THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY

1150 Fifteenth Street Northwest, Washington, D. C. 20005

KATHARINE GRAHAM

October 19, 1973

Dear Henry:

I hate like Hell to bother you at this moment. But I didn't want to let the Bruce Van Voorst matter go by without at least letting you know how strongly NEWSWEEK'S editors, reporters, and I feel.

I think you realize how it will appear to the rest of the press as well as to us that of the two very competitive newsweeklies, one goes and one doesn't.

In addition, after we pointed this out, a paper which has little or no interest in foreign news was added instead of NEWSWEEK. Our investment in foreign news is way beyond any economic benefit or return, because we think it important to our 3,000,000 readers around the world.

THE WASHINGTON POST COMPANY

KATHARINE GRAHAM

January 7, 1974

Dear Henry:

I feel you were encumbered with all of
Joe's dinner guests and ended up without Joe.
I can't thank you enough for the really memorable
dinner. It was so delicious and so beautiful.
I wrote the Empress an ecstatic note to make up
for a rather careless exit. I assume they had
to have phoned the paper and I fear for your rep-
utation at being listed with Meg and Rowly and
me.

I don't even want to speculate about the
conversational gambits in different parts of
town. Thank you so much for having Truman and
Meg. The dinner was so good I can even recover
from the mortification of having the Post cover
an event in which we constituted 1/6 of the
guests. If that doesn't bring about your demise
from one group or another, you are safe forever.

Affectionately,

Newsroom of Cambio-16 — Spain's outspoken weekly fights to stay open

# Spain feuds over press rights

## Magazine survives attempt to close it after running cartoon about King

By Joe Gandelman

Special correspondent of
The Christian Science Monitor

Madrid

Spain's most outspoken largest selling newswire has apparently survived an attempt by government rightists to force its closure.

But rightists now are using "the Cambio-16 crisis" to try to force popular Information Minister Adolfo Martin Gemero out of office.

Behind the campaign, government reformists and opposition circles say, is an attempt to regain clout lost after King Juan Carlos's widely hailed pro-reform speech before the U.S. Congress.

The Right had demanded Cambio be closed for four months due to a cartoon titled "A King in New York" published in the magazine's June 7 issue, which depicted Juan Carlos dancing like Fred Astaire against a star-glittering New York skyline. The King saw the cartoon in his airplane during the U.S. trip but said he was not offended.

Government rightists used the cartoon to demand strict enforcement of Article 2 of the 1966 Press Law which has been greatly relaxed under Mr. Gamero.

"The article states there are "no limitations on press freedoms" except those prescribed by law - which include "due respect to institutions and persons."

### Articles upset

But the Right's motivation was not thought to be protection of the King's honor.

Cambio recently ran articles and graphic pictures of alleged torture of leftists in the Basque country, and other emboldened papers then joined in. The paramilitary Civil Guard became so upset the government declared the subject "reserved material" (top secret) and a military court is prosecuting the magazine for "insulting" the Civil Guard.

Furthermore, Cambio has angered Prime Minister Carlos Arias Navarro by repeatedly calling in editorials for his resignation. These editorials were censored at the insistence of the Prime Minister's office and changed to more general demands that the government itself resign.

Perhaps more importantly, Cambio has sparked a daring, questioning trend in Spanish journalism that has stepped up pressures for democracy. And it plans to publish a daily in September, which has prompted more right-wing unease.

Now, it is believed, Cambio will remain open since the King is said to have personally intervened. But the Information Minister remains under stiff attack.

Mr. Gamero had threatened to resign if Cambio was forced to close. The Right would like nothing better and wants to have its own man, Adolfo Suarez, presently Minister of the National Movement (the only political movement allowed under Franco) take over and hold the press in check.

Some key centrists, on the other hand, want to manipulate the press - particularly the more tractable provincial press - for propaganda purposes during the coming referendum campaign. And Cambio, as Spain's one truly national publication, could effectively neutralize a controlled regionalist press.

### Possible effects

Had Cambio been closed it would likely have had these effects:

1. Stall reform. Rightists would have gained "momentum" in the Cortes (Franco's rubber-stamp Parliament). The press's newly acquired oppositional role and post-Franco freedoms would have suffered a setback. Warned Ricardo de la Cierva in the Madrid daily El Pais: "A four-month suspension of Cambio would be an indefinite suspension of the credibility of reform."

2. Endanger Spain's prospects for admission into the European Common Market. The opposition would be expected to use extensive contacts abroad to block Spanish entry. At present Common Market countries are closely watching Spain's internal situation.

3. Snag the U.S.-Spain bases agreement. Liberals in the U.S. Congress are taking a wait-and-see attitude before giving the agreement final approval.

4. Damage the King's image and the pending referendum on proposed reforms. His speech to the U.S. would appear then to have been misleading or utopian. Cambio would be gagged during the crucial referendum campaign period and questions about the fairness of the results would be raised.

All these are goals of the Right which feels "foreign pressures" to democratize threaten its traditional power monopoly and that a massive victory for the King in a fairly contested election would further reduce its clout.

Sine General Franco's passing, freedoms have operated on "tolerance" with old laws still on the books. The Information Ministry might have had no choice but to close Cambio down if the King had not intervened.

CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR, June 22, 1976

September 3, 1957

Dear Lyndon:

No doubt you have seen this Roscoe Drummond column but I enclose it as a matter of discussion. It seems to me most important. First, it will have a measure of influence on other Washington writers. Second, it will have a similar effect on a sizeable public and on important politicians.

Your present attitude strikes me as just right. Anyone who works up noticeable and passionate designs on that particular office harms himself in two ways. He begins to lose control of his own judgment; he also gives aid and comfort to the political enemy. So just sit. Don't deny or confirm - or even conjecture. Three years is a long, long time. All rushing and panting should be left to fellows from Tennessee and Massachusetts.

New subject: I very much hate to do this but I am sending you a thick, ponderous book which you _must_ read.

Kissinger's, "Nuclear Weapons and Foreign Policy". It is absolutely essential for you to dig through it. Neither this nor any other book has the answers. But this one does ask the right questions at the right time. I cannot think of any more valuable document for you at this moment.

About Europe: I think you should go to the NATO meeting. Then I think you should take two to three weeks for a look at a few other places. As a suggestion, I propose something like this: (1) NATO in Paris; (2) Israel (possibly also Beirut after some checking of wisdom of this in Washington); (3) Rome; (4) Bonn and Berlin; (5) Warsaw; (6) London. You can do that reasonably comfortably in three weeks, including a day's rest in Germany with the Brusces and a whole week in London in which to get a breather.

- 2 -

I have no idea of the date of the NATO thing. If it's
very late, perhaps you have to do the other traveling first. But I
would think it better to get NATO in first if possible.

On returning you should talk before the Council on
Foreign Relations in New York. That will give you an audience of
200-300 of most influential people. Those meetings are not covered
by the press, but you could (or could not) have New York press
conference, or a Washington one, if you wanted.

Please don't put off this matter. This is the best
possible year for you to do it. You should make your decision rather
quickly so your itinerary and visiting list could be firmed up. If you
want (and if you are going alone) Kay and I can go, though I see some
possible disadvantages to you in this. In any event, I can help on
arrangements for you.

Love to Lady Bird and all other LB's.

Sincerely,

Philip L. Graham

Honorable Lyndon B. Johnson,
Hye, Texas.

PLG:dv

LYNDON B. JOHNSON
TEXAS

United States Senate
Office of the Democratic Leader
Washington, D. C.

LBJ Ranch, Hye, Texas

September 21, 1957

RECEIVED

SEP 21

Dear Phil:

I certainly did enjoy that long letter which had so much news in it.

I do not know as yet whether I will go to the NATO meeting, but if I decide to do so, you will be among the first to know about it, and we will discuss it very carefully. I think all of your suggestions are good.

You have probably seen by now the statement that I made in response to a question by Allen Duckworth of the Dallas News. It is no different from what I have been saying all along, but because Duckworth gave it some prominence, it got considerable play. I am enclosing a copy for your information.

The Kissinger book is very impressive. It is heavy going, but it is worth while and I find that it has a profound effect on my own thinking. I will have to go over it a number of time before I decide whether I agree or disagree with his conclusions. But, there is no question that it is a profound analysis and, as you put it, in the class of essential reading.

I hope that you and Kay can take some time out to visit the Heart of Texas once more, and Lady Bird and I are both looking forward to our next get-to-gether.

Warm regards.

Mr. Philip L. Graham
The Washington Post and Times Herald
1515 L Street, N. W.
Washington 5, D. C.

It is always difficult for me to take seriously speculation
about possible candidates in an election campaign which is three
years away. The difficulties are compounded when the speculation
involves my attitude toward a position which I do not seek.

There are some things about which I am certain.

In 1960, the Democratic Party will hold its convention.
There will be a wealth of candidates among which we can select
our standard bearers. I do not know who the candidate will be,
but I have every conviction a man could conceivably have that it
will not be me.

A presidential nomination is not something that is just
handed out. It is determined by the Convention which selects among
candidates.

I have made it absolutely clear both in public and in private
that I do not seek the nomination. There are absolutely no reserva-
tions in my mind on that question. And I am not leaving the door open
for any last minute changes in attitude.

The people of Texas and the Democratic Party have accorded
me fulfillment of every ambition I ever had. I seek only to justify
their faith and discharge my obligations by contributing whatever I can
to the service of my Party, of my State, and of my Nation.

###

There is no doubt that the high cost of living is our major domestic problem.

There may be times and circumstances in which our people benefit by a tightening of credit policies. But as an "anti-inflation" move for the present, "tight money" has been a miserable failure.

Tight money has increased the Federal, State and local tax burden.

Tight money has denied needed credit to small businessmen.

Tight money has added to the troubles of our farmers.

Tight money has lowered the value of the dollar for the borrower and increased the value of the dollar for the lender.

But one thing it has not done is to lower the weekly grocery bills of our people.

I predict the Congress will refuse to go along with any efforts by the Administration to raise legal interest rates and make the present "tight" money market any tighter. And there will be a strong effort to lower those which have already been raised.

The Congress will insist on a strong and broadly based program to achieve stable living costs in contrast to the Administration's policy of putting all of its eggs in the tight money basket.

###

upper midwest council

federal reserve bank building
minneapolis, minneapolis 55480

telephone (612) 373-3724

July 28, 1975

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
Washington, D. C.

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Thank you very kindly for your gracious letter; we greatly appreciate
your coming to the Upper Midwest.

The response to your visit has been very positive. Our business and
professional leaders have enthusiastically reflected their strong im-
pressions of your fine leadership in world affairs and an appreciation
for your willingness to listen to the ideas of others.

The extra time you devoted to dialogue and in replying to questions
from our citizens and the press has been warmly acclaimed. You
went to extra effort, and we thank you.

Our thanks also to the members of your staff who were most helpful to
us in preparation for the event. We needed them, and they responded
beautifully.

Board of Directors: Dr. John R. Borchert, Director, Center for Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis • Arden Burbidge, President, Burbidge Farms, Park River, North Dakota • Russell G. Cleary, President, G. Heileman Brewing Co., LaCrosse • R. A. Devereaux-Vice President and Manager, Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., Sioux Falls • Earl Ewald-Chairman of the Executive Committee, Northern States Power Company, Minneapolis • Donald R. Grangaard-President, First Bank System, Minneapolis • C. R. Gustafson-Vice President, Otter Tail Power Company, Fergus Falls • Lawrence F. Haeg-President, Midwest Radio and Television, Minneapolis • Demetrius Jelatis-Vice President, Central Research Laboratory, Red Wing • Warren Jones-Secretary-Manager, Twodot Land & Livestock Co., Harlowton, Montana • Bruce K. MacLaury-President, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis, Minneapolis • John F. McGrory-General Counsel, Cargill, Inc., Minneapolis • John A. McHugh-President, Northwestern National Bank of Saint Paul, St. Paul • Louis W. Menk-Chairman and Chief Executive Officer, Burlington-Northern, Inc., St. Paul • Philip H. Nason-President, The First National Bank of Saint Paul, St. Paul • James G. Peterson, Vice President, University of Minnesota Foundation, Minneapolis • Gerald Rauenhorst-President, Rauenhorst Corporation, Minneapolis • David Roe-President, Minnesota AFL-CIO Federation of Labor, St. Paul • Ernest Ronn-Sub-District Director, United Steelworkers of America, Negaunee, Michigan • Henry T. Rutledge-Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer, Northwest Bancorporation, Minneapolis • Richard L. Schall, Vice President, Dayton Hudson Corporation, Minneapolis • Otto A. Silha-President, Minneapolis Star & Tribune, Minneapolis • W. A. Strauss-Chairman of the Board and President, Northern Natural Gas Company, Omaha, Nebraska • Paul R. Thatcher-Executive Vice President, Independent Bancorporation, Minneapolis

[L.C.]

THE WHITE HOUSE
WASHINGTON

Col. and Mrs. Clinton Granger of the
NSC staff invite Secretary and Mrs. Kissinger
to an informal dinner honoring Mr. & Mrs.
David Ransom. (Mr. Ransom will be
departing the NSC staff). The dinner will
be on Friday, June 6 at 7:00 p.m. at the
Granger residence, 2039 Rhode Island Avenue,
McLean, Virginia. Dress is informal:
sportshirts and casual dress.

RSVP: Barbara 395-4996

DEFER

S30F EDI

STEVEN R GRABERD
AND BRILLIANCE WE ARE ALL IN YOUR DEBT HOPE TO SEE YOU SOON
WARMEST CONGRATULATIONS. YOU HAVE SHOWN PATIENCE, GENEROSITY
WASHINGTON DC

STATE DEPARTMENT

PM2 HENRY KISSINGER, DLR

6174924431 TDMT CAMBRIDGE MA SS 02-30 1134A EDI

ICB IPMM112 C2P

TLX003

WAA080(1124)(S-01269E120)PD 02/30/74 1124

WU WZH

SECSTATE WZH

0

DÆDALUS

*Journal of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences*

August 5, 1975

The Hon. Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
U. S. Department of State
2201 C Street, N. W.
Washington, D. C. 20520

Dear Henry,

Recently I saw Achille Albonetti in Rome, and he said that he had sent me a copy of the letter of June 24 that he had sent to you. With this, incidentally, came a note to myself which read, "Wake up, Steve! It is high time!"

I thought you might be interested in the letter that I have just sent back to him. I might say that Achille is considerably more excited than most of the people that I saw in Rome, but by no means more worried. There is a good deal of alarm over the last election.

As I have told Nancy, and I hope that she communicated the message, I saw both Desideria Pasolini and Elena Croce. Both send their warm regards. Also, Desideria says that she wants very much to send you a case of the chianti that you so much enjoyed when you were there last time. I suspect that that is now on its way, and that you should be receiving it before too many months have passed.

Finally, one much smaller matter. The only disappointing part of my visit to Europe involved my stay with Eric Weil in Nice. He is not at all well. I do not imagine that his illness is organic, but it is perfectly obvious that he has suffered a very serious set of attacks involving blood pressure and that this has in fact enfeebled him considerably. He is certainly not the person he was even as recently as a year ago. I have the impression that a letter of even three lines from you would mean an enormous difference to him. Please do not mention his state of health, but simply say that you are thinking about him or whatever else occurs to you. I hope that you can do this. I would not ask it except that you know how much he admires you and that he is an immensely loyal friend.

7 Linden Street • Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
(617) 495-4431 and 495-4482

DAEDALUS

August 4, 1975

Signor Achille Albonetti
Via Riccardo Zandonai II
Roma 00194, Italy

My dear Achille,

I want to thank you again for all of your hospitality while I was in Rome. I immensely enjoyed seeing you and Marguerite and of course coming to know your sister. For all your kindnesses, I am grateful.

I am fascinated by your letter to Henry. I will not argue whether or not you are right, but I would say that your letter wildly exaggerates his options. Indeed, your letter makes me think of an occasion soon after the war when the American journalist Dorothy Thompson went to visit Pope Pius XII. She had recently been in the Arab refugee camps and had seen great suffering. She pounded on the table and said, "Your Holiness, you must do something; you must do something." He replied, "My daughter, only a Protestant could so wildly exaggerate the powers of the Holy Father."

I am afraid that there are problems in Europe that go far beyond the capacity of the United States (or even of any so-called great authority in this country) to do very much about. You may imagine that we can, but you are kidding yourself. More than that, I think that you do not take into account at all the domestic situation in this country. Indeed, you seem to think that this country is roughly where it was in the late fifties or early sixties. Believe me, it is not. Until you realize the full significance of recent votes in Congress and until you study much more carefully the *Washington Post* and the *New York Times*, you will not realize how terribly difficult the management of foreign policy has become.

I realize that this is our problem and not yours. However, it is a little bit like your problem. The Christian Democrats have been in for almost three decades, and we know the conditions that they have produced in Italy. Most of the problems of your country are not resolvable by persons outside; most of the problems in this country are not resolvable by others either, but it is terribly important for you not to underestimate our situation just as we ought to have a certain sympathy for your own.

7 Linden Street • Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts 02138
[617] 495-4431 and 495-4482

THE SECRETARY OF STATE
WASHINGTON

October 10, 1975

Dear Steve:

I have just heard the reports on your visit
to Japan. When I am in Tokyo later this month,
I will see what I can do to repair the damage.

Seriously, I have heard nothing but praise
and admiration for the job you did there. I
just wanted you to know your efforts were noticed,
and appreciated.

I would be interested in hearing your observa-
tions before I depart on the 17th, if you will have
a chance to put them on paper. If not, perhaps
we can talk about them the next time you are in
Washington.

Mr. Stephen Graubard,
7 Lynden Street,
Harvard University,
Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Address by Dr. Steven Muller, President
The Johns Hopkins University
Centennial Banquet - February 21, 1976

One hundred years ago in his inaugural address as the founding president of The Johns Hopkins University, Daniel Coit Gilman addressed "an appeal to the community to increase our means, to strengthen our hands, to supplement our deficiencies." He asked that "men of means largely increase the usefulness of this (University's) work by their timely gifts." He said: "Every contribution made by others to this new University will enable the Trustees to administer with greater liberality their present funds. Special foundations may be affiliated with our trust, for the encouragement of particular branches of knowledge, for the reward of merit, for the construction of buildings; and each gift, like the new recruits of an army, will be the more efficient because of the place it takes in an organized and efficient company."

Gilman was right then, both in terms of the need and the response.

His words are equally valid today, although we now look to women as well as men of means, and are no longer new. In preparation for this centennial observance, The Johns Hopkins University and Hospital announced on February 21, 1973, three years ago, a campaign to raise one hundred million dollars in new gifts and pledges for the two

Johns Hopkins Institutions. We called the campaign the Hopkins Hundreds, to honor the centennial; to proclaim our resolve to double the number of endowed professorships in the University from fifty to one hundred; and to signal the first phase of a one hundred million dollar rebuilding of The Johns Hopkins Hospital. We scheduled the campaign to end with this centennial year. With a mixture of great pride and great hope, I can tell you tonight that the Hopkins Hundreds stands at 92,581, 599 dollars. Just ninety days remain until its scheduled end at the Centennial Commencement on May 21.

With boundless thanks to so very many, we can say that we have come far despite tough going. Success is within reach. The final steps of a long and difficult climb are the hardest. It is now that help is most needed, from each, and from all. May tonight launch us on the remaining steps to complete success, stronger than ever, sharing the pride of every participant for his or her part in what can become one of the finest hours in the history of Johns Hopkins and of universities in this land.

## II.

Now hear these words: "This year is auspicious, inviting us to sink political animosities in sentiments of fraternal good will,

and of patriotic regard for a reunited republic." The speaker again
is Daniel Coit Gilman. The occasion again: his inauguration as the
founding president of The Johns Hopkins University. The year: 1876,
the centennial year of the United States.

It was brave of Gilman to call 1876 auspicious. Few others did so
at the time. It was the last year of the administration of President
Ulysses S. Grant, mired in scandal and corruption. It was the year
that Rutherford B. Hayes was elected as the nineteenth President of the
United States, defeating Samuel J. Tilden in perhaps the most disputed,
dishonest and disreputable of our presidential elections. It was a
year of inflation, unemployment, and hard times. The nation's
newspapers deplored the moral and physical deterioration of youth, and
coined the term "hoodlums" to describe marauding gangs of juvenile
delinquents that made the streets unsafe in major cities.

Gilman was more than brave. He foresaw a future for the nation
more promising and fruitful than the troubles of a season. The second
century of the United States has proven him right. Throughout his
inaugural address he made plain the fact that a university is part of

the fabric of society. Education cannot exist apart from, nor rise
above, the community. Society diseased with despair and self-doubt
spreads those diseases to education. Therefore I speak first of our
society today, and of my brimming confidence in its health and promise.

Taken day by day, the year 1976 also may not appear auspicious in
the United States, yet I deem it so. If we lift our sight above so
much present meanness, how do we judge our country's condition? On
this higher plane, I see a nation in the agonies of late adolescence,
but sure to ripen soon into rich and more stable maturity as a young
adult. A nation of immigrants -- come here by choice, in flight,
or in bondage -- has now not merely extended itself across, but
occupies, half a continent. They are in our day recognizably
becoming one people, those who first settled into diverse regions;
were clustered earlier by space, speech and habit into still separate
sub-cultures; absorbing wave after wave of newcomers who formed at
first new and distinctive social clusters of their own. This one
people is yearly more visible by characteristics it has in common
rather than in its diversities. The archetypal New Englander,
Southerner, Midwesterner, Texan or Californian is fast becoming an

- 5 -

[LC]

anachronism, superseded by an archetypal American. This is equally true for the Irish-American, the German-American, the Italo-American, and so on through the roster of most of the other ethnic Americans. The very fact that we are newly emphasizing our ethnic past rather than trying to lose it seems proof of this development. We are nearer than we know to the day when the Black and the Hispano-American, too, will be woven completely into the pattern of the American people.

I speak of the agonies of national adolescence. Among the world's people we, as a still-emerging single people, are indeed young. And we are showing classic symptoms of late adolescence. In a telling phrase from our vernacular we are having trouble getting it all together. Our potency, seen by all in two world wars, surges through us mightily, but it has gotten us recently into some rather miserable affairs. We have relied so heavily on mass communications, explosive mobility, mass technology, and mass leisure to bring us together as one people that we are momentarily unclear as to whether we are the masters of these forces or their victims. Metaphorically, having lost our diverse childhood manners we have not yet evolved good adult American manners of our own. We indulge in adolescent excesses. We are spoiled

by providence and as a nation suffer teenage delusions of material
splendor without a wiser adult judgment of values. We are typically
adolescent over-consumers, lacking adult discipline, and we have a
national crush on the entertainment industry. Most awkwardly of all,
we have outgrown the clothing of our government and at the moment
nothing in our federal wardrobe fits: our local underwear is badly
frayed and bindingly too small; our state shirts and blouses are worn
out and patched; and our national outerwear is too new and scratchy
and at least a size too large.

I speak of brimming confidence. This is based above all on love.
I deeply love the adolescent United States of my vision -- this gawky,
rowdy, boorish, overweight, self-indulgent, promising teenager. Life
with a teenager is unbearable without love, sometimes nearly unbearable
even with it. Love does not prevent criticism, but it can forgive
the Bay of Pigs, Watergate, commercial television, the Department of
Health, Education and Welfare, and other adolescent horrors. They
are not tolerable but, with love, endurable. With love also comes trust.
Of course I have fears for the America of my vision. A spoiled
adolescent can become a rotten adult. A careless and wildly undisciplined

[lc]

one may not even survive. But there is so much promise here. I deem the American heart good, the ideals sound, the energy prodigious, the talent infinite, the prospects auspicious. Thus -- with love and trust -- and with fear and criticism as well -- I have great confidence in the nation's future. Not unnaturally, it also occurs to me that a late adolescent United States is also ripe for higher education.

Let us turn again to words from Gilman's inaugural address.

Discussing the spreading of education, he says: "It is a reaching out for a better state of society than now exists; it is a dim but an indelible impression of the value of learning; it is a craving for intellectual and moral growth; it is a longing to interpret the laws of creation; it means a wish for less misery among the poor, less ignorance in schools, less bigotry in the temple, less suffering in the hospital, less fraud in business, less folly in politics; it means more study of nature, more love of art, more lessons from history, more security in property, more health in cities, more virtue in the country, more wisdom in legislation, more intelligence, more happiness..."

In the context of my metaphor, Gilman in 1876 was speaking to a nation in late childhood. His words are still true and applicable to a people just entering national maturity.

III.

Let me now speak of the university. My confidence in the future
of the nation leads me to even greater confidence in the future of the
university. Again, taken day by day, 1976 is a year of difficulties
for higher education, but on that higher plane of sight the prospects
are propitious. As complex a society as ours will continue to need
to make higher education available to most citizens. We need the
sophisticated skills in which the university offers training; citizens
fully schooled by higher education in their culture; and research that
advances knowledge and promotes reason. There is a question here,
but it is not whether the university is needed nor even whether it will
be supported. The question is whether the university can respond
effectively to new needs and opportunities of an unprecedented kind.

Let us go back once more to Gilman's inaugural, and to a stern
and terse warning that he left us. He stated his aims, thus: "An
enduring foundation; a slow development; first local, then regional,
then national influence; the most liberal promotion of all useful
knowledge; the special provision of such departments as are elsewhere
neglected in the country; a generous affiliation with all other

[L]

institutions, avoiding interferences, and engaging in no rivalry;
the encouragement of research; the promotion of young men; and the
advancement of individual scholars, who by their excellence will
advance the sciences they pursue, and the society where they dwell."
We can now after a century say with pride that The Johns Hopkins
University has met these aims -- even exceeded them, for we have
added to them international influence, and the promotion of young
women as well as men. But Gilman also said bluntly: "Universities
easily fall into ruts. Almost every epoch requires a fresh start."
There in two sentences is the problem we must speak to as we start
our second century.

One fresh start for The Johns Hopkins University is the effort
toward the reintegration of knowledge. Even while intensive work
continues in a multitude of highly specialized fields, and while
new specialities are evolving, we are attempting to find ways to
focus the skills of specialists from various fields on problems that
demand an integrated approach. The greatest rewards to date have come
in biomedical engineering, where the integrated work of physicians and
engineers is producing an impressive series of new solutions to health

-10-

[lc]

problems. We have high hopes for our new cancer center, which is
bringing together specialists from a host of fields to work in common
on research into and treatment of the family of symptoms we call cancer.

The foreign area programs of the School of Advanced International
Studies have for years drawn together workers in diverse fields, and
the Center for Metropolitan Planning and Research calls on many
specialists for integrated work on the problems of cities. Anthropologists
and historians have formed a new partnership in the program on Atlantic
History and Culture. The new doctorate in reading disabilities of the
Evening College pulls other specialists together, as does the Johns
Hopkins International Education program in Obstetrics and Gynecology,
and the Humanities Center, and as will happen in the Center on Tropical
Disease that is in the process of formation.

However, these and similar efforts too numerous to mention appear to
be only the first bits and pieces of more momentous change to come.

The whole curriculum of our still-new School of Health Services is
interdisciplinary, to the point where that School is not establishing
disciplinary departments. We have begun a study aimed at a new
integration of the basic sciences in the School of Medicine, which,

[10]

if successful, is openly designed as a step toward a new integration
of all the life sciences in the University. For most of the last
century the extraordinary advancement of knowledge made possible above
all by the avalanche of technological innovation has made specialization
and diversification irresistible. The effort at reintegration must
be made lest the university become a learned Tower of Babel. The
relatively small size and high quality of the Johns Hopkins faculty give
us an unusual advantage in such an effort. We will pursue it with
determination, and we may hope that much of the richness of our second
century will derive from it.

Two other new starts relate closely to one another. One will extend
greatly the concept of life-long learning. As a pioneer in the develop-
ment of adult higher education through the Evening College, Johns
Hopkins already claims a long and proud tradition in this field. We
know that the resources of the university must be available not only to
young men and women but to those who seek university degrees or the
opportunity for education later in their lives, and on a part-time basis.
Our new start here, however, involves the recognition that in our time
highly specialized knowledge now dates so quickly that its most

advanced stage in one decade may already be an anachronism in the next.

This poses severe problems for full-time scholars in specialized fields,
but even greater problems for those engaged in full-time application
of training received in universities. Those who practice the learned
and skilled professions now need the university doubly -- once to receive
their initial training and recurrently thereafter to keep up with
subsequent advances in their specialized fields. We have been
accustomed particularly to providing opportunities for teachers to
advance their own education while practicing their profession. We
are now expanding our efforts to assist practicing physicians,
engineers, and other scientists to maintain themselves at the forward
moving edge of specialized knowledge newly available. This may be
of extraordinary significance as whole professions demanding
advanced skills become obsolete, requiring those engaged in them to
build entirely new skills in mid-career on the foundation of their
earlier training. A whole new dimension of the university as a life-
long learning resource is opening here.

The other, and related, new start consists of the effort to reach
out in new ways from the campus to extend our training, by adapting

available technology to its purposes. In principle this is not a
novel concept. As the pioneer in the establishment of a university
press and of learned journals, The Johns Hopkins University has long
reached out and disseminated knowledge and training in print. The
novelty is audio-visual communications technology, already with us in
many forms but still evolving rapidly with the television disc, the
video phone, and low-cost miniaturization already in view. Just two
years ago we established the new audio-visual division of The Johns
Hopkins University Press. That division now markets audio-video
tapes of Johns Hopkins medical grand rounds to practicing physicians,
with a range potentially as wide as all physicians capable of receiving
this information in English. We know well that communications technology
and our own techniques are advancing rapidly and that we have only
tapped the first drops of what is destined to be a mighty flow.

On the basis of these two related new departures, I predict the
onset of a mighty revolution in the university. I foresee the
university transformed into a life-long learning center capable of
training individuals on an individual basis anywhere on the globe --
perhaps, before our second century ends, anywhere in the universe.

[Lc]

I do not mean that our campuses will disappear. We will continue to need geographic centers in which faculties and students can work together and share laboratories and other essential basic facilities.

But I do mean that we will be far less space-bound. We will be able to provide individualized and immediate advanced instruction to individuals scattered far and wide, at times and in places of their personal choice and convenience. The full implications of this anticipated development are astounding and as yet barely predictable.

It may, for example, resolve the fundamental problem of the high cost of higher education which at the moment seems so onerous and intractable.

It may for many people loosen the lock-step march from classroom through classroom, straight from kindergarten to the doctorate, allowing them to lead more productive lives sooner and to take the time to let motivation for higher education ripen and mature, secure in the knowledge that access will not be denied them. It may provide the bridge across which new links can be established between universities and colleges, permitting university faculties even greater freedom to concentrate on advanced research and teaching, while allowing college faculties fuller access to university resources as they concentrate

- 15 -

[LC]

more freely on undergraduate instruction. It may even lead to a new
integration of work and learning, on the explicit assumption that
individuals will leave the university at one stage to practice their
vocation, but will not only remain linked to it on a part-time basis
wherever they work, but return to it at another stage for full time
re-exposure. It may make the university a truly international
institution, at least across all frontiers except the English language.

There is yet one more new start we must make to which I personally
have a deep commitment. The university engages in the transmission of
knowledge as well as in its advancement, and it must offer a foundation
in civilization as well as the specialized knowledge which that
civilization employs. If I may once more invoke my earlier vision of
the state and future of this nation, a maturing civilization in and of
the United States will in the next century settle into more stable
patterns. It must ward off the temptations of authoritarianism on the
one hand and post-adolescent wildness on the other. Its future as a
democracy depends on the civic capacity of its citizens as well as on
their capacity to work. A flourishing democracy demands the discipline
of reason as much as the discipline of productivity. Higher education

must train citizens in civilization as well as in knowledge, which was
not even questioned a century ago but which more recently has been
breached.

I perceive two ingredients to this new start. One is determination
that a graduate of The Johns Hopkins University shall be master of
the language, history, and fundamental precepts and content of his
or her society, as well as master of his or her specialized subject.
The other is recognition that the works of man at their best, while
subject to providence, are the fruit of human reason, and that the
single indispensable asset a graduate of this university must acquire
is a mind disciplined in reason and confident of its application. The
first of these, the restoration of a common foundation of civilization,
seems so obvious as a necessity and as a current failing that little
elaboration is required, except to note that there are few things more
difficult than to recover ground once confidently held and then lost.
We must begin by disabusing ourselves of the delusion that the loss
of a common foundation of civilization is progress. Then we must
insist on its recovery.

The second ingredient, the training of minds disciplined and
confident in reason, may represent the single greatest test in the

- 17 -

[lc]

future of this university enterprise. In our time, the fruit of human
reason in technology and society has grown so abundant in complexity,
diversity and intricacy that our minds shrink back from the task of
mastery. Such knowledge as we may acquire in one aspect of science
has the paradoxical effect of serving to alienate us from the rest.
Our inability to grasp the whole lends an air of mystery to the products
of our own reason, as though they lived a reason-defying life of their
own. We experience also a feeling of helplessness in the face of such
complexity as seems to dwarf our individual efforts and to be immune to
our individual rational penetration. These reactions of ours are
understandable but potentially fatal. I am in no position to deny
the world of the occult altogether, but I do deny that it rules the
realms of human technology and society. Our national community is
grounded in principles of reason, and these have governed our evolution,
our prosperity, our laws and governance. If they are now surrendered
and abandoned we shall be cast into the confusions and anarchy of new
dark ages.

Therefore the indispensable mission of the university must be newly
recognized to consist of the training of the mind in reason and the

- 18 -

[LC]

building of confidence in its full application. We must recover our
sense of the fundamental simplicity of rational processes. Reason at
work produces orderly consequences, and we must rediscover that these
are simpler and more kindred to each other than they first appear in their
present manifestation of overwhelming complexity. The truth is that
the fundamental decisions that human beings can and must make remain as
basically simple as they have always been. The most difficult of these
decisions are usually also the simplest. It is self-delusion to cloud
them with too much complex study of their circumstances and
consequences. We must relearn that such infinite detail is helpful
only in proportion, but that in the whole of its intricacy, it is
scarcely relevant to the making of rational decisions. That assertion
is primarily grounded in the rational assumption that human error is a
vital part of all human application of reason. It seems to follow that
we must strive to strike a new, workable balance between the avoidance
of error on the one hand, and the rational certainty on the other that
the degree of human error inevitably rises in direct proportion to the
amount of rational calculation of which we avail ourselves. To delay
or to shrink back altogether from doing the obvious is usually a greater

[Lc]

human error than consequences produced by failure to study and understand
the obvious to that unattainable degree of absolute certainty. To take
risks irrationally is to be foolish; but to attempt to eliminate risk
altogether is itself irrational.

I speak here of nothing more nor less than the recovery of individual
self-confidence. Self-confident individualism has produced this
nation's many errors but also its inspiring achievements. Join me,
then, in rededicating The Johns Hopkins University to the education of
self-confident individuals, schooled in the fundamentals of civilization,
skilled in a specialty, trained in reason, and committed to find and
advance truth. Join me in the conviction that the people of the
United States will preserve independent institutions of higher
education such as this university alongside public institutions, aware
that only the checks and balances produced by the independent sector
can ultimately assure the integrity of the public sector. Join me
in devising the new starts The Johns Hopkins University must make in
this epoch of the beginning of our second century, so that the tracks
of our past do not become ruts but useful pointers to a changing future.
Join me in the faith that a maturing civilization in the third century

of this still young republic will need this university more than ever
and will remain the birthright of free, self-confident individuals.

Let me now find a fit conclusion to these remarks in the words with
which Gilman opened his inaugural address one hundred years ago: "If
this assembly, with one voice, could utter the thought now uppermost,
there would be a deep, quick, hearty acknowledgement of the bounty of
Johns Hopkins. His beneficence, so free, so great, so wise, promoting
at once the physical, intellectual, and moral welfare of his fellow-men,
awakens universal surprise and admiration, and calls for our perpetual
thanks."

DÆDALUS

June 8, 1976

The Honorable Henry A. Kissinger
Secretary of State
U.S. Department of State
2201 C. Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20520

Dear Henry:

I have just spoken with Fabio Cavazza and I learned that he is going to London to hear your Buchan lecture. Since he will be arriving after the Italian elections, and is watching those elections very closely, I think that it would be very advantageous for you to have a few minutes with him in London. I realize that your schedule is probably very busy, but I can assure you that Fabio is in a position to give you valuable information. I hope very much that you will plan to see him.

I am told that he will be staying at the Savoy Hotel, and that he is at your disposal at any time on the 25th or in the morning of the 26th. Incidentally, he has recently been in Germany and even his brief conversation with me on the phone suggested that he has some very interesting insights into the problems that you are yourself interested in.

I hope to see you before you leave for London. I wish that I myself were able to hear you. With warm regards,

srg:jms

The George Town Club

1530 WISCONSIN AVENUE, N.W. • WASHINGTON, D. C. 20007 • TELEPHONE: (202) 333-9330

April 19, 1974

The Honorable
The Secretary of State
and Mrs. Kissinger
The Department of State
Washington, D.C.

My dear Mr. Secretary and Mrs. Kissinger,

The Founders and Board of Governors wish to take this opportunity to invite you to accept Honorary Membership in The George Town Club. The Membership Committee of The Club has traditionally extended this invitation to Cabinet level appointees.

The Club is a private establishment and membership is through recommendation of the current members, with approval by the Membership Committee and Board of Governors. The Board of Governors takes great pleasure in waiving the Initiation Fee and Annual Dues during your term as The Secretary of State. You will be eligible to use The Club facilities in accordance with the House Rules, which we have enclosed.

The members recently celebrated The Club's Eighth Anniversary and are justly proud that it has become distinguished for having attracted to it outstanding personages from the governmental, professional and social worlds, not only from Washington, but from around the nation and the world. In this short period of time, The Club has become distinguished for its gourmet foods, unobtrusive service and exquisite appointments. It was built on the site of the old Suter's Tavern, where George Washington is reputed to have mingled and discussed with colleagues the politics and conditions of that era. Today, we are following that tradition by making The George Town Club a meeting place for those who enjoy stimulating conversation in the midst of congenial company and beautiful surroundings.

May we have the pleasure of your acceptance of the Board of Governors invitation to membership in The Club.