. The United States claims to be fighting in Vietnam to preserve the right of a free people to determine their own destiny. The 

United States’ saving mission is to protect the people of South 

Vietnam against Communist aggression and to spread the American 

political arrangement of liberal democracy. Yet it is quite obvious 

tha t America does not aid the spread of liberal democracy. Time 

and time again we have given our support to corrupt m ilitary regimes 

around the world. In South Vietnam itself, beginning with Diem, 

the United States has set up a long succession of puppet dictatorships 

right up to the present Thieu-Ky regime. These regimes in South 

Vietnam have been but a few of the military dictatorships actively 

supported by the United States. The constitutional government of 

Brazil was overthrown by a military coup in 1964 with the aid of 

the CIA. In Brazil today there are some 20,000 political prisoners, 

most of which have met torture in one form or another. The United 

States gives aid to Greece where a repressive, fascist, military dictatorship has removed the democratic freedoms of speech and the 

press while the jails overflow with political prisoners.

In Latin America the United States gives military and economic 

aid to those governments which will protect American business 

interests. We attempt to overthrow those governments tha t seek to 

nationalize property and socialize natura l resources. Political scientist Richard J. Barnet argues tha t the American view of the world 

situation is tha t “order and stability, however unjust or undemocratic, are to be preferred to political turmoil or revolution.” It can 

hardly be argued tha t political order and stability do not serve 

America’s interests. Yet America’s present course of action can 

only lead to further instability and will be detrimental to America’s 

interests. Military dictatorships and political repression maintain 

order and stability for only a short period of time, for they will 

strengthen the opposition, increase its supporters and thus create 

the seeds of a regime’s own destruction.

Vietnam is only the first of what will most likely be many wars 

of national liberation. Latin America looks as if it will be the staging area for the next of such wars against the United States. In 

fighting a guerrilla enemy, the United States will be forced to fight 

a limited war unless we are willing to continue th at uniquely American experience of destroying a country in order to save it. This seems 

quite unlikely since we would not be willing to destroy the very natural resources which we seek to control. If the United States decides 

to resist the attempts of these underdeveloped nations to nationalize 

industries and socialize resources and determine their own destinies, 

then we will most likely find ourselves in other Vietnam-like 

situations.

If America is to avoid futu re Vietnams, and if we are to follow 

a course of action which will be in our own best interests, then we 

must reexamine our Nation’s role in the world in order to determine 

what actually is in our national interests.

The Stimsonian view of the world in which America plays the 

role of policeman against aggression must be discarded. Instead, 

the United States must view the world as tripolar. Instead of confronting all aggressors, we should confront only Russia and China
where their aggression threatens the United States. America's foreign policy must also be purged of its staunch anticommunism. 

Communism is no longer the monolith which it once was. In Vietnam, 

China, and Czechoslovakia we have seen that communism is second 

to nationalism.

If America is to avoid the potential Vietnams which lie so near 

in the future, then we are going to have to side with nationalist 

movements. This may mean relinquishing economic holdings. But as 

long as these holdings are relinquished to nationalistic regimes, even 

if they are Communist, America will not be endangered since the 

trip olar world balance of power will be preserved.

Ever since World War II , the United States has chosen military 

intervention rath er than negotiations vis-a-vis countries tha t come 

into conflict with America’s stated national interest. We are just 

not accustomed to real negotiations. In Vietnam, Cuba, the Dominican Republic and other countries around the world, the United 

States chose a path of coercion over noncoercion, because it was 

seemingly the easier path to follow. America has often intervened 

militarily when there has been a weakening of the internal political 

situation in an underdeveloped country. It is time that America 

learned to deal with her own power. America is left with only two 

viable alternatives. The first is to engage in political-institution 

building. If we choose this path, then we must seek to establish wellorganized, broadly based, independent, complex political systems in 

place of the unstable, fractured, and narrowly based personalistic 

regimes we presently support.

Or, we can take the advice of General David Shoup who said, 

“If we would keep our dirty, bloody, dollar-crooked hands out of 

the affairs of these nations, they would arrive at a solution of their 

own.”

Whatever America chooses to do, it will be to no avail if 64 

percent of our taxes continue to be spent for military purposes. 

America is facing a massive problem in housing, education and 

health, not to mention the environmental crisis.

It would be a mistake for us to retu rn to our pre-World Wa r I 

isolationist state, yet it would be disasterous for us to continue at our 

present level of involvement around the world. If America is to 

survive, we must encourage the development of the backward nations 

into independent modern states, independent of not only China and 

the Soviet Union, but independent of the United States as well.

Mr. Findley. I think we left off questioning with Mr. Hicks, 

so I ’ll sta rt with Mr. Thomson.

Mr. T homson. No questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Zwach, do you have a question?

Mr. Zwacii. I just want to say that I appreciated your statement.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. B oland. I think you have a very scholarly statement here and 

apparently you put some time into it. Wh at is your major?

Mr. Krizak. Prelaw, political science.

Mr. Boland. You apparently put some study into the foreign 

policy of the United States, and I think you raise an interesting 

question, th at our policy ought to be—did you say tripolar?—in the 

United States and Russia and China. As I say, it’s an interesting
226

point. It’s a point that I think can be well taken. I don’t know now 

tha t the United States is actually engaged in what is called or what 

Arthu r Schlesinger and you refer to here as the Stimsonian policy.

I think this was probably true and may be tru e to some extent today, 

but I think we’re gradually moving away from it. As I understand 

the policy, it’s one where we are to be the policemen of the world.

Is this it?

Mr. Krizak. Yes.

Mr. Boland. I think there have been enough declarations by people who serve in both branches of the Congress, the Senate and #

House side, that this is not to be the policy of the United States, 

although they do express some concern tha t it has been. But hopefully this policy is changing. I don’t know of anyone in the political 

leadership of either party in the legislative branch of Government 4

tha t really contends th at we have to be the policemen of the world.

I think you make a good point, and I would think though tha t the 

majority of those th at are here would agree with you. As I say, I ’m 

interested in your comments tha t the United States ought to view 

the world as tripolar. I think we’re tryi ng to do that. I think we 

do have problems of confrontation in some parts of the world. W hat 

about the Middle East—do you have any opinions on it ? W hat should 

be the confrontation there?

Mr. Krizak. In the Middle Eas t I ’m in favor of an imposed settlement only because I see the only real solution as one side winning 

and the other side losing, because if both sides feel they’re right, i t’s 

a question of one side being pitted to destroy the other side. Israel 

is for preservation, the Arab States feeling justified because of loss 

of their homeland, et cetera. So I ’m in favor of an imposed settlement 

because it will save lives for the time being.

Mr. Boland. Th ank you again for your statement. I think it was 

well done, well presented, with a lot of thought. Thank you.

Mr. Findley. Air. Hicks.

Hr. Hicks. No questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Krizak, you state your support for an imposed 

settlement in the Middle East. What force would impose the settlement?

Mr. K rizak. It would probably have to be a neutral type of thing 

such as was arranged through the Geneva accord with Poland or 

Canada, some type of group. In terms of what, a military force?

Mr. Findley. You made the statement tha t you favored an imposed settlement and tha t presumes some supranational authority 

or at least an outside auth ority to impose certain conditions and make *

them stick.

Mr. Krizak. The big four powers are in favor of an imposed 

settlement and if they would be willing to commit neutral troops I 

should think tha t would impose a settlement.

Mr. Findley. You state, I think very properly, that if America 

is to survive we must encourage the development of the backward 

nations into independent, modern states. That I would assume p resupposes that we would also do anything reasonable at least to 

protect their independence in order fo r them to be independent states.

And if that’s the case, the dilemma tha t confronted President Kennedy, President Johnson, and now President Nixon in regard to
227

South Vietnam is tha t South Vietnam seems to be under a thre at from outside the borders of tha t nation. So you have a dilemma.

Mr. Krizak. I disagree with that. Article nine of the Geneva accords says tha t military demarcation would in no way mean a political boundary. Vietnam is one country, and when I talk about full independence I only consider aggression from another country. North and South Vietnam are one country, and if it ’s going to be a Communist government, it’s going to be a Communist government. And we should not intervene in the sovereign affairs of another 

country.

* Mr. Findley. I must say a pretty persuasive case can be made for the contention that most of the recent day problems of U.S. foreign policy have related to these so-called artificial states like South Vietnam, South Korea, Israel and so on. Well, I thank you very much for your statement. Are there any other questions?

Air. Krizak. Would we have time just to speak a little bit about what was said previously about the liabilities of the political 

system-----

Mr. Findley. Please do.

Air. Krizak. I was just listening to some of the comments. Mr. Hicks asked about the relation of the d raft and student dissent. F irst I ’d like to say tha t people righ t now are starting to look beyond the Vietnam war. A lot of students are saying we’ll get out of A iet- nam one way or another. Nixon’s going to have to get us out one wav or another. The question is which way do you want to get out? But I think now that students are looking beyond Vietnam and are seeing Vietnam as only a manifestation of a real problem. People are looking to a system tha t has been unresponsive to the needs of the people. Now you talked about violence begetting violence, and you seem to place th e responsibility on those, on dissenters for violence. I ’d like to suggest tha t there’s been violence in America ever since the beginning of our history. I would say tha t the violence of a child not having enough to eat is just as drastic as the violence of an American soldier shooting a Vietnamese person. It’s just more subtle—that’s why it’s probably much less noticed. I think that you talk about, we have a chance to work against you in elections, but I think that doesn’t matter because I think an elected official does

• not serve just those who elect him. He serves everybody, those who elect him, those who vote against him, every one of the people. I would suggest to him that with approximately 30 million people in America living inadequately, America is not serving the needs of

* the people and never has. The only violence you’re talking about is the violence of people finally waking up to the problem and saving. “Look, it’s not going to happen any more.” I suggest that if you want to stop this country from the open violence that you’re talking about, you have to stop the violence that’s being created by the sys­ tem itself, violence tha t does not allow poor people a chance to im­ prove themselves, the violence of people not having enough to eat, enough clothing, enough shelter, violence that spends all our money on the military and not enough on the domestic needs of the people. I ’ll say that if vou are reallv concerned about preventing violence that is caused bv dissent you’ll solve the problems tha t are created 

which dissenters are dissenting against.
228

Mr. F indley. Air. Krizak, we appreciate very much your additional comments too.

The next witness is Harold Gordon of Drew University, Madison,

N.J. Is Mr. Gordon here?

STA TEM ENT BY HAROLD C. GORDON, DR EW UN IV ER SITY

Air. Gordon. Air. Chairman, members of the committee, I come 

before you today as a college student and a concerned American 

citizen to express both my support for President Nixon’s position 

on Cambodia and my sharp disagreement with the student protests »

and disorders which have erupted across this Nation in recent weeks.

It is my opinion tha t the Pres iden t’s action was a decisive step 

toward ending the war in Southeast Asia and as such deserves the 

support of all Americans. *

When President Nixon began his term of office last year he faced 

a situation in Vietnam which was perhaps best described by the 

late Senator Robert Kennedy in his book “To Seek a Newer AVorld”:

Withdrawal now is impossible. The overwhelming fact of American intervention has created its own reality. All the years of w ar have profoundly affected 

our friends and adversaries alike, in ways we cannot measure and perhaps cannot know. Moreover, tens of thousands of individual Vietnamese have staked 

their lives and fortunes on our presence and protection: civil guards, teachers 

and doctors in the villages; mountain tribesmen in the high country; many who 

work for the present benefit of the people, who have not acceded to the Vietcong 

even though they may not support the Saigon government. Many have once 

already fled from the dictatorship of the North. These people, old in their ways 

and strengths submerged by the American presence, cannot suddenly be abandoned to the forcible conquest of a minority.

For these and other reasons, the President concluded tha t the 

only way in which the United States could honor its commitment 

to the people of South Vietnam and still work toward a settlement 

of the conflict was through a twofold policy consisting of A7

ietnamization and the withdrawal of American troops, while at the same 

time making every effort to engage in meaningful negotiations with 

the North ATetnamese representations in Par is ; our only nonnegotiable point being the right of self-determination for the people of 

South Vietnam. Since President Nixon announced tha t course of 

action in May of last year, he has withdrawn 115,000 American troops 

from A7

ietnam. The Communists have responded to this gesture *

with propaganda at the peace tables and in the field with increased 

infiltration into Laos and Cambodia as well as into South Vietnam.

This reaction to his efforts was duly noted by the President and 

during an address to the Nation on April 20 of this year in which *

he announced the proposed withdrawal of 150,000 more troops bv 

1971, he repeated a warning be had given on two earlier occasions 

that if increased enemy activity threatened the safe withdrawal of 

our forces he would not hesitate to take “strong and effective” measures to deal with the situation.

Ten days later, the President took such action. In a televised 

address to the American people he announced tha t in reply to an 

appeal for aid from the Cambodian Government he had authorized 

a joint American and South ATetnamese expedition into Cambodia 

aimed at those areas which the North A7

ietnamese had gradually 

converted into strategic sanctuaries over the past 5 years and had
229

recently expanded for the purpose of launching a major offensive 

against the Allied forces in South Vietnam. The President stressed 

tha t this was not an invasion of Cambodia inasmuch as the offensive 

would be directed solely against those areas occupied by the estimated 40,000 North Vietnamese troops who, by their presence, had 

flagrantly violated the neutrality of that country. He also emphasized 

that this was a limited action aimed only at driving the North 

Vietnamese from their sanctuaries and destroying their military 

supplies, and that upon the attainment of these objectives our troops 

would be withdrawn. The President made it quite clear tha t this 

move was the only way to forestall a major Communist offensive 

which would not only jeopardize the lives of American and South 

Vietnamese forces but would endanger the success of the policies 

of Vietnamization and the withdrawal of our troops.

While the President has since stated tha t this exercise will not be 

completed until the end of June, we may already observe substantial 

results: thousands of weapons and tons of ammunition and supplies 

have been captured, notice has been served upon the enemy t ha t he 

can expect repeated attacks by the South Vietnamese forces should 

he t ry to reestablish his sanctuaries, and 6 to 8 months of precious 

time have been bought to continue training the South Vietnamese 

Army. These are factors of the greatest importance in our efforts 

to secure a just and honorable settlement to the conflict in Southeast 

Asia.

It has been the frequent charge of certain critics of the President’s 

policy tha t in the light of the tragedy at Song My it is immoral to 

claim tha t our purpose in South Vietnam is to protect the people 

of tha t country and assure their right of self-determination. In 

reply I would say that there is considerable difference between an 

isolated misfortune of war and the systematic massacre of thousands of peasants by Ho Chi Minh when he consolidated power in 

the north in 1954 or the brutal suppression of a revolt which broke 

out in his native province in 1956. In addition, I would point to the 

estimated 3,000 bodies tha t were discovered in the mass graves at 

Hue as a grim warning of the blood purges which would surely 

follow a hasty American withdrawal from Vietnam. Were we in 

fact to make such an immediate withdrawal the consequences would 

be such tha t no nation could ever rely on our promise of support 

again, tha t thousands of Americans would have died for nothing, 

and tha t we would be guilty of betraying the people of South 

Vietnam. It therefore behooves us to support the President’s policy 

on Vietnam as our best hope for an honorable peace and to view his 

recent stand on Cambodia as a decisive step toward tha t end.

It is regrettable that so many college students have seen fit to 

actively oppose the President on this issue, and while I respect their 

right to dissent, I urge you to consider the circumstances and results of tha t dissent. In recent weeks we have seen student protests 

carried out in an atmosphere of hysteria, violence, and tragedy which 

far exceeds anything that took place when Lyndon Johnson was 

sending troops into Vietnam, and yet these were directed against a 

President who has already withdrawn 115,000 troops from Vietnam, 

who has promised to withdraw 150.000 more over the course of this 

year, and who has made every conceivable effort to find a meaningful 

solution to the conflict. We have also seen some students conclude
230

tha t there are no effective methods of protesting the President’s 

policy short of disrupting the entire academic process and either 

closing down the university or subjugating its educational function 

to political dissent. It appears that it was quite impossible for some 

students to content themselves with such protests as w riting to their 

elected officials or circulating petitions or engaging in any other 

modes of dissent which could easily have been accommodated within 

the normal academic routine. It appears t hat a Presidential act calculated to shorten the war and save American lives was deemed so infamous tha t even before its success or failure could be determined, 

violent disorders and mass demonstrations had to be organized to 

stop it in spite of the tragedies which ensued and the recently stated 

opinion of Sam Brown of the National Moratorium Committee th at 

the mass demonstration has lost its effectiveness.

Such drastic attempts to politicize the university bode ill for the 

futu re particularly since the militant students who initiate such 

action are frequently in the minority but exert great pressure on 

their fellow students. It is difficult for a student to attend class, for 

example, if tha t action will be interpreted as signifying complete 

approval of President Nixon’s policies. I would respectfully suggest, then, tha t when you listen to the protests of the activist student tha t you consider tha t there is such a thing as a silent majority 

on many of our campuses as well, made up of students who may or 

may not fully approve of President Nixon’s actions but who, for 

reasons of their own, esteem their opportunity for a college education too highly to divert time from their studies to take to the 

streets. It would be a grea t mistake and indeed a great tragedy to 

think tha t the radical few speak for the responsible many.

In conclusion, I would like to express my sincere and deep appreciation for the opportunity which you have provided for me to 

make my views known. Your efforts to provide college students with 

a constructive and orderly way to present their opinions are to be 

highly commended.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. No questions.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Mr. Gordon, how would you estimate this division in 

the college community? What percentage would you say takes your 

point of view and what percentage would you say more nearly take 

the point of view that we’ve heard more often expressed?

Mr. Gordon. T hat’s a very difficult question to answer, because if 

you consider the campuses in one area of the country as opposed 

to-----

Mr. I Iicks. Take your campus.

Mr. Gordon. My own campus? I would say that on my own campus 

the majority of students are opposed to the President’s policy on 

Cambodia. In this case, I ’m talking about a silent minority. But I 

thin k tha t it is true that on other campuses you can say that there’s 

such a thing as a silent majority on the campuses. I know I ’m sounding a little bit like the sort of thin g that Russell Baker makes fun of— 

how can you tell if a silent majority exists if it doesn’t have any 

opinions on anything? But the fact is so many students who work 

the ir way through college, who attend on scholarships and as such
have to keep a significant grade average, are unable to take pa rt 

in counter-protests and very frequently these very students supp ort 

the President.

Mr. Hicks. Tha nk you.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. T homson. I have no questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell, please.

Mr. Fascell. Do you recognize a protest of any kind as a sheer 

political movement? Any kind of protest?

Mr. Gordon. I ’m not quite sure I understand the question.

Mr. F ascell. Do you personally recognize protest as a political 

movement? Any kind of movement, for any purpose, on any college 

campus?

Mr. Gordon. I recognize it as a political act, obviously on the basis 

of what I said.

Mr. Fascell. I mean it’s designed to do something, isn’t it?

Mr. Gordon. Yes, it is.

Mr. F ascell. It’s designed to shock the conscience of the American people, change the vote, involve the student or whatever its pu rpose, don’t you agree with that?

Mr. Gordon. I agree that it’s an effort to influence our legislature, 

but I don’t approve of it.

Air. F ascell. I don’t know about whether it’s an effort to influence our legislators. Do you agree personally tha t it’s a political act? 

That’s the point.

Air. Gordon. Yes, I do.

Air. Fascell. If the silent majority on the campus don’t do 

anything, do you agree tha t that’s a political act?

Air. Gordon. Do you mean simply declining to express an opinion 

is done politically?

Air. Fascell. You were making it very clear to us that we should 

be totally objective in analyzing what’s going on on the campus and not be misled. Tha t there is only a small radical grou p; but the great majority, as you saw it, was silent; they wanted to go to class and keep the academic institution open. We want to be objective in tha t analysis. So I ’m asking you if one group out here is actively protesting in order to make a point, whatever the point is, and the other group sits back and wants to continue with its education ; the fact tha t they don’t participate, isn’t tha t a political act? You may get a difference of opinion as to how active the participation ought to be, when one wants to analyze tha t problem you’re confronted with the proposition that if you want the university to run and the other one wants it to be closed for a political act, you’ve a difference of opinion that has to be resolved. Do you agree with tha t ?

Air. Gordon. Yes, s ir; I do.

Air. F ascell. How are you going to resolve it if the majo rity 

you allege doesn’t do anything? Or say anything? Th at’s what I 

haven’t been able to understand.

Air. Findley. Do you have a question. Air. Thomson ?

Air. Thomson. No questions.

Air. Findley. I must say, Air. Gordon, tha t your presence here shows th at you and your college associates who have come here these past few days are engaged in political acts, and I thin k everyone 

here thinks it’s highly commendable.
232

Mr. F ascell. I would agree with that, Mr. Chairman. I didn’t 

want my question to be m isinterpreted as perhaps it has been. The 

purpose of a dialog is to be able to take a po int and deliberate on it.

To question my logic as well as the logic of the witness, and I think 

th at’s the whole idea. It doesn’t have anything to do with whether 

or not I happen to agree or disagree with the particu lar position.

Mr. Findley. Any further comment, Mr. Gordon?

Mr. Gordon. It seems I was not quite clear myself. The point I 

was trying to make was that I ’m very concerned about the politicalization of the university in the sense, not that the students are 

politicized, but tha t the university becomes politicized. And when *

it reaches the point that the university declares time olf for politics— 

in other words your politics are more important than your education—the university is taking a political stand, and tha t I think is 

taking a political stand, and tha t I think is wrong. As you gentlemen are only too well aware the trend in this country is toward 

public colleges, public universities, community colleges and universities. If the university becomes politicized I fear tha t it will 

lose the traditional status it has always enjoyed as a community 

of scholars. If it enters the political arena, the political arena will 

intervene in the affairs of the university. State legislatures will decide what courses will be taug ht, which professors will be hired, 

or the budgets of universities will be voted on as public question.

And this, I think, is a very serious situation.

Mr. F ascell. There is no question about the fact tha t the role 

of the university in the modern society is undergoing a fantastic 

transition. The effort of youth in universities to politicize itself or 

the effort of students to use the university to achieve a political 

purpose is going to have serious consequences in the university 

system. T hat is quite separate and apart from the proposition that 

war or peace is the number one prio rity in the country. If you 

want to close down an academic institution till tha t issue is decided, 

that’s a totally different question.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Gordon, than k you very much.

Our next witness is Cynthia Pringle. Cynthia Prin gle of Carlow 

College, Pittsburgh, Pa., and I see you have some companions with 

you. While you are approaching the chairs, girls, I ’d like to mention tha t we are coming close to the end of the day. There are two *

more witnesses on the schedule, and in addition I understand there 

is one who was not here on time earlier in the day, and there 

might be one or two more who would like to be heard. For my p art,

I ’m going to stay until everyone who has now expressed a desire to »

be heard has been heard, but we do have to move along, so we’ll 

hear from you. Miss P ringle, and we appreciate your coming.

STA TEM ENT BY CY NT HIA PR INGL E, CARLOW COLLEGE

Miss Pringle. “We the People of the United States in order to 

form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tran ­

quility, provide for the common Defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our 

Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United 

States of America.”
233

These nationa l priorities were set forth by our forefathers in the preamble of the Constitution. It was written 180 years ago and brought us together as a nation. Now these fundamental goals must be interpreted in relation to the needs and demands of the 20th century. “To form a more perfect Union,” we must deal with the poverty, racism, and other social injustices which are weakening and dividing our country. Because of a “lack of available money,” 10 million Americans go to bed hungry and 22 million Americans remain below even the Government’s minimal poverty line. Because of “a lack of available money,” the administration has proposed re­ ducing the Federal share of medicaid payments while elderly couples dependent on social security benefits average $118 a month. The excuse of a lack of money does not solve these problems and keeps us further away from our more perfect Union; yet there seems to be money available for our military machine, as the appropriation s for defense consume the major portion of the Federal budget. In 1967 an estimate of military-related spending was $100 billion. This was more than all Federal, State, and local expenditures on health, education, old age benefits, welfare, and unemployment. Senator Stu art Symington, a former Secretary of the Air Force, advised Congress tha t “the Nation’s total investment in what we acknowledge to be unworkable or obsolete missiles totals over $23 

billion.” Another national priority set forth by the preamble of the Consti­ tution is to establish justice. The court systems of today make it most difficult fo r the poor to get fair tria ls while the rich are able to take advantage of all the best legal procedures. New and better effective means must be established in our courts so that all, regardless of 

status, can obtain a fair trial. A third national priority is “to insure domestic tranquility .” Five years from now 20 million Americans will leave rural poverty be­ cause they can no longer live adequately, and will be forced to immi­ grate to the cities which cannot feed, house, educate, and employ them. Also 20 million Americans live in dilapidated, rat-infested housing, and 40 million live in poverty with little access to medical 

or welfare care. In 1968 Presiden t Nixon stated tha t “Bring Us Together” was to be the theme of his administration. But if you look within our coun­ try, you find i t divided and overwhelmed with poverty, crime, racism, and unemployment. Yet the people see vast sums of money spent on military enterprises which seem to have become the only prio rity in America. Are our priorities based on our system of values? If our priorities are based on our system of values then we must ex­ amine the values closely. It seems that our system of values is based on world prestige. We need to work internally within our country and establish the goals set by the preamble of our Constitution. It is said that America is the land of the free and the home of the brave. But where is our freedom? Congress seems to be pre­ occupied with protecting “the free world” while freedom at home is being denied. Our Congress and President have not adequately communicated with the people of this Nation and this can be seen by their actions and not by what they say. Where is the freedom, justice, and liberty promised to every citizen by our Constitution?

46 -48 7— 70— 16
234

Now you are listening because you realize tha t our cries are valid.

Rut what constructive action will be taken by Congress to bring 

the military-industrial complex under control? What constructive 

action will be taken by Congress to meet the needs th at free Americans have been crying out for. The greatest challenge facing our 

Congress and representatives today is to bring America together 

and to begin now to tell the public the true facts. It is also their 

responsibility to reevaluate our national priorities and to reassert 

control over the military bureaucracy and policymaking decisions.

Members of Congress who are not willing to undertake their 

responsibilities will not remain in office to represent the people of 4

the United States, because there are many of us now who are going 

to continue to work for peace and freedom within our country.

It is those of you now in Government who must each reevaluate 

your own positions and priorities in respect to what the people need *

if we are to accomplish the goals of the preamble of the Constitution.

It is you that have the responsibility to continue in these difficult days 

what the framers of the Constitution began.

Mr. Findley. Thank you, Miss Pringle. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Pringle, you certainly are very clear in your position. I concur with your ultimate 

conclusion. We do need a reordering of priorities. We do have to 

examine our system of values. I think we all need to do tha t constantly. I would only suggest the quickest way to bring about the 

kind of reordering of the priorities, rethinking of the systems and 

values by which one lives and would like to see his Nation live, is 

to get more people to think like you do. Then the Congress would 

respond, the President would respond, and we’d get the job done.

I don’t know of any other way to do it. I ’ve never seen a convert 

made by shooting him first. That’s why I’ve really never understood 

violent demonstrations except in a political sense. It makes an impact on the media; people read about it; they get concerned; and 

they want to listen. There is another way. Do you agree?

Miss Pringle. Yes, I do agree. I don’t think violent demonstrations now will really solve the problems, but what I do think is 

needed are people to go out and to communicate with the community, to campaign for representatives in our Government. I think 

tfie biggest problem now is to educate a lot of people in the United •

States. I think a lot of people don’t really understand what’s going 

on. I th ink it has to be brought out.

NIr. F ascell. Or to get them to agree to your set of values for 

mankind or the American people as you understand them or you «

would like them to be.

Miss P ringle. Yes.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you very much for coming.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. Boland. You’ll pardon my ignorance, how large is Carlow 

College?

Miss Pringle. Carlow College is, well we have a thousand students in the student body. There are about 200 part-time students.

Mr. Boland. Well, I certainly want to commend you for your 

statement and commend the college itself for sending this delega-
235

tion here. T must admit I didn’t know there was a Carlow College, 

but-----

Miss Pringle. Well, we were originally called Mount Mercy 

College and we changed our name last year to Carlow.

Mr. Boland. But your presence here, representing the college as you do and those who accompany you, of course, indicates, no matter what the size of the college, there is some activism on small college campuses, not alone on the war in Southeast Asia, but on other issues. And you have raised some of these issues here with your

* statement. You ask what constructive action will Congress take to meet the needs that free Americans have been crying for? And you talk about a number of issues—education, housing, welfare, poverty, and the elderly. You know th at a great number of efforts have been

* made in these fields, and grea t progress has been made in these fields over the past dozen years or so. You would agree with this, would you not, tha t the Congress has not closed its eyes to the fact there are problems in all the fields which you mention in your statement, but there has been an effort on the part of Congress and the executive department and the legislative to meet some of these very serious problems tha t do affect a great cross section of our people in the many fields that you mention in your statement? You are familiar with those then, I would think?

Miss P ringle. Yes, I read a lot about the poverty and the racism and the unemployment in our country and I see all the statistics and get very concerned. I ’m just hoping that Congress will continue to be concerned and try to get something done constructively as far as the legislature concerning these issues because I thin k a lot of people in our country are being deprived and I thin k they need help and I certainly want to help them.

Mr. Boland. Well, I agree with you a nd I commend you for your concern. I thin k Congress is listening in the areas of education, housing, welfare, and poverty and once again it’s a question, as you’ve indicated here, it’s a question of money and if we stop some of our activities we will be able to take this money and put a great deal more of it into the fields tha t do give us anxiety in this Nation ourselves. You talk about the domestic tranquility, and I thin k we can get tha t tranquility if we try to solve some of the problems in

* the fields you have mentioned. Thank you very much for a fine 

statement, Cynthia.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. Miss Pringle, I want to commend you, too, on your statement and say that while I agree with Mr. Boland tha t Congress has done a g reat deal, we in this Nation haven’t done nearly enough. And I concur in your hope tha t we’ll continue ahead; and with the young people like we have had here the last 2 days really being interested and going out into the country, I ’m sure tha t this Nation is going to move ahead. Thank you again.

Mr. Findley. Miss Pringle, on page 2 of your statement you state tha t “Congress seems preoccupied with protecting the free world while freedom at home is being denied.” I think I know the areas you have in mind, but would you elaborate just a bit on the in­ stances in which you feel tha t freedom is being denied here in this 

country ?
236

Miss P ringle. Well, the fact tha t we have racism and the fact 

that there is unemployment, even the fact that students can’t dissent 

peacefully-----

Mr. Findley. They cannot dissent peacefully?

Miss P ringle. Well, I have heard of instances where on campuses 

students have tried to dissent peacefully, hut, you know, where 

immediately, the National Guard or something came in and was 

breaking it up. T J hink the fact tha t students do dissent and have 

dissented, I mean something’s being done now. I think it has been 

helpful in tha t respect. I think people are saying, well, okay, now, 

let’s listen, you know. And when you say demonstrations are worthless, violent demonstrations to me are worthless. The demonstrations 

as a whole will help people to look and say, well what are these 

kids talking about, and to that extent I think they are worthwhile. 

Otherwise, as far as freedom, when I see people hungry in the 

streets and when I see people who can’t communicate to representatives—this is a good example, the fact t hat we can sit here and talk 

to you. This is, you know, exercising, I would say, our freedom of 

speech, but is something going to happen? Like I thin k all of us 

want something to happen and we hope that you will, with us, take 

action.

Mr. Findley. Well, I ’m sure tha t all of us share vour hope that 

we will act to meet these broad problems that still confront our 

country, and we certainly thank you for your part here today.

Now, according to the original announcement we would be adjourned in 5 minutes. Obviously, we will not, but it may well be 

tha t some who are working with this project will find it necessary 

to leave. With tha t in mind, I do want to make just a comment a t 

this time.

These hearings were organized apart from the official committee 

structure of the Congress. We received, very happily, the cooperation of Chairman Morgan of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, 

who made available the space here. But the staffing, the organization, 

the detailed work, communications by phone and by letter and otherwise have all been contributed by volunteers—members of my staff, 

the staffs of each member of this panel, who have undertaken this 

extra chore in addition to the ir regular duties as a member of the 

staff of a Congressman. Several of them are still here in the room 

today. This represents a lot of effort on the part of many people 

on a bipartisan basis, a sincere effort, I think, to make possible this 

forum for college student opinion. And I want to express my 

deepest appreciation to everyone so involved and especially to mv 

colleagues on the panel. I am especially impressed with the diligence 

of all the members of this panel and I am pleased tha t all but one 

of the original six are here in the closing moments of the 2-dav 

hearings. The one who is not here, Mr. Howard Robison, of New 

York, explained when he accepted the responsibility tha t he might 

have to be in New York today, and such was the case. But it has 

been a gratifying experience for me, and I certainly appreciate all 

the fine cooperation.

Mr. F ascell. Mr. Chairman, I thin k I would be remiss at this 

point if you didn’t allow me to comment before you get to the next 

witness. This will be very short. All of us, and I’ll take the liberty
237

of speaking for all of us on the panel, than k you for your ini tia ­

tive and enthusiasm in bringing together this ad hoc panel and giv­ ing us the oppo rtunity to sit with you to hear the students for these 2 days. It has been a very stimulating and rewarding ex­ perience. I know beyond any question tha t it has been educational for every member who has been on this panel. I express my ap­ preciation also to the students who came from all over; who mus­ tered their courage to come into this awesome and august room and allow us the opportunity to talk with them. We owe our thanks to all of the students who went to the time and the trouble to analyze the problems; to prepare their statements; to respond to the ques­ tions; and to spend their money, to come here. They thin k that this issue is a serious problem. We thin k it’s a serious problem. We need the best effort, attitude and understanding in order to arriv e 

at the immediate solution which everybody seeks.

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much, Mr. Fascell. One final word. 

During the 2 days we’ve had a wide variety of student opinion expressed, and this variety of opinion has been expressed in the presence of the articulate students who have held opposing opinions. Without exception throughout the 2-day period the courtesy of the audience, the spectators, the students who had spoken but were anxious to hear what their student colleagues had to say has been impeccable, and I want to thank you very much for that, too. The next witness is Greg Walden of Graceland College, Lamoni, 

Iowa. Greg Walden. Please proceed Mr. Walden. We’d like to 

know the name of your companion.

Mr. Walden. Jack Ryan from Alary crest College.

Mr. Ryan. It’s in Davenport.

Mr. F indley. Davenport, Iowa. Please proceed, Mr. Walden.

STATEMENT BY GREG WALDEN, GRACELAND COLLEGE

Mr. Walden. It wasn’t until last October that I became actively 

involved in opposition to this war, and, indeed, to the assumptions, priorities, and life-styles which Americans have come to accept as normal. I had never endorsed the war, but I had accepted it as a p art of America’s necessary freedom-defending policies in the world. I had been nurtured on Dr. Tom Dooley’s 1950’s accounts of the “Com­ munist devils” in Indochina. I had been led to firmly believe the righteousness of anticommunism right on down throu gh Robin Moore’s “ The Green Berets,” John Wayne’s film by that name, and Bob Hope Christmas specials, which were especially enteitaining in their appeal. The “Vietcong” took on demonous imaginary proportions. Quite frankly, they were just plain “Communists,” none of 

whom possessed even fain tly remote traces of such characteristics as respect for human life, freedom, self-determination, or any kind of laudable virtue. Here they were, shelling a school, jamming sticks into teachers’ inner ears, massacring civilians. All this evidence was enough to keep me acquiescent. After all, who was there to tell me any different? Not my parents, or teachers, or ministers, or friends, or even mv enemies. No one. More fundamentally, the war did not seem to affect me directly. It projected a newspaper-story-like remoteness. So, in high school, and on into college, I concerned myself with sports, theatre, and academics, maintaining a high grade-point, being
238

troubled by the usual problems and personal worries of the age, 

which seemed to be all tha t life really involved. This year, though, 

has seen life crash in on me. I don’t mean to imply tha t I “have 

arrived.” Wha t occurred, however, was an enormous broadening of 

perspective. My responsibility and relationship to human and all life 

slapped me in the face. Perhaps this took place because I had the 

luxury of being a student, and also because my education seemed to 

lack relevancy and a sense of constructive direction. I don’t know 

what all contributed to it. It actually is surprising tha t such an 

occurrence could take place, as I was situated at a small college in 

an isolated rural community. ♦

With- the advent of the moratorium, I became involved. The observance itself proved to be largely a novel 1-day “holiday” upon 

which spokesmen in support of the war reassured the school populace 

of America’s benevolent objectives: I n the meantime, I began read- *

ing, writing, and subscribing to periodicals which monitor progressive change in society—ADA World. Tempo, The Progressive.

The New Republic. I ordered materials from the Friends, and 

discovered a whole new side to my long, one-sided anti-Communist 

indoctrination. And, unbelievably, it made human sense. It gave 

some real substance to the political and biblical appeals to brotherhood, justice, and truth. Since tha t time, the pursuit of knowledge 

and action concerning Southeast Asia, the dra ft, the militaryindustrial establishment, environment, race relations, nuclear weaponry and other social concerns has been my eager endeavor.

At this time, I refuse to be silent and inactive. For the sake of my 

own conscience, this Nation, and humanity at large, I simply cannot 

play out my life in the privileged, uninvolved role which my parents, 

schooling, and society have laid out before me. To do so would mean 

ignoring those who suffer at my expense, or, more broadly speaking, 

at the expense and expanse of this affluent American society.

These hearings concern Southeast Asian policy. Other closely interre lated concerns, yet particula rly the war in that region of the 

world, asks us several serious, gut-level questions, which demand 

honest answers. The most basic of these may be: What kind of 

people are we? What kind have we become? We think and say we 

know: trustworthy, invincible, peace- and freedom-loving, mighty 

but just—the list pouring forth from our history texts. Veterans’ •

Day and Fourth of July speeches is endless, not to mention the 

numerous other sources of mass ethnocentric indoctrination. Our 

national ideals and liberties are cast in the Constitution and Declaration of Independence, we say. But the framers of those documents 

were slaveholders.

What kind of peace-loving people are we tha t we have made war 

and devices of destruction the central activity of the Government?

Why would such a freedom-loving nation allow its youth to be 

coerced by laws which usurp their freedom to choose life-stvles and 

futures? What kind of people are we tha t we so readily and even 

anxiously hate and destroy each other over such trivial differences 

as style of dress and length of hair? How is it possible that our 

social conscience is blighted by “benign neglect,” while profitmaking 

and its companion, exploitation, continue unabated? And. to focus 

on Southeast Asia, how could such a people endorse the destruction
239

of an entire country and its peasant populace in order to save face in a world community where respect for us declines with every 

additional military intervention ? I come from a college which is typical, I suppose, of small colleges. All my attempts to brin g the outrage and tragedy of Vietnam home to my campus this year met with indifference or token involvement. Until 2 weeks ago. Now the formerly apathetic campus and rural community have sat up and taken notice. Cambodia, Kent State, and pending congressional action have all hit home. The President simply went too far. The reaction has been overwhelming. Even such a delegation as is present here would have been inconceivable 3 weeks 

ago. In a time when reconciliation is crucial, we receive indifference, or polarization rhetoric. When moral leadership is so desperately needed, we receive the ambivalent, regressive strategy of this admin­ istration. When constructive criticism, justice, and progressive real­ ism are vital, we receive antiquated world view, and legislation more repressive than tha t of the McCarthyite 1950’s. Erosion of trust and confidence in the Government has become widespread, all 

with good reason and justification. The falsehoods underlying our involvement in Southeast Asia, passed on from administration to administration, have come to roost. The endless optimistic reports now have a stale, hollow sound. The military has begun to lose hold of its sacred position in the public eye, a posture heretofore more and more firmly entrenched over the past three decades. Most tragic and unfortunate, th is administration’s continued adherence to, and perpetuation of, the big lie has resulted in polarization of alarming proportions. I have come to realize tha t this is a revolutionary world. Change is the byword. Yet the United States, by plan or accident, has set itself up as the chief obstacle to peoples around the world who only desire self-determination, and the freedom to direct their own future on a basis of equality with all nations—no more than we demanded two centuries ago. The case in point, of course, is Indochina. I feel tha t the President’s plan of “Vietnamization”—more ac­ curately termed “Saigonization”—is a hoax which has been repeatedly attempted and defeated (e.g. in 1965). It is merely a change in strategy and rhetoric directed toward the persistent goal of mili­ tary victory. All economic and political consequences aside, our 

destruction of Vietnam is costing this Nation its soul. As a student, but more importantly as a person, I see the need for radical change in order to make the people again sovereign, and in order to make Government responsive to the human needs which presently go unattended. The people now call on Congress to reassert its constitutional obligations. If the Congress now refuses to reclaim the responsibilities it has abdicated since World War II , then the validity of the political, social, and economic structure of this Nation will be even more seriously called into question. Violence, the result of ultimate frustration, may result. As the late President Kennedy said, “If we make peaceful revolution impossible, we make violent revolution inevitable.” Therefore, my plea is tha t you act now to turn this Nation’s preoccupation with death and killing into a 

humane concern for life and living. Thank you.

Mr. Findley. Thank you, Mr. Walden. Mr. Ryan.
240

STATEMENT BY JACK RYAN, MAR YCREST COLLEGE

Mr. Ryan. Four students are shot to death at Kent State. A week 

later, two more students die in Jackson, Miss. For the first time the college community realizes the tragedy of its passive acceptance of the 

status quo. The college student can remain silent no longer. This 

statement represents an attitude which is growing not only at Marycrest College, but on campuses throughout the Nation.

Gentlemen, what I am about to ask you, as men with the awesome 

power of changing, consider an alternative. The historical pattern 

is violence. America has accepted this pattern as inevitable. Thus our 

Nation has deteriorated into a semimilitary state ingrained with 

violence and caught in a spiral of fear and hatred.

We have consistently attempted to counter military force with 

military force and have succeeded only in fostering an endless pro- *

gression of increasingly greater military conflicts and threats. We 

have waged “Holy Wars,” forgetting tha t in a holy war both sides 

believe God is on their side. It is now evident, perhaps for the first 

time, tha t no one can win a war.

The devastating effect of this pattern on our society is clear. The 

mass murders of recent wars have distorted our respect for the invaluableness of a single human life, distorted it so greatly that 

property is valued above a human life. Gang wars, violence in the 

streets, delinquency and most forms of violence in our country come 

as a direct result of Government desecration of human life.

More subtle violence also characterizes this semimilitary state.

A man is not free to speak against the military-industrial complex 

when he fears tha t doing so would leave him jobless. The silent 

majority is afraid and understandably so. In several southern States, 

over 25 percent of the economy is directly connected with defense 

projects. War has become a frightenin gly large part of our economy.

When 70 percent of the Federal tax dollar goes to national defense, 

leaving only 30 percent for all other needs, government becomes an 

enemy of the people, not a service to them. When young men are 

told to die in a war and are not given a vote, this is “taxation 

without representation.”

But the greatest tragedy of America’s violent pattern is best seen 

in the people i t has proposed to help. Wa r has become an accepted •

part of Vietnamese life, life which has almost no meaning at all.

Through “Vietnamization,” the hope is to prepare these people for 

perpetual war. This is a characteristic result of the growing insanity 

of American violence. It is the same insanity which can accept *

the mass murder of Biafrans and the bombing of children as the 

unfortunate consequences of war.

The alternative is nonviolence. Violent means have clearly failed.

We have little to lose and everything to gain. It is time to radically 

restructure the concept of nationalism. The function of the U.S. Government must become tha t of channeling overwhelming resources 

so that all people might share our prosperity. The “melting pot” 

must call no man a foreigner and cannot accept the division of 

united humanity by artificial lines and borders.

Immediate withdrawal of troops from Indochina is not sufficient.

Congress must take direct measures to reverse the tide of the military-industrial complex, and work for its destruction.
241

National priorities must be reexamined and human life valued 

above all else. We, as Americans, have the power to end the forces of poverty and hunger. Let the accomplishment of this be the source 

of our national pride rath er than our military power. Nonviolent action is not only, then, the moral and idealogical al­ ternative, but the only alternative which offers any future at all. The college community will not sit idly by while the patterns of violence grows throu gh further commitments in Asia or by suppres­ sion of dissent in the States. The war demands tha t we participa te in many ways if it is to continue. We shall refuse and hope tha t 

Congress wiil supp ort us.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. F ascell. Thank you Mr. Chairman. Both of you have cer­ tainly expressed a very important philosophy of life tha t is the basis for the whole movement and direction of any government. And yet I wonder just exactly how f ar one can go in the application of that except to try to get a majority of people to his point of view. For example, do you advocate, Mr. Ryan, in your last statement, as a philosophy of life, tha t everybody in the United States should take 

the vow of poverty?

Mr. Rvan. No sir, I really don’t understand how you find this in 

my last statement.

Mr. Fascell. Well, because if profit is bad, and tha t is explicit in your statement, who is going to be ga infully employed, which is an­ other way of saying, why be gainfully employed? Isn ’t that a 

philosophy of life?

Mr. Ryan. I didn’t say that property was evil. What I would like to see is a distribution of property so tha t there will be no more people who are hungry and there won’t be filthy rich people, and 

filthy poor people.

Mr. Fascell. I can understand that. And I don’t know what you mean by filthy rich or filthy poor for tha t matter and T don’t want to get into that kind of philosophical discussion either. I can under­ stand translating the productive output of a military-industrial complex to nonmilitary production. But I don’t understand the word destruction, you see, of the entire military-industrial complex; 

as a way of life, I don’t understand that.

Mr. Ryan. What I ’m proposing is th at we might put say a billion dollars this year into building tanks—I’m just taking this number, I don’t know how much goes into it—and tha t will create a certain amount of jobs for people and use a certain amount of material-----

Mr. F ascell. We’re on the same track.

Mr. R yan. That billion dollars would be put into making tractors, plows and constructive implements, or into remodeling of our cities.

Mr. Fascell. I understand. I just wanted to be sure. If we took 

the money we spent in World War II , for example, only in the United States, we could have built every human being in the world a three-bedroom, air-conditioned house with indoor plumbing.

Mr. Ryan. Exactly.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland.

Mr. B oland. Greg, I ’m grateful to you for your presence here. I ’ve 

got to give a Memorial Day speech on Monday, and I can almost take yours. [Laughter.] You know, what gives me heart, really, is
242

that there are so many students like you tha t I have met, not just

over the past month because of reactions to what’s happened in

Southeast Asia and the incursion into Cambodia, but students that

all of us have met, members of this panel, and Members of Congress,

have met, students who really are part of the affluent society such

as you are, students who were just living in your own world not

paying too much attention to what was happening around you and

as you said in your statement you have the luxury of being a student

and you were getting high grades, high marks, but suddenly you

realized tha t this really wasn’t all to it; tha t there was another part

to life and tha t there were others who didn’t live such as you did, h

didn’t have the luxury nor the advantages. I think, this is probably

one of the hopes of America in that there are so many students who

feel the same way, and who probably come from the same level of

society as you come from and are willing to do what you and Jack p

Ryan are doing here today and what you have been doing apparently

over the past many weeks and will continue to do in the future. So

there is a real hope for a change here and the change doesn’t have to

come inevitably through violent revolution. I think it can be done

nonviolently, and I think this is a very fine demonstration of it.

Because some of the things you talk about, I think we’re trying 

to meet, I’m sure the Congress is trying to meet, and those of us who 

serve here in the Congress have been trying to do it, and I think 

practically all of them who are members of this panel have too. So 

I want to commend you for your statement, it is a very fine statement. and commend Jack Ryan for his presence here too. Thank 

you very much.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. One or both of you gentlemen spoke of the high percentage of money tha t we’re spending on armaments. I serve on 

the Armed Services Committee. Do you have a percentage figure 

you think this Nation should reasonably spend on its military system?

Mr. Ryan. Yes, I think zero percent should be spent on the military system, on violence and killing.

Mr. Walden. I ’d like to make a statement on that. I think a reassessment needs to be made of just what do we mean by defending 

this country and I think, well, I would propose transarmament, not 

disarmament. I mean, not an arb itra ry cutoff, you know, $70 billion »

on defense this year, none next year. I think there needs to be a 

gradual scaling down and reconversion to civilian goods and services 

and so forth. But I would investigate the possibility of a nonviolent 

national defense as the only defense in the nuclear age. Because 

when we—

Mr. Hicks. What do you mean when you say that?

Mr. Walden. Nonviolent national defense? I don’t mean an armed 

force to defend this Nation because when you take into account the 

possibility of a foreign invasion by a conventional army, the chances 

are practically nil. Therefore we must assume any attack would 

probably be nuclear in this age, I would say.

Mr. Hicks. Well, could I stop you there? It’s practically nil under 

present circumstances, would it be practically nil if we had no Navy, 

if we had no conventional forces?

Mr. W alden. Well, this is the point; in a nonviolent national defense, the whole civilian populace is mobilized to resist nonviolently.
243

It’s much easier to visualize a person as an enemy when they are being violent with you. We’re not going to suffer no casualties, but in relating to people, for example the invader, as persons with un­ derstanding rather than with weapons and making a human to human bond this way and using the application of noncooperation with the invader as has been instance in history, I think the ani­ mosity and the destruction would be much greatly, or more grea tly 

lessened.

Mr. Hicks. Tha nk you.

0 Mr. Findley. Mr. Walden in your statement on page 3, I believe, you refer to legislation more repressive than tha t of the McCarthyite era in the 1950’s. Could you be more specific?

Mr. Walden. I would cite the recent no-knock law, the measures

« of preventive detention, the legislation under which the recent Chi­ cago trial was prosecuted and so forth. I think those would be sufficient just briefly.

Mr. Findley. And Mr. Ryan, in your statement you speak of suppression of dissent in the States. Now beyond the Kent State and Jackson tragedies, do you have any examples th at come to mind of suppression of nonviolent dissent in the States ?

Mr. Ryan. Perhaps the one that comes most directly to my mind 

was the last Democratic National Convention where just Utterly thousands of people met and for the most part were meeting non­ violently, en masse, but nonviolently, and were met with overt violence 

by the police department.

Mr. Findley. Are there any other questions? We thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming here today and helping us with this examination of student opinions. The next witness is John McNeal Wilson, of Williams College, Williamstown, Mass., and his home is Chattanooga, Tenn. John "Wilson. "We would appreciate it if you would identify your colleagues 

so we’ll have it on tape.

Mr. Wilson. Yes, sir. First, things have changed slightly. It is now a Williams College-Wesleyan College delegation. Pete H arnik, to my immediate right is also from "Williams, Bob Neal, at that, end of the table, is from "Wesleyan.

, Mr. Findley. "Which "Wesleyan College is that? "What State?

Mr. "Wilson. Connecticut.

Mr. Findley. Connecticut. Thank you.

Mr. Wilson. This is Fred Hollister, who is also from "Wesleyan, and John Corless from Wesleyan. Secondly. I believe my statement as prepared is a little bit less than 10 minutes. Is it okay if I depart from my prepared statement a little bit?

Mr. Findley. Say what you want to but I do feel we have to stick with the 10 minutes for the oral presentation, then we’ll have 

questions.

Mr. "Wilson. Yes, sir. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY JOHN McNEAL WILSON. WILLIAMS COLLEGE

Mr. "Wilson. First, we’d like to thank the gentlemen on the panel for giving young people this opportunity to speak within the system. It is both educational and an invaluable lesson in citizenship.
244

Second, we would like to say that we are not here to slap the 

President in the face. In our judgment, neither the Church-Cooper 

nor the Hatfield-McGovern amendments would “tie the President’s 

hands.” However, we do believe tha t Presidents, Senators, Representatives, and generals are human and are capable of mis judgments 

and errors as we know that we may be.

In this testimony, we are concerned with three principal areas.

First, we are concerned about the credibility gap of DOD which 

various administrations have chosen to make their own. Second, we 

are concerned about what appear to be brutalizing effects on our 4

American soldiers in Vietnam. Third, we question how much selfdetermination the South Vietnamese have under the Thieu-Ky Government. Finally, gentlemen, what we ask of you is how many more 

lives, American and Vietnamese, now Cambodian, and how many I ' more scarce tax dollars is our effort in Vietnam worth?

In 1967-68, I was a special services librarian at Camp McDermott,

Nhatrang, South Vietnam. In November 1967, there was a Vietcong 

attack on the airfield at Nhatrang. Five rounds were fired from a 

recoilless rifle. One or more rounds hit the gas tank of a computerfilled airplane which was on the ground. The mission of this plane 

was to coordinate air strikes and artillery fire on enemy positions 

under attack. I was told that it cost millions of dollars. From 2 miles 

away, we could see the flames and smoke for between 2 and 3 hours.

The next day, a friend told me tha t he had seen this plane being 

carried to the dump. The following day, I saw a mimeographed 

newssheet put out by the Army in which was a two paragraph story 

by A P datelined Nhatrang. It said “night before last, Nhatrang air ­

base was attacked. Five rounds were fired. Several planes were lightly 

damaged.” At this point, I ceased to believe the Army PIO .

In President Nixon’s speech to the Nation, April 30th, he said:

Tonight, American and South Vietnamese units will attack the headquarters 

for the entire Communist military operation in South Vietnam. This big control 

center has been occupied by the North Vietnamese and Vietcong for 5 years in 

blatant violation of Cambodia’s neutrality.

I recalled an operation called Operation Junction City. In the 

New York Times of February 24, 1967, on page 1, column eight, 

under the byline of Tom Buckley, there is the following quote: B

American troops have begun wha t appears to be the largest offensive operation of the war in Vietnam. They drove today through swamps and jungle near 

the Cambodian border in search of the secret headquarters of the Vietcong.

Gentlemen, the reason I am here today can perhaps best be ex- M

plained by a headline on the front page of the New York Times 

dated March 23, 1967. “More of the same” in war foreseen by U.S. 

officials. For 20 years, different generals, different administration 

officials, and different Presidents of different countries have been 

promising tha t the war in Indochina will be won. I fail to understand how this administration and this Congress is still able to trus t 

the intelligence and advice of the Pentagon on this war.

I would like to refer to an article in the March 26. 1967, New 

York Times, page 1, column seven, bylined Hedrick Sm ith :

The Defense Department is withholding a new Senate report tha t charges that 

ammunition shortages have forced field commanders in Vietnam on some occasions to change the planning or the execution of their military operations, 

congressional sources said today.

The report still classified as secret . . . ”
245

Gentlemen, I ask how long is our Congress willing to tolerate apparent mistakes and apparent incompetence in DOD hidden behind 

secret classifications ? While I was in Nhatrang, the Tet offensive of 1968 occurred. At this time, I heard a rumor that Koreans were torturing prisoners. From a friend of mine who was transferred to special services from a combat unit, I had heard of another incident of Koreans tor tur ing prisoners and one of an ARVN pushing prisoners out of a helicopter. I had been in Vietnam for 6 or 7 months at this time. I accepted these reports with disgust, but it did not occur to me to relay these 

U reports to CID. I thought “war is hell.” However, I never believed tha t American troops could engage in such war crimes on a large 

scale. I have read Seymour M. Hersch’s repo rt on AIv Lai in the May 

* 1970 Harpe r’s. In my judgment, Air. Hersch’s re port is responsible, well documented, and objective. I request th at if you have not had the 

opportunity to read it tha t you do so. In this report, you will find that the men allegedly involved at Aly Lai went through an increasing process of disregard for the lives and persons of noncombatants. Allegedly, it began bv beating prisoners. Then, allegedly, there was the murder of an old man. Then, allegedly, there was a rape murder. Finally, allegedly, there was Aly Lai. These men must have the ir day in court. However, I am very disturbed at what seems to happen to American boys in 

Vietnam. Furthermore, the Aly Lai incident was almost successfully covered up by higher commands, allegedly. One can only fear that perhaps 

there have been more Aly Lais. I do not like the North Vietnamese or the Vietcong. I am aware of th eir selective assassinations in Vietnam. I am aware of H ue aft er Tet. I am aware of the North Vietnamese peasants who were killed in Ho Chi Alinh’s home province shortly after the Communists 

took over the north. However, I am also aware of alleged corruption and repression 

by the Thieu-Ky regime in South Vietnam. In September 1967, afte r the first South Vietnamese national elections, Truong Dinh Dzu, runnerup in the presidential election, 

f

said that he considered the election to be “illegal and incompetent.” Furthermore, spokesmen for him said that “the generals apparently do not want a normal political life in South Vietnam.” Dzu also charged tha t many voters in the Gia Dinh and Alytho districts were unable to vote because South Vietnamese soldiers controlled the vot­ ing places and limited the supply of ballots. For these and other reasons, Dzu said that two-thirds of Thieu’s votes “were obtained by fraud and that without cheating, Thieu would have had only 10 

percent of the nation vote.” Later tha t month, Dzu and five other defeated candidates formed an opposition party to oppose the government, and declared that “we solemnly denounce the oppressive and corrupt practices of the government.” In the following months, Dzu was arrested twice and served two short prison terms on questionable charges. Finally, Dzu was arrested because he was “indulging in activities under the guise of peace and neutralism in line with th e Communists which weakened the nation’s anti-Communist spirit and had a damaging effect on
246

the war effort of the people and the armed forces.” He was convicted 

for his opposition to the Saigon regime and sentenced to 5 years in 

prison.

Finally, gentlemen, I ask you simply how many more lives is this 

effort worth? Can we not get ont of this war much more rapidly 

than DOD or the administration now seems to think ? We are asking 

this Congress to su dy these questions and hopefully speed up the 

withdrawal from Vietnam from its present projected time span.

Mr. F ascell. Mr. Wilson, I commend you on a very thoughtful 

statement and obviously balanced in your analysis of the situation as 

you see it. And I think it is imperative to use this kind of approach I

in arriving at, quote, “a new decision.” I don’t know any other way 

of doing it except the manner in which you’ve approached it, I 

commend you.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Boland. f

Mr. Boland. Did Williams shut down?

Air. Wilson. That’s hard to answer, sir. Williams students voted 

an indefinite strike, except 150, I think about, d'id not want to.go 

out on strike. Therefore the students say, what are we going to do 

that, so the faculty is offering take-home exams, papers, and a revised 

class schedule for those who want it. Those of us who, like myself, 

who have come to Washington have taken incompletes and must do 

this work before October 15 next year.

Mr. Boland. Wha t about Wesleyan?

Mr. Hollister. Yes, Wesleyan student body voted in a meeting of 

the community, 800 out of 1,300 students voted to strike, but yet 

students who voted not to strike have the opportunity to complete 

their courses. Those of us who are striking are in the sad situation as 

John is at Williams, we have to complete o ur work over this summer or before the term is over.

Mr. Boland. Well John, I want to commend you for your statement and what Williams and Wesleyan and Amherst are doing in 

this area and what they propose to do and the activism of the student bodies of all those institutions. I would say tha t Williams 

doesn’t exactly have the filthy poor attending it, it’s a very affluent 

school. Of course, I live up in the area, at Springfield, I ’m not too 

far from it. I ’ve been at Williams many times in my life and also 

I ’ve been through Wesleyan, too. So, your willingness to come down •

here and to express your opinions and feelings to this committee 

are appreciated by me and by the whole committee, particula rly coming from schools like Wesleyan and Williams, I appreciate your 

presence. You have a fine statement, it’s an indication of your p

concern, John. Having been over there, seen some of the activities 

in South Vietnam, I think, your statement does get tha t much 

more credibility and attention, I think, than others we’ve listened 

to. So, thank you very much for coming here.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks?

Mr. Hicks. Mr. Wilson, I ’m not certain tha t I grasp the full 

thrust of your statement. Are you saying tha t we should get out 

now because we didn’t do very well when we went over there?

Mr. Wilson. No, sir, that’s not the thrust of my statement. I 

thin k being an army vet, I ’m kind of a dirty old man to the student 

movement perhaps. I am very much aware, for example, the support
247

troops such as I was one of, are pretty incompetent. The casualties in my unit were six, I think, four of them were shot by other Americans and two of them were shot by themselves. If these men come up against VC or any NV A combat veterans, I ’m sorry there will be another Dien Bien Phu. I was not supporting the moratorium in November. I don’t want an immediate withdrawal because it is 

unfeasible. I don’t want air cover removed right now. Th at’s one of the things tha t protect the place and keeps people like the troops I was with from getting slaughtered. I don’t want the Navy pulled offshore. However, it appears that we are, in the process of A iet- namizing, it appears tha t we not only have a commitment to pro ­ tect our boys, which is true, but it appears tha t we have a commitment to preserve the Thieu-Ky government which I presume the. P resi­ dent or the State Department or someone seems to thin k is selfdetermination for the South Vietnamese. Right. The Communists are not good. They have done terrible things as I mentioned in my statement later on. However, the Thieu- Ky government is pretty repressive, they do have censorship of the press, they have closed papers. You know, at one point I believed enough to volunteer for the d raft, not quite enlist, and go over there. I always have seen this as a choice between the lesser of evils, and have become convinced now that it is not worth any more lives and any more money to commit any efforts to preserving Thieu and Ky.

Mr. Hicks. Then you think a year is ample time to get us out?

Mr. Wilson. I believe so, but I don’t know. I have not studied problems of how to withdraw, but it seems to me tha t we could do a much more rapid withdrawal than what seems to be anticipated at present, leaving support troops behind for the ARVN. Again, I like the Vietnamese. I have friends over there. I believe that the democratic system is the best tha t can be done. I just can’t see that it’s feasible, and I just don’t think it’s worth all the lives and money that it would take to keep somebody like Thieu and Ky in power. I thin k we ought to get our boys out as quick as we can.

Mr. F indley. Mr. Thomson?

Air. Thomson. No questions.

Mr. Findley. Well, we than k you very much, Mr. Wilson. Your statement is very helpful, I th ink, and I wish we had lots of time for questions, but we do have three more groups yet to hear. Thank you 

very much. The next witness is one who was scheduled at noon and apparently was just a few minutes late gettin g here, so he’s been waiting pa­ tiently here since tha t time. His name is David McKenzie, he is the spokesman from La Salle College in Philadelphia. Is Mr. Mc­ Kenzie here? And you have with you John Mason and Michael Kutzer. So please proceed, Mr. McKenzie.

Mr. McK enzie. Yes sir.

STATEMENT BY DAVID McKENZIE, LA SALLE COLLEGE

Mr. McKenzie. Gentlemen, we at La Salle have debated for the past 5 days over what we would offer today and even whether we 

should stand here before this committee. We are not here for ourselves alone. We come as representatives for our fathers, brothers, uncles, and friends. These are the people who
248

feel the oppression, economically and socially. These are the individuals who have been called the “silent majority.” However, 

as evidenced across the Nation in the past few weeks, those tha t 

used to be silent are silent no more. For those with positions to take 

are rapidly realizing tha t silence is no way in which to have tha t 

position heard.

We quite candidly question our reason and the eventual effects, 

if any, tha t it will have. In a spirit of honesty, we must state that 

we mistrust and are admittedly skeptical of a system which has 

shown nothing but insensitivity to the needs of the people it supposedly serves. In all honesty, we have seen nothing but blatant t

contempt and heard nothing but abrasive statements uttered by an 

administration whose goal was to “bring us together.” An administration who has totally disregarded the appeals and requests of 

those tha t are to be the future leaders of the society in which we f

will all find ourselves. An administration who has unleashed an 

impudent and mindless politician in the person of the Vice President, 

on the children of the country who elected it.

This, most unfortunately, is the spirit upon which we begin to 

address you, the men elected to govern us.

As we are all quite aware, and most especially you gentlemen who 

have been in the midst of it all, the Vietnam war has precipitated 

the most atrocious and abominable lies that this country has witnessed in its present time. And even worse than these lies themselves, 

they have been thrown to us as bones of pacification. We merely ask,

How can anyone believe its Government, in the office of its President, 

who punctuates troop withdrawals with the invasion of a neutral 

country? Under the guise of a political martyr, which he hoped would 

marshal political sentiment from his visible silent majority, he 

scoffs at dissent among the young, and Vice President Agnew has 

dedicated his time to an all-out campaign in stifling any progress 

that may be made by the young who have found it necessary in this 

country of ours, to take to the streets in peaceful dissent.

We have witnessed our fellow students being gunned down in 

the streets of Ohio and Georgia by militia tha t in the first place 

should have never been carrying loaded arms.

We have seen priorities set at levels of defense rather than health, 

education and welfare and consequently many areas of this land of a

ours have found themselves in conditions tha t I am most certain their

elected officials have never accustomed themselves to.

Regarding the violence which is currently so prevalent in our 

streets, we ask you, the upholders of justice, what the causes are. 

We ask you to question the cause rather than effect. Are these pur­ n

veyors of violence the reason behind or the end result of a society 

tha t for all intensive purposes is malignantly misdirected, by an 

admin istration tha t in itself appears to exhibit the same illness. We 

wonder if the critics have considered the anger, frustration and 

desperation these people have been driven to by our unmoved and 

unsympathetic society. A society tha t you, the elected officials, are 

fostering. There comes a time in a politician’s existence, when he 

must cease concerning himself with politics and take a moral stand.

A stand tha t we have, as of yet, not seen.
249

In light of this implication of yourselves being responsible, we now ask you to ask us. For through discussion we hope to attempt to accomplish what ou r fellow students have attempted to accomplish 

in the streets.

Thank you.

Mr. F indley. Thank you very much. Mr. Fascell?

Mr. Fascell. Th ank you, Mr. Chairman. I ’d just like to ask what 

brought about the debate for 5 days, and how it was finally resolved tha t you should come, which you did, and I ’m grateful that you 

did.

D Mr. McKenzie. I guess it was decided last night that a group

would come down. We found out that IMr. Connolly, who was origi­ nally supposed to be here, did not come. I think a number of students, especially at L a Salle and I think in the Philadelphia area, are kind

* of disappointed. We were here on November 15, and the President announced to the world tha t he was watching football. You know, it appears as if Congress is not willing to take a stand on the war during an election year. I find, myself, utter frustration among stu­ dents with the Government tha t supposedly serves them, and th at’s what the discussion was about at La Salle. This statement is very short. We had an eight-pager last nig ht that we threw out and an­ other group was working on a longer statement. We didn’t want to go into Vietnam and a long history of it because we figured other people would do it. We just wanted to explain the frustration tha t 

the students are feeling toward their Government.

Mr. Fascell. You just wanted to get to the point, and you did 

tha t very well.

Mr. Boland. Yes, I ’ll say you did very well. Was it worthwhile 

coming down? You know you debated for 5 days about coming down, and finally you arrived. Was it worthwhile do you think from your point of view and the students’ point of view at La Salle ?

Air. McKenzie. I think it was quite interesting. I didn’t understand when we came here tha t this was an ad hoc committee, and I did understand that Fri day is not usually a Congress day. So I had questions about tha t in my mind, actually whether they were meeting today. We did come, and I can see that some people apparently are willing to listen and find out what the students are thinking. However, a lot of of the skepticism comes from the fact tha t until four nice middle-class kids were murdered at Kent State, no action was taken. And I think tha t if the students at Jackson State had been killed and not the students at Kent State, then we just would have taken it as anoth er group of black people killed, and I don’t think there would have been hearings and I don’t th ink there would 

have been this upheaval over Cambodia.

Mr. Boland. How large is La Salle College?

Mr. McKenzie. There are 6,400 undergraduates.

Mr. Boland. Than k you very much.

Mr. F indley. Air. Hicks?

Air. H icks. I ju st wonder if the students as a class know tha t prob­ ably the most accessible people in the world are Congressmen. Sena­ tors may be a little different, but the Congressmen are the most accessible people in the world and if the students haven’t seen them before, it’s because the students didn’t want to see them. Now. this 

46- 48 7— 70------ 17
250

particula r meeting t hat Mr. Findley put together gave a focal point 

for a goodly number of you to come together and present a lot of 

different views. But every Member of Congress has been seeing students for the last 10 days as they come down and see the Members.

They are happy to see them at home and they are happy to see them 

anyplace. Th at’s the job of Congressmen. I don’t know of any tha t 

don’t do it.

Mr. Findley. Mr. McKenzie, I want you to know that long before 

the Kent State killings there were Members of Congress, House and 

Senate, who were deeply concerned and openly involved in all sorts 

of initiatives trying to call attention to the futility of what’s going 

on in Vietnam and trying to reverse the course of events. I won’t 

mention names, but several on this panel were closely involved with 

me, and for my part beginning a year ago I began to put in the j

Congressional Record the list of war dead periodically as a means 

of showing as accurately as possible the human cost of our involvement there. So this effort didn’t just begin with the Kent State 

killings, awful as they were. Many Members of the Congress I think 

were out in front risking the ir own political positions by being as 

outspoken as they were a nd taking the action they did. This is not 

to say tha t we did all we should have done or tha t we began as soon 

as we should, but the effort did predate the Kent State killings by 

quite a bit.

Mr. Kutzer. Can I interject this? You know your putting the 

war dead in the Congressional Record, well tha t didn’t prevent the 

Kent State killings or the killings in Mississippi or Georgia. That’s 

what we are here for, we’ve seen this tokenism. We want it to stop.

You didn’t stop any killing in Vietnam, you invaded a country, and 

now there has been killing in our homeland, and now you are here 

and will it go on? Will there be more hearings and will there be 

more killings?

Mr. F ascell. Well, let’s tu rn it around, if I may, Mr. Chairman, 

since tha t was kind of a poke at you. There is tokenism the other 

way around, too. Demonstrating on a campus is nice and you talk 

to yourself.

Mr. K utzer. And people realize that kind of violent action.

Air. Fascell. Isn ’t that tokenism. I ’d rather have constructive 

action. You’re shaking your head as if you disagree with me. But *

I ’d like to know why. Congress is just as responsible for not talking 

to the students at the time you wanted us too. Maybe we’re responsible because we didn’t tran slate a dire need for personal communication at the time the students were protesting on campus, last year •

and the year before. The Congress has never worked tha t way.

Maybe we will have to now if that is going to be the new system of 

representative political action in which the country will embroil 

itself. From now on maybe the message will get through to the 

Congress, tha t when you have a protest in northern Michigan at a 

university, the Congress will have to dispatch communicators to 

find out what the protest is about. It may have been erroneous on 

our pa rt to have relied on the normal acceptable channels of communication. That could be a mistake, and I ’m willing to change it 

if that is what we are talk ing about. But I submit tha t this initiative by Congressman Pau l Findley and this panel cannot be classified
251

as tokenism any more than a college demonstration that seeks tc 

make an impact on the consciousness of the American people. Th at 

was the only point I was trying to make. I ’m not disagreeing with 

you, but you shake your head and sav they’re not the same. 1 don’t 

understand that, and therefore I really wish you would explain it 

to me.

Mr. Kutzer. You’re decrying these protests.

Mr. Fascell. No, I don’t decry the protests.

Mr. Kutzer. You’ve termed them tokenism. T hat is what you have 

a asked for—peaceful protest. We’ve given you that. We’ve given you

two Washingtons. The President watched television on one occasion, 

and on the other occasion met with eight students. Is tha t tokenism ? 

Ju st laughing in your face?

4 Mr. Fascell. No, tha t might be misdirected political pressure.

Mr. Kutzer. And now, the pressure is going to burning ROTC 

buildings, the pressure is going into the streets and riots. Th at’s 

another type of pressure.

Mr. F ascell. Believe me, I ’m not being argumentative. I ’m just 

trying to point out tha t it may be misdirected political pressure. 

Th at’s all I ’m tryi ng to say. B ut you don’t agree with that?

Mr. Kutzer. We realize it’s misdirected.

Mr. Fascell. But how can you have the effect you want? I ’m saying to myself, and I wish you would answer truth fully, am I getting 

through to this person? When you shake your head like that when 

we are talkin g, that’s the question I ask. If you don’t agree, then I 

wish you’d tell me because I am tryi ng desperately to communicate.

Air. McKenzie. Mr. Fascell-----

Air. Fascell. See, you are shaking your head again as if to indicate that I am not getting your answer.

Air. AIcKenzie. I think he’s try ing to—I don’t know if I ’m finishing the point that Alike started, but I think that a number of students have seen and have found out that a large demonstration 

is worthless. I go to them and put my body there, but I don’t believe tha t they liave any effect. I thin k that the demonstrations on 

college campuses have turned from rallies to things—I guess the 

only purpose they serve is tha t your immediate frustrations are let 

loose because you feel like you have done something which I 

* think-----

Air. Fascell. I wasn’t quarreling with tha t-----

Air. AIcKenzie. You know, wha t’s happening now is th at the post 

office in Washington has been overburdened with mail from home.

I know d uring a 4-day period at La Salle we gave out over 100,000 

pieces of literature in the city of Philadelphia for people to write 

to their Congressmen. I think that this is the direction that the 

movement is going to take. I was very frustrated in last week’s 

primary in Pennsylvania. We sent hundreds of students out just 

from our college just to work for peace candidates, and because 

they didn’t have the support of the par ty in the prim ary they 

didn’t do well. I guess we question the system at the grassroots, 

and tha t’s the problem.

Air. Findley. We than k you very much, Air. McKenzie. It’s been 

a very stimulating discussion.
252

We now have two other representatives, Hans Sellge of Ohio 

State and Mark A. Kalish of the University of Illinois. We will 

hear from Hans Sellge first.

Mr. Sellge. Thank you.

STATEMENT BY HANS SELLGE, JR., OHIO STATE UNIV ERSITY

Mr. Sellge. Last year upon graduatio n from the engineering department of Ohio State University, I took a job with the Knolls 

Atomic Power Laboratory under General Electric in Schenectady,

N.Y. The prime function of the laboratory was to design and build 

prototypes of nuclear reactors for naval ships. The operation was 

created and operated by Vice Adm. H. R. Rickover of the Navy 

Department.

Within a very short time I became familiar with the tremendous f

complexities of the research program and the overwhelming expense 

involved in maintaining such a program. My investigations which 

finally led to a trip to Washington, showed tha t in 1965 a total of 

$24.6 billion was allotted to defense-oriented functions alone, of which 

a substantial amount of dollars went to the so-called military-industrial complex. It is not without intention to provide military 

research with a private enterprise label, for how else can it not look 

socialistic. Universities were allotted $200 million. Our Nation’s total 

military expenditures were over a trillio n dollars. That means $1,000 

billion since 1946.

The American people are devoting more resources to the war 

machine than is spent by all Federal, State and local governments 

on health, education, social security, housing development, and suppor t of agriculture, yet millions of Americans are living in poverty, 

starvation, and are unemployed.

One out of every five working men is employed by the Defense 

Department.

Following this I wrote a letter to the local newspaper expressing 

my concern over our continuously rising military buildup. The 

management of the laboratory did not take kindly when I suggested 

in the article that unchecked military power results in the birth and 

growth of diabolic demagogs. I further encouraged tha t employees 

fur the r along the hierarchy of the corporation such as engineers, 

managers, and executives be alerted of this threa t. I further stated 

a danger in the reversal of the trend of using arms as deterrents 

to enemy aggression to arms as a means to it’s own end.

I received a substantial response to the letter from employees at 

the laboratory and encouraged them to raise questions. Bu t everyone 

I talked to was afra id to criticize for possible intimidation. I then 

proceeded to dra ft a statement to be sent to Vice Admiral Rickover.

Three hours after the letter was finished I was called into a meeting 

with my management and the personnel manager who proceeded to 

state: “We respect your rig ht as an American citizen to express 

your viewpoints but if you send tha t letter your existence here at 

K.A.P.L. will have to be terminated.”

I then discussed the natu re of criticism with the corporate lawyer 

who stated: “We cannot tolerate any politically, socially, or economically oriented criticism in any fashion to the admiral as long 

as you are an employee.”
253

I did not send the letter, however I was terminated from K.A.P.L. on May 15, 1970 due to incompatabilities with their objectives. I 

might note that my resignation date was to be J uly 12, 1970. K.A.P.L. never read the letter to Kickover. It is ironical since 

the body of the letter referred to the fears caused by pressures re­ sulting from control over management by the Navy Department. The fear expressed by management in the reaction of the letter ex­ emplified my point. As a result of my dismissal, several employees are on a writing campaign protecting the freedom of speech and 

a expressing the ir deep concern over our military posture. Since I

have left, one other engineer resigned for similar reasons and one high-level manager is relocating into private industry because of military reasons. Aly message is tha t military opposition has not 

H only been met on the street, on the campuses, but now is mushroom­ ing into the heart of the military machine, the industries. Five engineers from a missile plant in California left the ir jobs because they could not dare to admit to themselves t ha t they were actually part of the development of a killing instrument instead of pursuing 

their profession in constructive manners. I am on a campaign where I am continuing to stress the need for engineers and managers to reconsider not only the m ilitary objectives of their company but also the ir individual relationships to the company. Hopefully, constructive action will result. About seven technical employees contacted me by telephone and asked me how they could help. I continually stress the dangers resulting from the subordination of the individuals to the military, that if prop er per­ spective is to be placed for man in his relationship to his world he 

must reassert and maintain the sovereignty of the individual. Dr. Foster, Director of the Defense Research and Engineering, 

stated in his 1970 testimony to the House Armed Services Committee th at: “Peace is an unstable equilibrium, which can be preserved only 

bv acknowledged military supremacy or equal power.” Soviet Russia’s research and development program has been lagging the United States ever since at least 1945. Figures released by the De­ fense Department indicated that in 1960 the United State s spent 

twice as much on R. & D. functions as U.S.S.R. while in 1968 the ratio dwindled to a 3-to-2 ratio. Based on this trend the Secretary 

* contended that within a very short time the Soviets will take over

our R. & D. capabilities and consequently alarmingly urged our needs fo r an increased R. & D. funding. He further stated th a t: “If 

you want a given military capability, inferior technology forces you have to use larger and larger numbers.” In essence this says that because the United States far dominated U.S.S.R. in R. & D. the 

U.S.S.R. is forced into stepping up their R. & D. We, do to future indications that Russia may be ahead in R. & D., are in turn stressing a need to increase ours. Yet Mr. Foster has the audacity to conclude tha t R. & D. activity actually reduces the arms race. 

This logic fails to reach me. Furthermore the net difference in dol­ lars between the United States and the U.S.S.R. is actually increas­ ing; that is, Un ited States is spending an ever-increasing amount of 

dollars on R. & D.

This forces me to question the credibilitv of our military leaders 

insofar as making proper decisions on military matters.
254

Yesterday a young lady testified she would follow Richard Nixon’s 

policy because she had no reason why not to trust him. I hope she 

is present today.

In summary I am afraid tha t our Government has not learned 

the lessons of history’s continuing message; tha t weapon production 

inevitably leads to war. Our forefathers have incorporated a check 

and balance system to filter the power of decision into the hands 

of many publicly elected people. If however this check and balance 

does not function properly, it is the right and duty of the American 

citizen to try to check the power themselves. This is government by 

the people and for the people. . 0

Mr. Findley. Thank you very much Mr. Sellge, we appreciate 

your statement. Mr. Fascell.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you. Mr. Sellge, I agree with you tha t the 

individual has a responsibility. I commend you for the evaluation <

and the personal decision which you made. The only way change is 

going to be brought about, whether it’s with regard to the continuation of a military establishment; or the use of military forces to 

settle international disputes; or to terminate w ars ; or to do whatever 

it is—the individual himself has to make his own commitment and 

set his own priorities. Th at’s what you did and it cost you your job, 

didn’t it? We find so many people are so busy changing somebody 

else tha t they forget to change themselves. I respect your personal 

commitment. I notice you are from Ohio State. We had a witness 

here earlier today who said things are going to be hot this summer.

What about Ohio State?

Mr. Sellge. I left the campus since the disturbances have become 

a part of their life so I can’t comment on this. I know when I left, 

the movement against the military was weak, but since our Cambodian intervention it has just magnified tremendously.

Mr. Fascell. Thank you very much.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Hicks.

Mr. Hicks. No questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. No questions.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Sellge, I ’m troubled by the experience you’ve 

had over employment and I ’m not sufficiently conversant with the 

law to know whether there is a violation tha t possibly has occurred a

on the part of your employer. But if you would like to have someone look into this, if you’d write to me or any member of the panel,

I assure you tha t an inquiry will be made to at least ascertain what 

rights may have been violated and give you a suggestion as to what A

can be done.

Mr. Sellge. I appreciate that. At one point I contacted some 

lawyers as far as any legal implication, and the comments I received were th at the corporation itself can make their own decisions 

in this.

Mr. Findley. If you want tha t looked into furth er, just let one 

of us know. Thank you very much for appearing.

The last witness today is Mark A. Kalish of Chicago, a student 

at the University of Illinois. Air. Kalish.

Air. Kalish. Than k you. First of all, I ’d like to point out tha t 

there is kind of a sparse gathering here and most universities in
255

the United States do have final exams this week and tha t accounts 

for it.

STATEMENT BY MARK A. KALISH, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS

Mr. Kalish. I ’d like to than k you all for your time and consideration. Aft er hearing all of the testimony thus far I can assure you tha t this type of discussion can only lead to better communica­ tion and understanding between the Government and the student 

population. This is the type of participation on the part of the 

0 legislators that students are striving for. I don’t thin k that I can add much to what’s already been said, 

but I would like to add a new perspective to the situation in America 

and Southeast Asia.

ft Many of the members of the “older generation” feel that the

campus disturbances are Socialist- or Communist-inspired. This is 

not so. Young people have a grea t faith in the free enterprise sys­ tem and the democratic republic form of government. Most students feel tha t this is the best form of government. But the sad fact of the matter is tha t students do not believe we still live in this system. The government is a strange mutation of the democratic republic and free enterprise system so strongly fought for by Thomas Jeffer­ son. The strongest voices heard in Washington ofttimes is not the 

voice of the constituency but that of a powerful lobby. And how 

many corner foodstores are there in your district? Students are often asked, “W hat do you want, what type of government is better?” The only way I can respond to that is to say tha t what we are working for here in Washington and througho ut 

the world is for a more humane society. Student dissent must not be stiftled. In fact, it must be encouraged. Fo r i f things are not questioned or changed, a stagnant system is produced. Another effect tha t suppression of dissent is the alienation of youth.

The repression of dissent which I have just stated must be avoided, 

does in fact exist in your own home State, Mr. Findley. The Illinois Legislature has told the Governor that if order is not restored and 

kept at the University of Illinois tha t all funds will be stopped or 

f

reduced. This type of government repression of free speech and

dissent can only serve to worsen the situation between the Government and the youth of this Nation.

Another case in point and one that strikes a little bit closer to 

home for me is my brother, Steve. As student council president of 

his high school Steve saw fit to call for and organize a strike of classes so th at the students of Sullivan H igh School could meet with other high school students and students of Northwestern University for the purpose of discussing the issues confronting the United 

States at home and abroad. Fo r my brother’s efforts he will possibly not be graduating from high school. One instructor’s interpretation of patriotism is “America—love it or leave it.” So my brother will be flunking physical education for his activities. Once again 

this type of repression must be stopped.

As many of the other students have said, I agree that the war in 

Vietnam is both illegal—because it is an undeclared war—and immoral
256

because we are in perpetuation of a civil war. The American myth 

is being destroyed. We have lost a war. We are fighting an ingenious 

enemy, a jungle fighter, just as a British fought against an ingenious 

and subversive jungle-fighting colonialist in 1776. We believe a 

house divided cannot stand and yet we support a civil war. Rather 

than accept a change in the American myth our leaders have chosen 

to match our actions in some cases to the American myth. This is 

wrong. The American myth has become outdated by a new society 

and a new morality.

In conclusion, I would like to encourage the committee to have 

the tran script of these meetings published so tha t other legislators 

could share what I thin k are very fru itfu l discussions.

Mr. Findley. Air. Fascell.

Air. F ascell. Thank you, Air. Chairman. Air. Kalish, I certainly f

join you in your efforts for a more humane society. Goodness knows 

the world could stand it.

Air. Findley. Air. Hicks.

Air. H icks. The hour is late but I have just this one question, and 

incidentally, the room was filled yesterday. You agree though if 

we’re going to have rules or laws tha t they ought to apply—I’m 

thinking of your brother here no^v—I spent a number of years 

teaching schools and I can’t imagine school being run with the students deciding when they’re going to attend class and when they’re 

not.

Air. Kalish. I hate to answer a question with a question, but do 

you personally think the—when I say strike I don’t mean an extended strike—do you feel that the suspension of classes in the 

universities and high schools around the Nation were justified afte r 

the invasion in Cambodia and the Kent State murders?

Air. Hicks. I think tha t those that were justified were those where 

they went to the administration and requested i t and got permission.

Those where they went and were turned down, I don’t think were 

justified.

Air. Kalish. I can’t agree with you. At the University of Illinois 

no classes were suspended for the strike until they went out and 

they broke buildings. I don’t condone any type of violence.

Mr. H icks. Let me ask you ri ght there, when they broke the b uilding, if tha t particular student is apprehended, should he-----

Air. Kalish. As I said, I don’t condone any type of violence. He 

should be prosecuted, yes. Bu t I think a great problem in America 

today is tha t the Government might be going a little too much by 

the book. A government that isn’t flexible cannot function I don't 

think.

Air. Hicks. How do you change that?

Air. Kalish. I think the answer you’re looking for is to change by 

vote or through legislation.

Air. Hicks. Exactly.

Air. K alish. When I say flexible, it should be able to adopt in a 

specific case, like the Kent State murders. I thin k the Kent State 

murders were the turn ing point in what I personally call the second 

American revolution.

Air. Hicks. Yet in California they’re adapting to the point where 

the students are deciding at the University of California how a 

class will be conducted. I f the prof doesn’t like it, they run him out.
257

Mr. Kalish. I never supported that.

Mr. Findley. Mr. Thomson.

Mr. Thomson. No questions.

Air. Findley. Air. Kalish, in your statement you mentioned my 

home State and the State legislature. I have not seen the law to which you refer, but your statement leaves the implication that dis­ sent and order are mutually exclusive because, according to your statement, the Illinois Legislature told the Governor that if order is not restored and maintained then all funds will be stopped. Th at is a harsh reaction I agree. But you are not objecting to the main0 tenance of order on campus are you?

Air. Kalisti. No, let me rephrase it then. In place of order we'l] 

put in dissent. The State legislature in Illinois is somewhat con­ servative and they don’t like any of these punky college kids disA turbing things. If I might make another note, I don’t know how in touch you are with the students at the University of Illinois but afte r the Kent State murders there was quite a bit of disruption in the community. One visiting associate professor from Harvard Un i­ versity lost four teeth and nearly lost an eye fo r blocking a garbage truck. Whereas the students at Northwestern University blocked off a U.S. highway and not one policeman was seen. Now t ha t’s not to say that I condone any type of disruption but I think if it was pos­ sible for them to avoid any type of bloodshed at Northwestern, it ’s certainly possible to avoid bloodshed at the University of Illinois. The fact tha t it’s a State institution should not be a license to beat 

students and make mass arrests.

Air. Findley. Nor should being a student at a State university 

give him any special privilege to interfere with the rights of others ?

Air. Kalish. No; I never condoned that. I said specifically tha t 

I don’t.

Air. F indley. AVe tha nk you very much. Are there other questions?

If not, without objection we’ll declare the hearings adjourned and I do so with a repeated statement of appreciation to all who 

contributed so generously to make these hearings a success.

(Whereupon the Ad Hoc Committee adjourned.)

v

APP EN DIX

The following statements were submitted for the record by students whose requests to testify came too late to be accommodated.

Statement Submitted by Christine E. Fisher, Mills College of E ducation

Mills College of Education has been a leader in preparing teachers for early childhood education for more than half a century. Our students are dedicated to this work. It was, therefore, an act of desperation when the students and faculty voted on May 8, 1970, to suspend classes for the duration of the semester as a protest against continuation of the escalating war in Southeast Asia. Our decision was more than a protest against the war. It was a recognition of the immoral character of the war, the tran sfer of violence to the campus— bringing death to students of Kent State, and more recently, Jackson State— and the dangerous sundering of American society. Further, our decision was a protest against the Nixon administration—an administration which promised peace, but has expanded the war. Moreover, we question the administration’s apparent attem pt to suppress the academic community’s opposition to present 

Southeast Asian policies. We have strong hopes that we can work successfully within our democratic system to put our country on a new track. To tha t end, we are working to:

Help elect a peace-oriented Congress; Petition and organize support to win passage of such legislation as the 

Hatfield-McGovern amendment; Reorient our national priorities to assure equality in education and opportunity for all Americans; Attempt to solve the great problems of the cities, of poverty, and of our 

environment. As citizens and future teachers, we are interested in life, in peace, and in 

freedom. We implore your immediate help and support. I wish to thank the panel for the opportunity to express the deep concern of the students of Mills College of Education for the future of our country.

Statement Submitted by J ack R. Holt, Northeastern Illinois State College

Northeastern Illinois State College is a commuter college with an enrollment of around 7,000 students. The college is oriented toward the train ing of elemen­ tary and secondary teachers. Just recently it has offered a liberal arts degree. Most students at Northeastern are primarily interested in obtaining their 

degrees and going into their prospective fields. There has never been a violent confrontation of any sort at Northeastern even 

with the wide range of views concerning most issues. As with most issues, the U.S. policies in Southeast Asia is represented by varied degrees of support or condemnation. However, the consensus of opinion from the vast majority would indicate a strong desire to withdraw all U.S. forces from Southeast Asia. The feeling is: one, it was a mistake going into Vietnam in the first place: two, the U.S. support of the Thieu government is a wasted effort since it is so corr upt: and there, shock at. and disappointment with, 

President Nixon’s decision to send U.S. troops into Cambodia. The most vocal protesters at Northeastern can depend on 25 out of 7.000 students to demonstrate against anything regardless of the issue. At the recent dismissal of one popular faculty member, the protesters mustered between 75 and 100 students. With the move into Cambodia, even with a 2-week late start (due to a recess between semesters), a protest movement has been going steady
260

for over a week. This protest has involved approxim ately 15 percent of the 

stu dent body.

The sincere wish of all factions at Northeastern Illinois State College is to 

withdr aw all U.S. forces from S outheast Asia immediately.

Statement Submitted by Theodore C. Agresta, Northeastern Illinois

State College

Congressman Findley asked the preside nts of colleges to assure stud ents received ample notice of thi s hearing. On our campus we hea rd of it on the ISth 

of May. A m eeting was held at 3 p.m. the 19tli, and from the eight people who f

showed up fou r volunteered to go. All thi s is by way of saying th at I do not 

pretend to be representative of my student body. Y et I have been active enough 

on campus to have formed a fa ir impression of studen t reaction to recent 

developments.

First, as regards Southeast Asia. We wa nt out! More tha n 40,000 lives have f

been given to a wa r we must now know we cannot win withou t provoking 

world wa r II I with the Communist Chinese. Does anyone doubt th at th at 

would be suicide? Then let it come now. Fo r the militar y would persuade the 

Pre sident that we need never cross the borders of China. They would suggest 

the horrors of w ar ar e glory, and in whispers ju st loud enough for dissente rs to 

hear, th at war offers a way to rid the coun try of di ss en t; they dare not add it 

offers a way to weed out misfits, i.e. blacks and poor whites, from the country ’s 

pure WASP stock. They suggest, in short, a prolonged wa r limited to Southeast 

Asia, and I say ave 1984. Does this mean we studen ts all see the military as an 

all-consuming evil? By no means. We are not so foolish as to think th at power 

vacuums remain unfilled. We know how vital a strong militar y is to our wellbeing as a nation. We ask only th at it be limited to use as the Constitution 

demands and not he allowed to set up a parallel government of its own.

Second, a s regards student diss ent and society. It has been said there are no 

heroes left on our campuses. Yet one must adm it there is enormous reverence 

for some long-haired revolutionaries. Hun dred s of thou sand s have died fighting 

for their ideals. But I won’t play games. I ’m referr ing to men like Christ,

Thomas Jefferson, and Washington. Studen ts’ ideals of justice and reverence 

for life have not come out of thin air. Our par ents tau ght us the meaning of 

those words; we learned them in Sunday school before we learned how to read.

If a generation gap exists, it is between the young adult who tries to live as he 

has been tau ght and the paren t who says, “Do as I say, not as I do.” Dissent 

frequently seems to be directed ag ain st the system. Yet, the question continues 

to be asked, “Is the system corrupt or does the system corrupt.” Many of us 

feel the system offers opportunities to change it, th at it is not corrupt. And 

many of us feel th at when the system app ears corrupt, the corruption is in the 

men who run it, th at it need not c orrupt good men.

There are no documents more revered by most studen ts tha n the Holy Book 

of their own faith and the U.S. Constitution. w

Statement Submitted by Donald Girard and J erry Baram,

North Adams State College

We. a majority of the studen ts at North Adams Sta te College in Massachusetts. wish to express our tha nks to the members of the House Committee on 

Foreign Affairs, for the opportu nity to sta te our beliefs in respect to current 

U.S. policies. Your invitation is an expression of f aith in the ability of American 

college studen ts to act as responsible citizens, and this is our principal desire— 

to act as responsible citizens.

There are those among us who say th at college studen ts should be seen and 

not heard. We should not involve ourselves in national affairs. We should not 

express ourselves on national issues. This we cann ot do. for being students does 

not absolve us from the responsibilities of citizenship. When we see o ur country 

following a policy which we deeply and sincerely believe is wrong, we must 

speak out. We are obligated to speak out. Tf we fail to do so, we are not fulfilling our obligations as responsible citizens.
261

We believe that the present policy of President Nixon is wrong. Consequently, 

we have spoken out against it. We are here today to speak against it, and wo 

shall continue to oppose t ha t policy.

Other witnesses appearing before this panel have stated the reasons for the 

student reaction to Mr. Nixon’s Indochina policy. Their reasons are our reasons.

We believe tha t this panel may gain a greater insight into the scope of 

national unrest if we describe the response of the student body at North Adams 

State College, and the surrounding community.

North Adams State College is one of the smallest schools in the Massachusetts 

State college system. The college is situated in the city of North Adams, an 

industrial city of conservative political orientation. The students reflect a 

similar social and political character. They have never before in the history of 

zj the school come together on an issue of national importance.

On May 5, in reaction to the Cambodian incursion and the Kent State killings, 

a meeting of the entire academic community was called to discuss the situation 

and decide on a course of action. Approximately 600 of a possible 900 students, 

faculty, and administrators came to the meeting, which was conducted in such 

a way th at all sides could voice their opinions. The ground rules w ere: (1) That 

we should act—if action was decided upon—as a community; and (2) tha t a 

strike, if voted, should be understood not as an action against the college but 

as a peaceful means of addressing ourselves to the Government. At the end 

of 90 minutes of deliberation, a vote was taken and the result was 4S0 in favor 

of striking, and 104 against.

The faculty and administration then convened to decide on its response. The 

result of this meeting was a vote of 35 to 4 in favor of supporting “the strike 

action of the student body in its desire to influence the Government.” Formal 

classes were discontinued, although all classes were met informally so that the 

rights of nonstrikers would not be infringed upon.

The following 7 days saw intense activity in the form of lette r and telegram 

writing to Congress and college alumni; leafletting at churches, stores, banks, 

and schools; door-to-door canvassing of the city to explain the strike to the 

citizens and ask them to sign an tiwar petitions; conduct of a strike information 

center which compiled factsheets on Cambodia and Vietnam and which exchanged calls with the news media and strike centers throughout New England.

On May 12 formal classes were resumed, but active strikers were allowed to 

stay out to continue work, with options given to them for the completion of 

academic credit. Another full-scale canvass of the city took place on May 21 to 

gather signatures for the Hatfield-McGovern amendment.

It is impossible to list all the things tha t have happened in this remarkable 

fortnight. We know that a vast amount of learning has taken place among the 

striking students, and we have seen a visible change in the opinions of the 

people of North Adams. But the main point is that something totally unexpected 

came to pass at North Adams State College. Barely felt feelings, inchoate anger, 

and half-formed opinions coalesced into a beautiful expression of sincere regret 

at what our country is doing to itself, along with vigorous efforts to redirect 

our Government’s policy toward a more rapid withdrawal from Southeast Asia. 

» North Adams State College has been a solid member of the silent majority,

* but the recent invasion of Cambodia has changed our feelings of support to

feelings of outrage, despair, and helplessness to influence Government policy. 

We feel the Government cannot afford to ignore this change in the feeling and 

thinking of a small conservative, rural, Western Massachusetts College because 

it may be a more significant bellwether of public opinion than the more prestigious colleges.

A deep concern of our college community is what will happen to hundreds of 

thousands of concerned and involved students if their working through the 

system produces no change in speeding up America’s withdrawal from Southeast 

Asia.

Gentlemen, our experience has convinced us that it would be a tragic mistake 

for our Government to interpret the current popular outcry as eminating solely 

from the Nation’s student population. Discontent within the Nation permeates 

all segments of our society.

We ask only tha t you ac t to alleviate this discontent and give real meaning 

to the slogan, “Bring us together again.”
Statement Submitted by J ame s E. House, I ndiana State University

I came here today because I believe in “the system.” I believe we can make 

this a better country if the youth can be heard and if the older people will try 

to understand. The youth of this country is the foundation of this country for 

in the future , “the torch will be passed” to our generation. We now have an 

administration which will not try to understand us or listen to us, but even 

resorts to prejudicial name calling. Students who peacefully disagree with the 

administration are called “effete snobs” and even for a time “bums,” but people 

in the Southern part of our country who turn over a bus and endanger the lives 

of innocent children are called “angry parents.” There is no doubt why so many 

youths from our system are looking for another system instead of trying to 

change things within this system. The reason is the Vietnam war, and our 

involvement in Southeast Asia.

Let us review our involvement. Some people point to a letter in 1954 by 

President Eisenhower as our initial commitment in Vietnam. In that letter 

President Eisenhower said the U.S. Government “expects that this aid will be 

met by performance on the par t of the Government of Vietnam in undertaking 

needed reforms.” We promised them aid if they would “straighten up” their 

government. What was the nature of the aid that was promised by the Eisenhower administration? On August 17, 1965, Eisenhower said tha t it was generally understood tha t this aid would be “only economic aid.” This can be construed in no way as a military commitment in Vietnam. I might add that those 

needed reforms were not, and never have been undertaken.

Others say our commitment was through the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO). If these people would examine this agreement, they would find 

tha t we agreed to exhaust all channels for finding peace before we enter upon 

a course of war. So, you see, we have and are continuing to violate our own 

promises and signed agreements. It is no wonder tha t the youth are disillusioned 

with a war for which they didn’t ask and which is in complete violation of our 

previous agreements. When President Kennedy came into office, he resisted at ­

tempts to place men in Vietnam. He did increase the number of advisers, but in 

so doing he said tha t it was “their war” and we cannot fight for them; they 

must fight for themselves. But then President Johnson came along and he 

escalated. He committed land forces to fight in Vietnam. He placed the weight 

of battle, which should have been undertaken by the Vietnamese, on the 

shoulders of American troops. Little by little we became more embroiled in the 

war until there were 500.000 men fighting. Each step was promised to be the 

last step, but each step only brought a widening of the war and another, even 

deeper step. We were caught in a vicious circle from which the administration 

said there was no escape, save total surrender by the enemy. As the senior 

Senator from Indiana, Vance Hartke, said, “Escalation breeds escalation.” This 

seems to have been proven true. Now President Nixon, under the guise of 

withdrawal is widening the war into Cambodia and Laos and asks why don’t 

the youth of this Nation support me. How can he expect us to support him when 

he purposely deceived the people when he said, during the 1968 campaign, that 

he had a solution to the war in Vietnam? How can he expect us to support him 

on th is issue when he usurps powers given to Congress by the Constitution by 

widening the war into Cambodia? President Nixon is using the argument that we are there, so we must see 

it through. Sophocles said in the Antigone, “All men make mistakes, but a good 

man yields when he knows his course is wrong, and repairs the evil.” We are 

not repairing the evil by keeping our troops in Vietnam or by widening the war. 

We have one and only one course, immediate withdrawal. Our present course is 

proving tha t unpopular, undemocratic, and dictatorial regimes can stand with 

American support. We are ruining our image and our country. This must stop. 

To stop this we must withdraw. The President was and is running a war with 

total disregard to the wishes of the American people. We must bring the rule 

of this country back to the people. The time is now. The opportunity is ours.

Statement Submitted by Donald Rau h, Northwestern University

Many of my peers and compatriots feel t ha t in standing against the military 

adventurism of Presidents Johnson and Nixon, t hat even in opposing militarism 

and in demanding “peace, not war,” they have broken with their parents. I am
263

fortunate tha t in becoming a pacifist I have joined, not broken from my 

parents. My father received his M.D. from Harvard and practiced both neurology and psychiatry. Although he served as a doctor during World War II, he was a true pacifist. Not only did he believe both world wars could and should have been avoided, but he believed even the American revolution was wrong, and tha t we should have waited for our independence as did the Canadians. One week before his death on August 17, 1966, he and I had a long talk. Since our involvement in Vietnam was resulting in unnecessary deaths, he opposed it. In my ignorance, I had swallowed the administration’s deliberate lies and believed even in the foolish domino theory. I was a hawk—believing strongly tha t we should bomb and mine Haiphong harbor, bomb Hanoi and

O the rail linkages between Red China and North Vietnam. It was not until 6 months after my father’s death, and after many arguments with my friends at school lasting until 3 and 4 in the morning, tha t I recognized my fathe r’s 

wisdom and the fallaciousness of my arguments. Even then in August of 1966, he felt you gentlemen, in par t due to your damnable seniority system, were destroying this country. You were appropriat­ ing tens of billions for war (defense), nothing for pollution control, and little for medical research. You were also tacitly granting the executive branch the 

power to make war. This year President Nixon vetoed the HEW bill as being inflationary and then signed a war bill 3 times larger. You Congressmen are also at fault; you passed the war appropriations bill. Nixon is also asking less for pollution this year than last, and one should also note tha t no action is being taken against car manufacturers, 60 percent of whose new cars do not meet the Federal standards for pollution control. The executive branch actively sup­ pressed this information until Ralph Nader exposed it to the public. I fear my father was correct; we will destroy ourselves. I have at least learned the wisdom of pacifism and will under no circumstances serve in the Armed Forces of this country unless I personally see no alternative but war. Even if Congress declared war in Southeast Asia now, I would refuse to fight. I will enter the medical scientist train ing program at Case Western Reserve University this summer. It is a 6- to 7-year program granting both an M.D. and a Ph. D. During those 7 years, I will work to turn this country from her self-destructive path. If, however, in 7 years this country has not turned around and repudiated militarism, I will leave you to your folly and move to 

a semicivilized country—if one can be found.

Statement Submitted by Tom P etty, Brown University

The Allied entrance into Cambodia and the recent tragic events on the college campus have mobilized popular concern relating to the U.S. policy in Southeast Asia as never before. Congress in the last 3 weeks has been lobbied hard by those who, for a variety of reasons, oppose that policy and suggest altern atives 

< from immediate unilateral withdrawal of U.S. forces to the legislation of a

planned withdrawal similar to either the Cooper-Church amendment for Cam­ bodia or the McGovern-Hatfield amendment for the whole of Southeast Asia. Arguments concerning the more pragmatic questions involved—such as the domestic, economic, political, and emotional damage of the war, the lack of 

-* support for our policies within the United Nations and among those nations we consider our allies, and the reestablishment of the Congress constitutional authority over the question of war and peace—have been presented very articu ­ lately by other witnesses before this hearing. I wish to raise briefly two moral questions which I feel have been generally ignored by a traditionally pragmatic political process of negotiation, concession, and compromise, exemplified by the 

U.S. Government. The first question deals with the lack of an objective perception of U.S. foreign policy. Most of my generation was instilled as children with the notion tha t the United States is the great protector of freedom both at home and abroad and follows a foreign policy of peace and integrity. And yet as young adults we learn tha t the United States has continually supported reactionary, repressive governments in South America, Africa, and Asia—led in many in­ stances by the military branch of the country. We discover tha t the United States supported a leader in the southern sector of Vietnam who voided the
264

Geneva accords by preventing national elections from, being held in 1956 as 

scheduled and whose government was reported by the International Control 

Commission to have committed significantly more politically repressive acts and 

atrocities than the government of Ho Chi Minh in the northern section during 

the period immediately following the Geneva accords. The governments following the Diem regime have not been much more representative of the people; and 

the current Thieu-Ky regime, with only 35 percent of the vote in the last 

election, has imprisoned numerous political opponents on trumped-up charges— 

hardly an illustration of political democracy in action. The past incursions into 

Laos and the more recent one into Cambodia—military incursions over political 

borders without consultation—violate the SBATO agreement and the spirit of 

the United Nations Charter. And yet the United States still feels justified in 

turning around and self-rigliteously pointing an accusing finger at Russia for 

placing pilots in Egypt—pilots who have yet to attack Israeli planes or positions.

This type of political hypocrisy has hallmarked United States foreign policy 

for quite a long time ; and its continuation dispels the claims of political right 

eousness with which many citizens have been indoctrinated. ,

The second question which I want to raise is to what extent a nation under 

God should base its policy on ethical considerations. My own opinion is tha t we 

should either base our policy along broad ethical guidelines or else admit that 

Uncle Sam has been taking precedence over God. The ethical tradition of the 

West has offered three basic approaches to the question of war and peace: 

pacificism, the crusade, and the jus t war. Pacificism, which holds tha t no war 

is justified in God’s sight, has historically been adhered to infrequently and 

without regard to national self-preservation. The crusade approach, under 

which the end justifies the means, appears to be the approach we are taking 

in Southeast Asia, but has historically been condemned as unconscionable. The 

approach which is best adapted to both ethics and to modern foreign policy 

is tha t of the just war, which crudely measures the means used in order to 

assure tha t they continue to be justified by the end. My own opinion is tha t the 

overwhelming damage which we have wrought in Vietnam in terms of life and 

land, combined with the tremendous loss of American life and the repercussions 

of the war at home and abroad are not in any way justified by the end we are 

serving there—the support of an undemocratic government and the stifling of 

true Vietnamese nationalism, a force which has been historically much stronger 

than communism. It is not easy to deal with such Biblical passages as “thou 

slialt not kill” and “nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall 

they learn war anymore” ; but I suggest that the United States must either deal 

with these issues or else remove such pretenses of a “nation under God” as the 

inscription of “In God we trust” on our currency.

If it is agreed that the United States is obligated to base its policy on ethical 

grounds and tha t our war in Indochina is not a jus t war, then the question of 

a proper remedy arises. I suggest that a unilateral U.S. withdrawal program 

be instituted providing for an end to all U.S. military presence in Indochina by 

June 30, 1971, with the condition that if such a goal is not logistically possible, 

the targ et date be extended to provide for the fastest possible extrication of 

the United States from Indochina. *

The United States is currently enveloped in a socio-political crisis which is 

polarizing the disparate elements of our society. The Government must respond 

sagaciously to this crisis and lead the country back to the ideals of justice, 

democracy, integrity, and trust in God upon which it was founded. I urge the 

Congress and the President to complement th e political process with an appreciation for, and an application of, these ideals and the Western ethical tradition.

Statement Submitted by Robert J ul ian , P atrick P ar ish, Anth ony Tripodi, 

and R. Richard Vogel, Utica College

It is with great difficulty th at one tries to understand the national events of 

the past 2 weeks. The invasion of Cambodia by the United States, the slaying 

of students at Kent, at Jackson State, the street battle in New York City, and 

the increasing isolation of those national legislatures who oppose the war: 

there are the events which should be foremost in the minds of those who try to 

understand what has happened in the last 21 days.
265

The United States may very well be the most powerful nation in the world, 

hut in its strength lies its inherent weakness. True freedom of expression is a difficult concept for anyone to accept, for all too often the instinctive response to intellectual opposition consists in the silencing of one’s opponent. The inva­ sion of Cambodia served as a catalyst which set in motion the thought processes 

of virtually every American. In the hours following President Nixon’s address concerning Cambodia, the attitudes of many Americans underwent a significant change. This change could place this Nation in a social situation unique in American history. Polarization is, of course a well-known term used to describe the flocking of moderates to one or another extreme point of view. Richard Nixon, who pledged to bring us 

together, polarized the Nation by invading Cambodia.

A The changes wrought in the thought processes of this country and the polariJ zation of which I speak cannot be expressed in national terms. To understand the effects of the Cambodian invasion one must look to the community. The city of Utica is, perhaps, ideal for such a consideration. The city of Utica, nestled in the Mohawk River valley, a community of 100,000 is neither very 

0 large nor very small. The people of Utica have been described as solid, con­ servative, and hard-working. Included in this community are the students of Utica College, of Syracuse University, and of Mohawk Community College, like most students everywhere, reacted to the events in Cambodia with pronounced 

yet cautious concern. It is significant tha t the Utica community, like most others in this Nation, reacted far more strongly to activities at local colleges than to the President’s deployment of American troops in Cambodia. Confused by isolated, but well- publicized instances of violence on some campuses, Uticans were strongly op­ posed to all types of student antiwar activity. On succeeding Sundays, the Utica Observer Dispatch printed editorials strongly chastizing students for their antiw ar position. By reporting a few sensational incidents on campus, the newspaper overlooked the fact t hat Utica College’s i>eace activity was wholly without violence. The newspaper completely overlooked the 2S0 students working for peace on the various committees established by the Utica College Peace 

Committee. (See below.) The newspaper found it plausible to report on the suggestion of a single faculty member tha t the college make an “Impeach Nixon Move.” The paper also gave only token acknowledgement to the Utica College peace organization. The newspaper readily printed a letter from a part-time faculty member who teaches one night course, complaining of the school’s academic policy of giving those working for peace the opportunity of working out acceptable alternatives. Buried in the same article was a report of a meeting between the college’s Foundation Board and Utica College Peace Committee representatives. The result of tha t meeting was a statement by the Foundation Board applauding 

the peaceful and constitutional conduct of the Peace Committee. In response to the image being painted by the media, the community is hostile to the activities taking place at the college. Students at Utica College are actively trying to tell their story to the community via a speaker’s bureau, door- to-door work, and press releases. Yet the adults have been polarized and the moderates radicalized in virtually the same manner tha t students have been 

activated. The result is a clear indication tha t dialogue between generations is becoming more and more difficult. The example of the widening service between Utica 

„ College and the Utica community is one that is being sadly repeated across the country. The wedge tha t widens the gap is the tendency on the part of a local 

publication to play to the emotions rather than to reason. The youth and the adults of all communities, be it Utica or anywhere in America, must learn that to listen is the first step toward understanding. To strive for understanding means t hat all must remain fai r and rational. Without a doubt, it is very difficult for the adult world to understand the idealism of youth. It is easier to take the radical element of our youth and regard them as the rule rath er than the exception, simply because idealism and singleness of purpose are uncomfortable coming from a sibling. Yet the per­ spective of peace, brotherhood, harmony, reason and understanding is necessary in each community if this Nation is to survive. The perspective of youth reflects a vibran t desire for this, best expressed by George Bernard Shaw in the lin es: “You see things as they are ; and you ask ‘Why?’ But I dream things that never 

were and ask ‘Why not?’ ”

46 -4 87 — 70------ 18
266

The Utica College Peace Committee is a spontaneously organized group working for a real peace in Southeast Asia. At its base is the belief tha t this country 

was founded on the fundamental principles of life, liberty, and the pursuit of 

happiness. And tha t these principles must be shared by all peoples in all nations. Shared without the outside intervention or coercion of “liberally” minded 

individuals, tha t is, this society. With these precepts in mind, the Utica College 

Peace Committee, now numbering 350 active members, has added structure to 

its first loosely organized group.

This structure is viewed as the most productive and realistic approach to a 

within-the-system peace movement Its four main subsections include, political, 

economic, public and coordinating committees. There are also groups in intercollege liaison, media relations, and in-group information.

The specifics of that structure are as follows:

Political Action Group.—This group is currently working in at least two 

politically important areas. Realizing tha t the question of support to administration policies can be at times shady, the UCPC’s Political Action group is 

working on the feasibility and actual implementation of a state wide (N.Y.) 

referendum designed to test a Nixonian doctrine. Furthermore, this group is 

compiling dossiers on the major candidates for public office in the areas most 

influenced by the college’s community. In instances where those candidates 

appear to be most capable, the group will organize “MacCarthy” type campaigns 

designed to give active support to said candidates. In addition, the group is 

aiding in procuring speaking dates to educate the surrounding community of 

the efforts toward peace.

Economic action group.—In this capitalistic system, the most appropriate 

form of force is tha t of economic pressure. In view of that, this group is coordinating efforts for the national boycott of certain war-related industry and 

the redemption of United States savings bonds, all in expressing disapproval 

of the governmental policy in Southeast Asia. As of this writing, approximately 

$3,500 have been pledged in redeemed Bonds.

Public action group.—Here, the main thrust is to bring the ideals and activities to the attention of the community. This group has set up speakers bureaus 

and a research center to give UCPC’s point of view a ring of unrefutability. 

Its fu rther role is to provide the manpower for the canvassing activities.

Coordinating committee.—This group puts all this together.

The prime roles of the other specific groups are mainly to organize the activities within the entire Peace Committee and communicate those actions to the 

news media.

Sta tem ent Subm it te d by Vic k ie Mit c h e l l, An n a Mabie Colleg e

Mr. Chairman, and distinguished members of the panel, my name is Vickie 

Mitchell, I am a student representative from Anna Maria College in Paxton, 

Mass. The following are some of my views concerning U.S. involvement in 

Southeast Asia. I would like to elaborate upon:

1. Cultural differences between the United States and South Vietnam;

2. The strong ideals of today’s college students concerning the necessity of 

communication and tr ust ; and

3. The importance of re-directing national funds toward domestic programs.

The United States cannot hope to impose Western democracy upon an Eastern

culture. I say impose because no attem pt has been made to understand the 

culture and to determine what form of government would be most appropriate 

for Southeast Asians. From this involvement, the United States should seriously 

consider reevaluating the entire U.S. foreign policy.

As a college student, I personally feel tha t the United States has not made 

the best use of its channels of communication. I even venture to say that we 

have not exercised communication even in our own country, for many college 

students as well as adults do not understand why we are fighting in Southeast 

Asia. Let us not equate communication with agreement as it would be absurd 

to think that everyone will agree on anything.

I do not want to encourage a selfish attitude of the United States, however, 

I feel that the main concern of the government should be domestic problems. 

We are all aware tha t these problems include poverty, racism, aid for higher 

education, and ecology. If the priorities of the national budget were reevaluated, 

more funds could be allotted for the alleviation of these problems.

In my opinion, these three points are major contributors to national unrest 

of the United States.
267

Stateme nt Sub mit ted by Anne L. Boedeckeb, Vassab College

I appreciate this opportunity to come before you. I have no illusions that you 

will agree with me. I jus t hope you will listen with an open mind and think 

about what I say.

This will probably be my last contact with the traditional political system. 

Let me explain why. I’ve been involved in the Peace Movement off and on for 

3 years. I campaigned for McCarthy in 1968, I’ve canvassed and leafletted. I've organized students and collected money for Biafra. I’ve marched and I’ve fasted. I’ve given speeches and written articles. I’ve read and I’ve 

talked and I’ve listened. And I’ve waited. I’ve waited and waited and waited for some indication tha t this Nation was moving towards peace. And 

i I've seen none. I feel tha t my efforts have been in vain. Instead of McCarthy

f j we have President Nixon. Instead of peace we have war and violence at home

and abroad. The war in Vietnam continues and has spread into Cambodia and Laos. I 

can see no end to this war except for the total destruction of Southeast Asia 

unless the United States accepts defeat and withdraws all troops. I cannot 

*1 believe President Nixon when he says it will all be settled soon. I’ve heard

tha t too many times before. The war at home against dissent continues, and has spread onto college 

campuses. Fir st we saw looters being shot and demonstrators being gassed and clubbed. Then we saw Black Panthers being murdered and arrested. Now we 

see students being shot and killed. Do you realize what this means to us? 

When concerned students see pictures of Vietnamese peasants and Black Panthers being gunned down, they react with horror. When they see the ir fellow students being gunned down, they’re not only horrified but terrified. 

They know tha t it could just as easily be any one of a million students in the coffin of each of those Kent State students. Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew have openly declared war on students, in words and in deeds. Any one of us 

could be next. It has been said that a common enemy brings people together. I see this hap­ pening all around me. Students who once were so far apart that they could never agree on anything now stand solidly together in opposition to the war and to Richard Nixon. Every act of repression brings us closer together. A common 

oppressor has brought together Asians and Americans, whites and blacks, men 

and women, young and old. The more we are repressed, the more we will speak out. And the more violent the repression, the more violent will be our reaction to that repression. Any 

psychologist will tell you that frustration leads to violence. And we are very, very frustrated. We’ve been working for change for years. We’ve used all the legitimate means open to us. We’re deeply committed to our beliefs and seek 

effective constructive ways of fulfilling them. But everything we do is either totally ineffectual or is met with violent repression. So some people, in their anger and despair, turn to violence, either in self-defense or in an attempt to achieve their goal. Their rationale is this—if this system cannot bring peace 

and freedom then we must destroy it and build a new one that will. 

t And this system, this social, economic, and political structure, has not shown

itself capable of bringing about either peace or freedom. Ours is a violent society. If this is not obvious to you, please, open your mind and take a good 

long look at the world around you.

. Our social system is both sexist and racist. Because of racism, millions of

* men. women, and children suffer from malnutrition, lack of proper medical care,

poor housing, poor education, drugs, police brutality, and the dehumanization of 

prejudice and discrimination. Because of sexism, thousands of women suffer 

from illegal abortions, illegitimate children, prostitution, unemployment, and 

discrimination. Our economic system is based on production for war. We all know by now 

that the economy did not really recover from the depression until World W ar II. And we have been involved in hot and cold wars ever since. Can you imagine 

what would happen if military spending were even cut in half? Contracts would be canceled, factories would close down, thousands of people would be out of 

work. Cutting off all military spending would create a depression so deep that 

1929 would look like a bump on the graph. What kind of an economic system 

is this tha t cannot survive without wars? I’d say it’s a pretty lousy one.
268

Our political system has not shown itself to be very capable of either. The 

ideal of democracy—tha t of power residing in the hands of the people through 

their chosen representatives—is a myth. The real decisions tha t affect us most 

are not inade here by you, our representatives. They’re made in the White 

House, in the Pentagon, and in headquarters of large corporations. Why?

Because tha t is where the real power is. The power in this country is in the 

hands of those people with the most money and the most military strength.

And you and I have very little of either. That’s why I believe that what I say 

here today and what you decide about what I say will accomplish next to 

nothing. I just want to explain, to anyone willing to listen, how I feel.

I’m struggling to become human and sane in a society which is neither.

I want peace and I see war and violence. I want love and I see hatred, racism, 

and sexism. I try to work peacefully for change and all my actions are frus- <

trated. I see no hope of working through our present system. I ’m totally 

disillusioned.

I know tha t I don’t speak for a majority of my fellow students. Many of 

them have yet to go through all tha t I’ve been through. When they do, I believe 

they’ll feel about the same way I feel now. And I know tha t the number of (

disillusioned and frustrated students is far greater than the number of students 

out smashing windows and burning down buildings. The rest of us are waiting 

for our chance to take effective constructive action. And while we’re waiting 

we’re studying and talking and listening and learning. Every day we grow in 

numbers. Every day more and more people become disillusioned with traditional 

politics. I don’t really know what will happen when we get to be a large, 

well-organized, well-disciplined, and dedicated group of people. I can’t rule out 

the possibility of a full-scale violent revolution.

That may either sound absurd of frightening to you. If I were you I would 

be scared, because I know how serious I am when I say those words. To me, 

they’re still words, but to many people, especially Asian and Afro-American 

people, these words are a reality. And if the word “revolution” even becomes a 

reality to you and me, there is absolutely no question in my mind as to which 

side I’ll be on. I’m willing to die for the chance to create a better society and 

ultimately a better world. Thank you.

Statement Submitted by Donald D. Blau stein, George Washington

University

I would like to suggest for your consideration what one graduate student 

thinks is probably the chief underlying reason for so much of the student unrest 

and dissent in our colleges and high schools as well. I gave a similar analysis 

before a House subcommittee the day after the demonstration but it is obvious 

that little or nothing seems to get initiated from these hearings. Therefore I 

would like to give my analysis. This will be brief.

The struggle on the campuses is like the struggle of the blacks, and like the 

earlier struggle of the labor unions ; it is a struggle to gain recognition and 

status and it is an attem pt to if not gain power, influence power. One had only 

to be around a campus when the strike was going on to realize the satisfaction 

many derived from controlling their own destinies, playing the role of medics 

and lawyers, deriving real ego gratification from a real contest for power and 

recognition. In a society where more and more younger persons are increasingly i

aware and sophisticated to the realities of America, and where these people feel *

alienated from the structures of Government enough so t ha t they form a type 

of counterculture, it is logical to assume that this powerless group would seek 

to elucidate power in their own form—thus the student strike. The critical 

facto r is tha t this is a powerless group and they know it. Many can be drafted 

without being able to vote. Surely conscription without representation is far 

worse than taxation without representation. None can hold real political power.

Few have the economic resources to effect those in power position like the 

lobbyists of the special interests. Thus the question becomes when you have over 

one half the country under the age of 27 years of age how do you make this 

mass of people believe in the credibility of the system when there is sytematic 

exclusion of them.

The question becomes one of tryin g to absorb people into the system so tha t 

they can perceive their stake in it. This is absolutely essential if one is truly 

interested in a viable governing apparatus. The age requirement must be low-
269

ered to IS. Perhaps more importantly the age requirement to run for Congress 

should he lowered to 21 and for State offices as well. The precedent already 

exists in Great Britain and would be a positive way of showing faith in many 

young people. Certainly the protest of a Congressman who was 22 would hear 

more weight than tha t of a streetw alker if only a little.

Certainly I would recommend finally th at the Congressmen be more personally 

involved in his district which means to be seen in his district. Often the unseen 

Congressmen becomes an abstraction viewed in the ugliest way by his constituencies. The late Senator Kennedy, I was informed, had thought of a plan to 

occasionally move the White House to various parts of the country to personify 

the role of the Presidency. He realized the dilemma tha t existed of a big 

bureaucratic state tha t suffocates the individuality of its members. Perhaps I 

A am mistaken on th e details of the idea but the thesis is an interesting one and

one that shows great perception.

One can only hope tha t perceptive Congressmen will seek not in a sense of 

anger, but rather in a sense of understanding to grasp the deep anger and real 

» doubt so many have for the system and seek to make adjustm ents in our system 

tha t will recognize the numbers and the talen t of so many.

Statement Submitted by David A. Keene, University of Wisconsin

I want to thank Congressman Findley and the other House Members for 

providing college students with this forum. I represent Young Americans for 

Freedom, which has 51.000 members nationwide and is represented on major 

college campuses through 513 chapters.

I think we would all agree that the right to dissent must be protected in a 

free society, but we must also recognize the difference between dissent and 

disruption—between legitimate protest and criminal violence. There is a danger 

tha t many students in America are being urged to confuse the right to speak 

with the nonexistent right to be listened to.

We in Young Americans for Freedom disagree with official policy in many 

areas, and this has been true in years past. But we realize (even as students) 

tha t we are part of the larger society as a whole, and therefore, we will work 

through the democratic process and through the media to persuade that our 

views on many issues are correct

One reason that many students are opposed to our policies in Vietnam is 

because they are not taught to view the conflict within the context of history. 

In this regard, I would like to submit the following text of the YAF issues 

paper, “Vietn am: A Time for Choosing,” which explains the position of Young 

Americans for Freedom.

V IE TN AM : A T IM E FOR CH OO SI NG

The confusion and division surrounding the issue of Vietnam has often resulted from viewing the conflict from too narrow a perspective. The problem 

X must be viewed in the context of all Southeast Asia. It must be viewed in the

context of the nature of communism. An overall view must ask: (1) the reasons 

for American involvement : (2) the reasons that our involvement did not bring 

swift success; and (3) where our policy should be headed now.

Zfl W H Y W E ARE IN V IE TN A M

The Communists are open in stating their plans for world domination. In 

1965, Lin Piao, Communist China’s Minister of Defense, stated :

If North America and Western Europe can be considered the “cities of 

the world,” then Asia. Africa, and Latin America make up “the rural 

areas.” And the struggle of world revolution today hinges on the struggle 

of the “rur al” Asian. African, and Latin American people against the 

“imperialism” of the “cities.”

If the United States can be defeated in Vietnam, he concluded, the people 

in other parts of the world will see still more clearly tha t U.S. imperialism 

can be defeated and tha t what the Vietnamese people can do, they can 

do too.
270

The war in V ietnam is the result of the announced attem pt by the Communist 

regime in North Vietnam to conquer South Vietnam. On December 14, 1961,

President Kennedy wrote to the President of South Vietn am:

The situation in your embattled country is well known to me and the 

American people. We have been deeply disturbed by the assault on your 

country. Our indignation has mounted as the deliberate savagery of the 

Communist program of assassination, kidnapping and wanton violence 

became clear . , . the campaign of force and terror is supported and directed 

from the outside by the authorities at Han ot

In Communist propaganda, this form of aggression masquerades as a “war of 

national liberation,” a phrase first used by Soviet Premier Khrushchev in 1961 

to describe the type of indirect aggression the Communists have undertaken in >

Vietnam. It is used to give the impression of a war fought by a local population V

to throw off foreign domination. Such a description reverses the situation in 

Vietnam. The “liberation” offered by the Communists means domination by 

Hanoi.

We are in Vietnam so the people of tha t nation can build a life of their own /

choosing. It should be remembered tha t Vietnam isn’t the first place where 

Americans have fought. In two world wars and in the Korean War, Americans 

went to far lands to help other peoples fighting for their freedom and independence. We answered the call for help from our allies in Europe. Can we do 

less for our allies in Asia who desperately desire freedom?

Some say tha t South Vietnam is not worth saving since it is not an ideal 

democratic state. We remind these critics tha t while South Vietnam has no 

history of democratic practice, it is moving in the direction of greater rights 

for its people. Few nations have attain ed democratic perfection, fewer yet have 

tried to do so in the midst of a majo r war. And history does not support an 

argument tha t evolution toward democracy or a free society would be hastened 

by a Communist victory. Such graft and corruption tha t remains should not 

make the real issue of V ietnam: A Communist attem pt to engulf all of Southeast Asia through military conquest. Consider the following fa ct s:

1. Today, North Vietnamese troops are in Laos, South Vietnam. Cambodia, 

and Thailand. In each of these countries they are trying to overthrow existing 

governments of these countries.

2. Red Chinese “advisers” are train ing the North Vietnamese troops not only 

in North Vietnam, but also in Laos and Cambodia.

3. Vast sums of material aid have been poured into North Vietnam from both 

the Soviet Union and Communist China in order to further the territorial aims 

of the Hanoi regime, belying the claim that this is a purely local affair.

4. It took a bloody w ar in Korea to establish the principle tha t Communists 

would not be permitted to expand through overt aggression. The same principle, 

as applied to covert aggression, is now at issue.

From the beginning of the war until the present time, untold atrocities have 

been committed by the Communist forces in the name of “liberation.” From the 

early assassinations of which President Kennedy wrote, to the horror of the 

Tet massacres, the North Vietnamese have shown their utt er disregard for 

human life. For example, following the Tet offensive in 1968, over 4,000 men, 

women and children were found in shallow graves in and near the city of Hue.

These victims had their hands wired behind their backs and had been shot in 

the head. At Dak Son, over 200 women, children and old men were burned 

to death by Communist flamethrowers.

These Communist massacres are planned and organized. They are an integral 

par t of Communist war policy rivaling in brutality the atrocities perpetrated by 

the Nazis in World War II. The perpetrators are rewarded and promoted, not 

tried by courts martial.

The United States has proved time and time again tha t it seeks no territory, 

no bases for aggression, no favored position. We seek a world without war, a 

world safe for diversity. But we have learned the meaning of aggression.

Aggression breeds on success. The appeasement of aggressors must lead to 

eventual surrender, or to a larg er war. This was the lesson of Munich.

The results of this conflict not only involve the future of South Vietnam, but 

also the future of the United States. Our own security is involved in Vietnam.

As President Nixon has pointed ou t:

A nation cannot remain great if it betrays its allies and lets down its 

friends. Our defeat and humiliation in South Vietnam without question 

would promote recklessness in the councils of those great powers who have
not yet aband oned their goals of w orld conquest. This would spa rk violence 

wher ever our comm itments help ma intain the peace—in the Middle East, 

in Berlin, even tually in the Western Hemisphere.

OUR PAS T FAILU RE

Sir Robert Thompson was the principa l arc hitect of the British victory over 

the Malayan Communist gue rrillas in the 1950's. In his book, “No Ex it From 

Vietnam,” he poin ts out the chief reasons for the early failur e of American 

strategy.

In the early yea rs of the war, the American milita ry stra tegy totally fail ed 

to grasp the na ture of a “people’s revolutionary wa r.” Instead of concen trating 

on building a stab le South Vietnamese Government capable of controlling and 

elim inating the guerr illa insurgency throug hou t the countryside, the policy was 

one of “destruction of the enemies main forces on the battlefield .” While 

American troops were winning on the casualty charts and preventin g the quick 

deterio ration th at seemed likely in 1965, the organization and str uctur e of the 

enemy within South Vietnam was never threatened.

Nor were sufficient military measures ever taken effectively to interd ict supplies reaching the guerrilla s from the north. At the very best, this strate gy has 

provided a covering action, permittin g the South Vietnamese Government to 

res tru ctu re itse lf and to obtain a broadened base of suppo rt. Bu t it could not 

win the wa r for, in a people’s revolutionary war, if you are not winning, you 

are losing, because the enemy can always sit out a stalemate . It was, therefore, 

a no-win strategy.

WH ER E ARE WE HEADED NO W?

We must continue tra ining and arm ing the South Vietnamese to defend 

themselves. Prop erly equipped and trained, they should be able to handle 

problems of intern al insurgency requiring only assistance in materi al from the 

United States. The South Vietnamese should assume total responsibility for the 

battlefield operations. We should provide only a shield again st overwhelming 

foreign aggression.

No guerrilla wa r has yet been resolved at the conference table. It is in the rice 

paddies and jungles of Vietnam th at the ultimate decision will be made, not in 

Paris. Any document ultim ately signed can only ratify the victory or defeat 

which the people of South Vietnam achieve or suffer there.

Because of our sympathy with less for tun ate people struggling for their 

freedom and our awa reness th at the history of our world is destined to be 

affected by events in Vietnam, YAF pledges its full support to the cause of 

freedom in Vietnam.

Statement Submitted by Pote P. Videt, P hill ips Exeter Academy

Mr. Chairman, as I am a foreign student studying in the United States, I 

possess an outsider’s perspective of American foreig n policy, but at the sam e 

time I have had the opportunity to particip ate actively with in basic governmental operation s of this country. I am deeply gra teful for a chance to express 

my independent views on the recent student protests and the issues confrontin g 

Congress regarding the Pre sident’s Cambodia decision.

The studen t movement as a political force is a phenomenon rarely achieve d 

in any country. It has been said th at an overaged government cann ot tru ly 

absorb new ideas, and th at the only source for innovation and chang e is in 

the unconquerable idealism and energetic spirit of youth. I am pleased to see 

studen ts actively tak ing over the responsibility of questioning and exam ining 

the actions and aims of a democratic government. The studen ts lobbying on the 

Hill have shown their ability to influence opinions and their lead ersh ip in inducing constructive change.

I, however, seriously question the sincerity of the studen t movement as a 

whole. My first doub ts emerged on Ea rth Day when I joined 5.000 kids congregated on the Washington Monument grounds for a free concert and a mass 

celebration of the environment. After the celebration was over. I stared un ­

believingly at the crumpled fliers, pap er cups, and Pepsi cans scattered over the 

greenness of the monument grounds. Many of the students, who had formed 

the nucleus of the Anril 22d crusade, could not find a moment of their time to 

pick up the mess they had created. Their hypocrisy and the trag edy of th e
272

incident was evidenced in their unwillingness to really care, to make personal 

sacrifices, and to become totally involved for a cause.

I am not sure if the same conclusions can be applied to the concern of 

students over Cambodia. I believe, however, tha t the majority of kids who 

attended the demonstration in Washington on May 9th forgot why they were 

there. Many went because their friends went. Others could not find basic, concrete evidence to hack up why they were against sending troops into Cambodia— 

other than the fact t hat everyone else was. A lot of kids demonstrated because 

it was a fun thing to do on a Saturday afternoon. Rather than sincere protests, 

hundreds made known their opinions on Cambodia by swimming nude in the 

reflecting pool and by pouring chicken blood over their heads. Those who were 

at the May 9th demonstration know tha t it was not a serious manifestation of 

student disapproval of the President’s position. It was more of a love-in. (

What is most remarkable is tha t some students act contrary to their stated 

ideals. A faction of the student movement, while ablioring bloodshed, condemning hawks, and defining war as a no-no, advocates change through violence— 

whether the change be constructive or destructive. Messages for peace lose their 

significance when accompanied by the burning of buildings and the throwing of ()

stones. It is a pity to see certain meaningful demonstrations smothered by 

meaningless yells of “pigs” and “fascists.”

I am not trying to be cynical of the validity of student demonstrations, but 

certain facets of their protests must not be overlooked when one attempts to 

weigh their value in the formation of a foreign policy. My main criticism is 

tha t many students are just as narrowminded and prejudiced as some House 

committee chairmen. Many close their mind to those over 30 and those with 

short hair. I am not trying to make judgments on either the establishment or 

the antiestablishment. We all are guilty of a detressing lack of objectivity.

I just wish to bear some light on the other side of arguments to which students 

are blind.

A multitude of students are calling for the impeachment of President Nixon 

because he has usurped his President power, i.e., sending American troops 

into Cambodia without consulting Congress. Those who advocate such action 

are hitting on the issue. Some historians may recall tha t Congress furiously 

accused George Washington of unlawfully acquiring power because the President issued the Declaration of American Neutrality without the consent of 

Congress. Presidential power has been steadily mounting since the Roosevelt 

Administration because Congress has lacked the will to assert its authority over 

the White House. With the discovery of nuclear arms in our modern industrial 

society, it is evident tha t an enormous extension of military power must be 

invested in one decisionmaker. Thus the fundamental issue lies not in whether 

the President extends his power as Commander in Chief, but how he extends 

this power.

For example, if the President withdraws all American troops from Vietnam 

tomorrow without consulting Congress, is he not usurping his power? I doubt 

if the question of presidential authority would have been raised on any of the 

campuses in this Nation. Would the argument have been raised had the Cambodian issue been popular? X

I have heard many students argue that the sending of American troops into 

Cambodia without the official request of the Cambodian government is an unjustified act. Americans who back such reasoning are revealing their hynocrisy.

Communists—North Vietnamese and Vietcongs—have been using the Ho Chi 

Minh Trail through the neutral country of Laos and through the sanctuaries in 

the neutral country of Cambodia for the last 5 to 7 years, without the official 

consent of either government. But no student or organization in the United 

States have raised their voice against this offensive act on the part of the 

Communists, which directly violates the Geneva Agreements of 1954 and 1962.

Students have never singled out North Vietnamese and Vietcong intrusions into 

Laos and Cambodia for criticism. They were, however, quick to criticize the 

sending of American troons into Cambodia. Many Americans have chosen to 

forget tha t there are 40.000 North Vietnamese troops unlawfully stationed in 

neutral Laos and about 50.000 in neutral Cambodia.

Unfortunately, due to the lack of time available. I cannot pursue other arguments that are circulating on the Hill today. I, however, would just like to 

point out two grand misconceptions of most Americans: fl ) That the majority 

of the people living in Southeast Asia are peasants, and that they do not care
wlia t sort of system they have to live und er so long as they can till their land s 

and grow their food. So they migh t as well live und er the Communist system, 

and feel no difference. Therefo re the United States can withdr aw all their arm ed 

forces and a ssis tance from this pa rt of the w’orld, a nd let it be und er the Communist dom ination; the natives would not care. (2) Th at Americans should 

care nothing about wha t would be the fat e of the people in Sou theast Asia, 

because it is a distan t land and is of no significance both strategically and 

economically to the United States. Americans should be concerned only with 

wh at is happening w ithin her own borders.

I am sorry I don’t have the time to counter these points. Bu t th at can wa it 

till ano ther time.

Meanwhile, tha nk you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity. I have spen t hou rs 

working over thi s paper. I hope you will spend a moment thinking over them.

Sta teme nt Sub mitted by R obert P ola ck, College Repub lic an

Nation al Com mittee

United States involvement in the wa r in South Vietnam is both necessary and 

honorable. The United States is bound by tre aty to the defense of an invaded 

South Vietnam. (The wa r is not a civil war ; South Vietnam was invaded by 

North Vietnam.) The United States must keep her tre aty commitm ents, as any 

government must keep commitments, if we are to continue to deal with oth er 

governments on a credible, diplomatic basis. The defense of South Vietn am from 

Communist invasion, in partic ula r, is necessary in the long run to our national 

secu rity and is, consequently, in our b est interest.

The United Sta tes seeks neither ter ritory nor economic advantage. Fu rthe rmore, without a well tra ine d and well equipped South Vietnamese army, it is 

only U.S. presence th at prevents the sure genocide of over 1 million South 

Vietnamese Catholics and anti-Com munists by the North Vietnamese and 

Vietcong. Let me make it clear. While I supp ort curre nt U.S. policy in the wa r in 

South Vietnam, I can not justify the equivocal and almost disastrou s previous 

U.S. policies. Only under President Nixon has the wa r been prosecuted in an 

effective and hono rable fashion. Th at Vietnam wa r which the new left and 

many studen ts ar e protesting and which much of the news media and some 

elected officials are condemning is not Nixon’s war. Th at Vietnam wa r is the 

wa r of the two previous Democrat adm inistrations. It was initiated by. conducted by and inh erited from those adm inistrations, and it is the political, 

halfhearte d, no win manner in which the wa r was conducted by them th at is 

directly responsible for the kind of wa r in which we are now engaged and for 

the level and na ture of U.S. involvement in th at war.

President Nixon recognizes the U.S. commitment to the defense of the South 

Vietnamese. Presi dent Nixon fu rthe r recognizes th at thi s comm itmen t and 

respo nsibility can be met without direct U.S. milita ry partici pation in the war. 

Through his policy of Vietnamization, Pre sident Nixon, unlike his Democrat 

predecessors, is working effectively both for a ju st and lasting peace in South 

Vietnam and for the withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Vietnam. T applaud 

the Pre sid ent’s recognition of the U.S. commitment in South Vietnam, and I 

actively support his position and his policy of Vietnamization.

Under th e Nixon adm inistration the United Sta tes ha s withdrawn over 250.000 

troops and has offered to withd raw all U.S. troops if Hanoi will withd raw all 

of theirs. The United States has declared th at it will not ret ain any military 

bases. The United States has reduced its ai r operation s in South Vietnam and 

has halted the bombing of North Vietnam since November 19(58. Politically, the 

United States has, is. m eeting w ith the National Liberation Fron t at the con ference t able in Paris. The United Sta tes has offered to negotiate supervised ceasefires und er int ern ational supervision to fac ilitat e the process of withdrawal. 

The United State s has proposed free elections organized by joint commissions 

und er intern ational supervision, and we and the South Vietnamese government 

have agreed to be bound by the outcome of such elections. The United Sta tes 

has fu rth er agree d to discuss all subjects and has exnressed its willingness to 

negotiate all issues except self-determination for the South Vietnamese.

The Pre sid ent is pledged to disengage the United States from direct military 

partici pation in the w ar in South Vietnam. His recent deployment of U.S. troops
274

into Cambodia to destroy enemy san ctuaries is consistent with, in fact necessary for, successful Vietnamization and continued deescalation. I supp ort the 

Pre sident’s political and military actio ns to withd raw U.S. troops from South 

Vietnam while effecting a ju st and lasting peace in Sou thea st Asia. I support 

the Pre sid ent’s policy of Vietnam ization and his temporary deployment of U.S. 

troops into Cambodia.

Statement Submitted by Marianne Sollazzo

President Richard M. Nixon : Barrin g the events of the past month, your 

policy has been, as I understan d i t ; a decreasin g but firm milita ry stance, and 

an eventual negotiated peace in Vietnam. What can we gain by such a policy?

Idealistically, the esta blishment of some sort of democratic government in \

South Vietnam. Realistically, we may have to settle for a coalition of some sort.

The driv ing of all Vietcong back above the 17th parallel.

Fo r how long would such a government las t in war-torn South Vietnam?

(a) A democracy implies a well-educated voting citizenry. How prep ared are /

these people to govern themselves? Remember, unlike colonial America, they are

living on a subsistence or below subsistence economy.

(b) A cap italistic economy implies th at people have enough lef t over and 

above subsistence, furthermore, to make investm ents. The wa r has not helped 

the South Vietnamese econ omy; and even with a great infusion of U.S. aid,

I would doubt that such an economy could be stabilized very quickly. It would 

tak e years, if then.

(c) Do not forget, too, wha t happens to our aid to many underdeveloped 

nations. Much of it gets siphoned into corrupt governments, and thus far , the 

South Vietnamese Government has not proven itse lf any different.

(d) It would be naiv e to think t hat su pporters of the North would be e ntirely 

expelled, or cease to exist or rise up at all in the South. They will preac h na ­

tiona lism, self-development, prosperity for the peas ants, and will appeal to any 

dissatisfaction of the peasant-farmers, exploiting whatever corruption they find.

They will also probably appeal strongly to the Buddhists. Since economic recovery will be slow, they will undoubtedly have a good case, and eventually, 

the wa r will begin again. This time, it will be much shorter, however. The 

South Vietnamese will concede or be killed, and Vietnam will once more be 

united under a nationalistic, total ita ria n, and probably more Peking-oriented 

dictato rship tha n would have occurred in 1946, or 1956, if Ho Chi Minh had 

risen to power.

(e) What will happen in Cambodia will depend on whether or not Prince 

Sihanouk return s to power. If he does, Cambodia will remain stable. To a 

certain extent it will be communistic, bu t “Cambodian communistic,” not 

“Peking-communistic.” The same applies to Vietnam—Vietnamese communism 

will serve Vietnam and no one else. These people will not be dominated by any 

foreign power, democratic or communistic. Although, I admit, the longer we 

stay, the harder it will be for postwar North Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia to 

free themselves from the increas ing milita ry ties they are making with Peking

and Moscow to fight us off. It

In the ligh t of these res ult s of your present declared policy, let us consider 

now, wh at would happen were we to w ithdra w immediately :

The same result would occur more rapidly. The difference—the number of 

American, South Vietnamese, and North Vietnamese lives lost.

A North Vietnamese massacre? Not if we hand le the situ ation correctly, and T

offer those opposed to the Vietcong, our asylum before pulling out. Those lef t 

would be only loyal Vietnamese, with whom the North has no quarrel, and 

whom it would be to their disadvanta ge to kill.

You have sa id :

“I would rather be a one-term Preside nt, tha n to be a two-term President 

at the cost of seeing America become a second-rate power and see this 

Nation accept the first defeat in its proud 190-year h isto ry.”

True, and I am sur e th at this and not mere pride is your main concern,

Mr. Ni xon: t ha t an admission of defeat on our p art would cause the democratic 

nations of Southea st Asia—Th ailan d, the Philippines. Taiwan, and South 

Korea to lose faith in us as a milita ry ally. But this psychological blow cann ot 

cause their governments to become communistic, unless the seeds of revolution 

have already been sown in those countrie s by mass dissatisfactio n of the people
with their present form of government—which would only mean tha t democracy 

was not adequately meeting their needs, as they perceive them at the present time. For the root of very kind of Communist uprising in Asia, in this century, has been nationalism and inner-discontent—not Soviet or Chinese imperialism. (Seeking aid from the U.S.S.R. and China has always been a reaction to 

Western entry and opposition.) Still, the fear of indirectly allowing all of Southeast Asia, to become com­ munistic, if it so chooses, through unrealistic, is, even moreso, not worth the loss 

of one more human life. We are in an advanced and secure enough position to be least of all affected by such a turn of events. Our position as a first-rate power would remain en­ tirely untouched. These countries could not hurt us either economically, or militarily, nor would they want to. Nationalism would dictate that they develop themselves first. During this period of development, which will not be very short, we would have time to initiate diplomatic relations with Red China, and all these countries. The prospects of their retaining absolute communism (if there is any such animal) as we seem to conceive of it now, are slim, in light of the agricultural record of Communist nations. Most likely, as they mature, they will begin to look to Japa n as an example, and begin to adopt the necessary balance of socialist-capitalist economy tha t would insure their well-being. In the meantime, we should help economically when asked, tre at them with respect and understanding, and work to make our country a fit example of democracy at work. This, and neither blind isolationism, nor “total victory,” is 

our surest hope for the future. Now, Mr. President, you have sent troops into Cambodia to attack enemy sanctuaries, and have resumed limited bombing of North Vietnam. You have declared tha t both these actions are solely for the protection of your Vietnami- zation program. Although this program is still not the answer, as I have at ­ tempted to explain above, your actions of the past 2 months are even more potentially dangerous. What are Lon Nol’s qualifications as a nationalist and leader of his people? It seems that you are traveling the same sorry path of those before you in supporting a leader who may not have full national support, 

just because he is anti-communist!

Even before you addressed us: “Prince Norodom Sihanouk attended a 2-day summit conference in south­ ern China with North Vietnamese Premier Pham Van Dong, Vietcong leader Nguyen Huu Tho, and Prince Souphanouvong, chief of the Pathet Lao rebels in Laos * * *. It was still possible t ha t the Communists might try to set Sihanouk up a t the head of a provisional government in the occupied portions of Cambodia, for many of that country’s peasants fervently

hoped that their prince would return." (Newsweek, May 11, 1970, p. 28) 

(italic mine) The P athet Lao are already helping to supply Sihanouk’s supporters in Cam­ bodia. This appears too much like a tragic rerun of the story of Ho Chi Minh. Sihanouk is being listened to by both Chou En Lai, and even Mao, himself. Once again, the United States has driven a nationalistic leader to seek support from Peking. If you are worried about the balance of power, this is where it is tipp ing! Sihanouk, in an interview televised Saturday, May 9, 1970, stated tha t the Vietcong respected Cambodia’s integrity as a country—their sole purpose there, was to atta ck South Vietnam, which Sihanouk did not really mind too much because (and I have not heard anyone refuting these remarks) South Vietnam has demanded Cambodian territory on their mutual border, and control of some Cambodian offshore islands. This is imperialism as Sihanouk sees it, and, if it is true, I would have to agree with him! Granted, should the Indo­ chinese present a United Front, we could declare war and, even if it involved China, we could probably conquer all East Asia, but think of the aftermath. How could we administer such vast territory? Do you really think, aft er reading Asian history that these people would passively accept foreign domination for any length of time? They would be much harde r to advance economically than was post-World War II Japan. By overextending ourselves in this manner, we could then easily become, as did Britain, a second-rate power; and this is, of course, pure speculation, but it looks as if, by that time, we could well be succeeded in first place by Japan, and where would we be then? Japan has op­ posed all along, our increased intervention in Indochina.
I have not even spoken of the danger of playing around with nuclear war, 

which overrides this whole argument as reason enough to keep from provoking 

a full-scale Indochinese war.

Please stop this senseless war, which in the long run can gain us nothing and 

only cost us more in lives and internal unity. Withdraw’ immediately, and show 

the world that the United States is mature enough to admit its errors. Stop 

underestimating the Asian people, overestimating the unity, longevity, and 

nature of communism, and prolonging this tragic mistake!

Statement Submitted by Mik e Myers, Xavier University

I have read the presentation which our delegation has drawn up to present 

to you. I do agree w’ith its main thr ust in total and believe it is representative 

of much of Xavier University. However, I feel th at my particula r feeling about 

this whole problem goes much deeper and cannot be given justice in a 10-minute 

presentation. For this reason, I have prepared this written statement to aid you 

in your insight. This statement is, I think, indicative of the feelings of a small, 

vocal minority at Xavier and a larg er minority at other universities.

For most college students, World War II is almost as impersonal an object 

of study in history as is World War I or the Spanish-American War. As far as 

students are practically concerned, there has always been a Pentago n; there 

has always been nuclear capability ; there has always been an Asian war. 

Before World War IT, the entire American military numbered 134,000 men. 

Today we have 3% million men under arms worldwide; half a million of whom 

have been specially trained for riot control domestically. The military-industrial 

complex is very real to students, and it seems to them that America cannot go 

on with the present militarily-oriented system with its $80 billion a year 

budget; allowing racism, pollution, the cities, etc., to receive token attention 

and unenforced laws; and still remain anything like the “land of the free.”

The only point of government is to safeguard and foster life. This Government 

has seemingly become preoccupied with an institutional system of death. Socalled defense now absorbs GO percent of the national budget and about 12 percent of the gross national product. Students who a few years ago were working 

in Appalachia on weekends; tutoring inner-city people several hours per week; 

or campaigning for doomed peace candidates now view such efforts as futile 

“finger-in-the-dike” action against an all-pervasive sea of misguided priorities.

Those who are not inherently a part of this str ucture: tha t is, students, 

teachers, artists, the blacks, and the poo r; can only demonstrate their concerns 

in their own life-style, in protest marches, and ultimately, in frustrated violence. 

This becomes especially true when the response is “benign neglect” or reactionary tactics and rhetoric. The “silent majority” is understandably afraid of all 

thi s; but the fear has not led to concerned awareness (which is the basis of a 

working democracy), but rat her to a violent indifference retreating even 

far the r into a defensive “status quo.”

It is a tragic polarization which can only be conquered by communication, 

which is why we ar e here, anil we do thank you. Violence cannot be justified: 

but it is a form of a passionate plea after verbal communication has broken 

down. Violence, indeed, only begets violence: but there is a consistent violence 

in this country tha t makes throwing rocks look like child’s play. It is the violence that puts the business of death above the business of life, and property 

above human need. And it is fas t becoming the American way of life.

Statement Submitted by Dave Kaiser. College R epublicans of Minnesota

President Nixon continued his course of dividing our Nation and alienating 

the young by rubbing salt into the open wound of the Nation’s conscience, by 

widening the Vietnam war into Cambodia. In my opinion, the President clearly 

overstepped his constitutional authority, and is guilty of a breach of faith with 

the American people.

The College Republicans of Minnesota cannot watch silently as the young 

people of our State and Nation protest the President’s recent decision to illegally 

extend an immoral wa r into Cambodia.

We join with our fellow students and all young people in deploring and 

condemning this action.
277

We join with studen ts everywhere in mourning the dea ths of the four Ken t 

Sta te studen ts in Ohio.

Those people th at think th at the studen ts of America enjoy protesting, enjoy 

violent c onfrontations with police a nd the N ational Guard, enjoy being harassed 

by the supposed forces of law and order, enjoy being tear-gassed and beaten by 

the supposed forces of law and order, and enjoy being shot and killed by the 

supposed forces of law and order, had better think again.

We do not condone violence by anyone anytime. But we do deplore and condemn those actions take n by officials of our government th at bring about the 

need for pro tests and demonstrations.

Any individual with a social conscience and huma nitarian ideals has no 

choice but to join with us in our concern for the state of our Nation today.

There is something gravely wrong with a country when the lea der of th at 

country withholds a few million dollars from health, educatio n and welfare 

programs because th at extr a spending causes inflation.

There is something gravely wron g with a country when th at country spends 

.$90 billion on more effective ways to kill, and th at does not cause inflation.

There is something gravely wrong with a coun try when the stu dents of th at 

1 country feel th at the only wmy th at they can effectively comm unicate with their

lead ers is throug h mass protest.

There is something gravely wrong with a country when its leader s hold in 

contempt and reject the will of a larg e segment of the population.

There is something gravely wrong with a country when its leaders attem pt 

to suppress the constitutional rig ht of disse nt

There is something gravely wrong with a country when in 1 day five American’s are killed by a hostile force in a foreig n land, and when in th at same day 

four Americans a re killed by oth er Americans on one of our Nation ’s campuses.

Wh at is wrong with this Nation is a wa r in which we are sacrificing our 

resources and best young men in a fruitle ss effort, and one th at is term ed a 

mistake by our own Government, while our domestic problems go unsolved.

This nation could ret urn to domestic peace and move tow ard prog ressive reform if the leaders of our Nation would only listen to the voice of the people 

and retur n our troops home.

I praise Anthony Moffett, the form er Presidential youth advisor for his determination and courage. I also praise Wa lter Hickel for his effective rep res entation of the problem in his lette r to the P resid en t

I believe t hat th is is the number one issue facin g America.

I believe th at it is the issue th at will make or break the Republican Pa rty , and 

more imp orta ntly, m ake or break America.

We have an opportunity to restore hope and faith among the young of our 

Nation, let us not lose th at opp ortu nity w ith precipitous action.

o

i

r