Copy - Dr. Kissinger

DE BRIER AND WALLEN
COUNSELORS AT LAW

DANIEL DE BRIER
MARVIN Z. WALLEN
F. FREDERICK PERONE

514 GUARANTEE TRUST BUILDING
ATLANTIC CITY, NEW JERSEY
ATLANTIC CITY 4-6523

April 8, 1960

Dr. W. Barton Leach
Harvard University
Cambridge, Massachusetts

Dear Bart:

I enjoyed talking to you by telephone the other day and trust that my telephone call did not interrupt your class schedule. It was important, however, that I reach you as soon as possible, hence, my imposition on your time.

Under date of February 5, 1960 Mr. Lewis S. Thompson made the public announcement of a new look at the Air Force Reserve. We have a problem with the individual training program and its future missions. Our specific problem is highlighted by that portion of Mr. Thompson's speech which begins where I have marked the enclosed copy on page 8 with reference to "residual support" and "recovery" missions. Another concept of this "recovery" mission was contained in the March 1960 issue of AFA's publication in these words:

"A new "recovery" mission is being assigned to the Air Force Reserve. Units are to be formed to operate emergency airfields for use if existing Air Force bases are destroyed by enemy attack. These airfields would "recover" US aircraft returning from bombing or intercept missions whose home bases had been rendered unusable.

In addition, a whole new spectrum of "residual support" missions is being evaluated for possible assignment to the Reserve Forces in order to bolster the Air Force's post-attack recovery capability. Examples are bomb-damage repair, mobile communications, and storage of war-readiness materiel."

Dr. W. Barton Leach

Page 2

April 8, 1960

The authors of the plan admit that the recovery mission is at the present time only a concept and lacks "definitive depth". In spite of this shortcoming, we are moving immediately into a plan which needs considerable elaboration and extension of the basic concept. I have hammered at all doors, both closed and open, stating that the best way to give real content to what I believe is a good concept is to have such content developed as a research problem at a leading University. Both General Hall and General Eaton agreed with me on this score as did likewise Dr. James Shelburne, Educational Advisor to the Commander Air University from where my call to you of last week was made.

Our specific inquiry is whether your Department of Defense Studies would undertake the development of this idea inasmuch as we must phase into this program very shortly. General Hall states that assistance can be provided to your research team if desired from personnel at Conac and possibly, too, personnel from General Eaton's office at Headquarters, USAF.

I need not tell you that if Harvard can take on this mission, and spell out a real and significant role, that it will be a great contribution to our National Defense. What we are really talking about is an opportunity for the Air Force Reserve to assist the regular Air Force in regrouping itself, assuming the first blow to us comes from the aggressor and we must then gather together our strength to make the retaliatory punch. Even under any concept of war, there would have to follow a period in which our strength would have to be carefully marshalled and it is in this area that I believe our greatest contribution can be made.

Can you take on the job, Bart ? A side consideration is the matter of cost and who will pay the bill if there be one. I do not know where the funds would come from but, of course, this would depend on how much is involved. But in any event, we would have to find means of meeting your requirement, if any, on this score.

I await word from you.

With kindest personal wishes.

DDB:fa
enc: 1

27 April 1960

Dear Jack,

This confirms our conversation over the
phone this morning.

To do the job of giving special courses for
industrial groups we must get a man on our staff who
(a) knows the subject inside out, (b) has experience
and skill in organizing special programs of this type
and (c) is generally acceptable to the Harvard community.
I know of only one such man presently -- Col. Trevor N.
Dupuy, USA (ret.); the combination of required quali-
fications is a bit unusual.

Colonel Dupuy can be had now for next September,
but time is of the essence. He has now decided to re-
turn from the University of Rangoon next September. So
he must very soon assure himself appropriate employment
for his return. Naturally any employment he takes will
have commitments of some duration -- and will thus with-
draw him from the possibility of working with us.

If we can get Dupuy for the academic year
1960-61, we could unquestionably put on a special program
for industrial and technical groups in the summer of '61.
Otherwise not.

I understand Jim Straubel will return from
the West at the end of this week with news as to the re-
action of industry to this kind of financing for the
Harvard Program, and that you will call me or Henry
Kissinger as soon as convenient to give us the word.

WBL:has

Mr. John F. Loosbrock
AIR FORCE Magazine
Mills Building
Washington 6, D. C.

✓ Copy to: Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

Copy: Dr. Kissinger

27 April 1960

Mr. Daniel De Brier
514 Guarantee Trust Building
Atlantic City, New Jersey

Dear Dan,

This is a belated reply to yours of April 8 regarding the study of re-orientation of the Air Force Reserve. I've been out at Wright Field and the AF Academy almost ever since receiving it.

After much soul searching we conclude that we can't do this job. We have neither the staff nor the facilities for such a considerable effort and we cannot find the external staff that would be needed.

Further, it is my personal belief that this job should be done in-house and that the external people should be brought in as consultants. Such a job as you suggest requires a very realistic and comprehensive knowledge of reserve organization and problems; and no one here, including myself, has any such qualification. I have inquired as to whether any of our people could spend the time to do an adequate consulting job on this during the summer, and the answer is negative. Someone like Ramsay Potts or Bruce G. Sundlun, both of Washington and both lawyers, would in my judgment be just about perfect; but they're very busy people. Have you considered bringing in Pete Hamilton to assume charge of this task? Pete has his business interests in California, but he just might be able to cut free for something like this.

Sorry not to be more help, and even sorrier to take so long replying.

WBL:has

P.S. Here are some further thoughts. In my judgment, a program for the active Reserves will work

- 2 -

best if it is developed by the Reservists
themselves in large part. I believe that
if you should bring into this project out-
siders (no matter how distinguished or
knowledgeable on military matters generally)
you would tend to create resistance within
the Reserve. They would quite naturally
ask: Why was it necessary to turn over
this job to outsiders who have had no ex-
perience in this field when there are plenty
of us who know the realities and would be
delighted to receive a call to active duty?
To draw an analogy, I can imagine the re-
action of the Harvard Law Faculty to a
project by the President of the University
to have a committee from Yale, Columbia
and Chicago remake our curriculum. So, I
would re-enforce my recommendation to do
this job in-house; and I would be very
reluctant to bring into the picture any
consultant who was not an active reservist.

W.B.L.

Law School of Harvard University

Cambridge 38, Mass.

PERSONAL

28 April 1960

Dear Henry,

Someone has told me -- I think it was
Peter Schenk of Mitre -- that there are two "non-
profit" outfits that have actually made a profit in
amounts of several hundred thousand dollars and who
want to use this up to further their mission. One
is RAND and the other is IDA. I have heard this
from several sources about RAND, including the fact
that they are looking for a professorship to endow.
I have heard it from only one source as to IDA.

I think we can take the RAND story seriously
and I think you should go to work on the RAND people
in Santa Monica right away. Possibly a telephone call
would give the sense of urgency that might get us a
one-year or two-year grant to take care of Dupuy.
Then, if we get them on the team, they might do some-
thing more permanent for us.

By the way be a little careful about under-
stating Dupuy's cost. His salary should be commen-
surate with his age. He should certainly have a full-
time secretary, and there should be some provision for
travel expense, initial moving expense, and research
assistance. When you add it all up my guess is that
you come out around $25,000.

If you go after the RAND people in Santa
Monica, I will try to get an assist from the RAND
head in Washington who is a former student of mine,
Larry Henderson.

As to IDA I should think that Jim McCormack
would be in trouble with his own people (Max Milliken
& Co.) if he financed us and did not finance them.
Still, I would be willing to take this up with Julius
Stratton (with whom I went to school in Grenoble) and
Jim McCormack. And, Indeed, you might be able to go

straight to Millikan and Rostow, tell them that we
are in dire need and ask if they would have any
objection to us trying to tap IDA. The direct approach
to the possible objector is often the best way.

As to both of these projects, tell me what
you would like me to do and when. But you must take
the lead, and I think we must move fast.

May I remind you that I am hoping that some
of the Carnegie money can be devoted to paying that
portion of Helen Sorrentino's pay that now comes out of
my pocket; the amount is $122.82 a month.

WBL:has

Dr. Henry F. Kissinger
Director, Harvard Defense Studies Program
6 Divinity Avenue

Cambridge 38, Mass.

PERSONAL

28 April 1960

Dear Henry,

Three things.

1. As I told you, Dupuy is leaving Burma in September and is available if we grab him quick enough. I have explained this in a letter to Loosbrock, copy enclosed.

2. The Air Force Reserve people in the Air University put up to us a proposition for a study by us for the Air Force, described in the attached copy of letter from General De Brier. After consulting with Harry I replied as indicated in the enclosed copy. Within the family, I feel that this project has three difficulties:

a. It is not defined in such a way that I for one would know how to go about it;

b. It has only the vaguest administrative backing from the Pentagon, and

c. It has no visible means of financial support.

I hope that we will at sometime get into the business of doing contract jobs for the Department of Defense. But I want the first one to be of a nature where we can point to it with pride.

3. Helen has transcribed the tape recording of Duesenberry's lecture, copy enclosed. As in the case of all tape recordings, it is impossible to get an accurate and literate transcription. I suggest that this ought to be boiled down and edited by someone (perhaps Frank Balch); submitted to Duesenberry for accuracy and supplementation (he used some charts which are not included in the transcript, and might want to add some more); and then this

LAW SCHOOL
MEMORANDUM

FROM Leach

To Kissinger

You might want to look at an article
in the Harvard Business Review for
May-June 1960, p. 103: "The Emerging
Pattern of Corporate Giving."

AIR FORCE

The Magazine of Aerospace Power published by the Air Force Association

SPACE DIGEST

MILLS BUILDING • WASHINGTON 6, D.C. • STERLING 3-2300

May 20, 1960

Prof. W. Barton Leach
Defense Studies Program
Harvard Law School
2 Divinity Street
Cambridge, Mass.

Dear Bart:

After a lengthy discussion with Jim Straubel, we feel we need to know
more than we do at present about the proposed program. As you will re-
call, at our lunch with you, Kissinger and Ransom, the idea of the sum-
mer program for industry first came up. At that time all thought it
would be a good idea.

But it seems to us that the proposal of a program must precede a commitment to any given individual. Just how does the program shape up, as Harvard views it. What is the scope of the program as to subject matter? Is there a "course outline"? Is it six weeks or what? How many "students"? We realize the problem regarding the University's commitment to an individual but the problem works in reverse in terms of our commitment to support a program. It's hard to determine which is the cart and which the horse.

I will probably see Henry Kissinger down at Maxwell next week and perhaps we can talk more about it then.

I guess the basic point is, are we paying for Dupuy beginning in Sep-
tember or are we talking about subsidizing a program for the following
summer. There are still a good many intangibles.

JFL:L

P.S.--Did you ever hear any more about money from RAND and/or IDA?

25 May 1960

Dear Jack,

Your letter of May 20. As to the last para-
graph there is a misunderstanding: the purpose of getting
Dupuy here will be to add him to our regular staff and
put him in charge of organizing a program for
industrialists for the following summer. No program can
be organized for a given summer until Dupuy or equivalent
(and I know no equivalent) has been with us from the
previous September.

There is no use asking us how this program will
shape up. We can carve out almost anything that is
desired by your people in terms of length and content.
But there is nobody here at the present time with a staff
comprising one full-time man (Ransom) and one less than
half-time man (Kissinger) who can do this. As I suggested
earlier, the procedure would be for the "customers" to
appoint a committee to meet with Dupuy, agree among them-
selves as to what they want, and have Dupuy come up with
a program that will meet the need. Until we get Dupuy
on the premises we have neither the operations staff nor
the planning staff to do this job.

I am turning your letter over to Henry since
you will be meeting him at Maxwell.

WBL:has

Copy to Dr. Henry A. Kissinger

Mr. John F. Loosbrock
Editor
AIR FORCE Magazine
Mills Building
Washington 6, D. C.

1 June 1960

Dear Jack,

I enclose three documents pursuant to our
telephone conversation this afternoon:

1. The Schedule which we actually followed in the academic year 1959-60 showing subjects dealt with and lecturers. Each session was two hours -- usually an hour of lecture and an hour of discussion, followed by another hour of smaller group discussion.

2. A Special Memorandum dated October 2, 1959 showing an agenda for the smaller group work and research topics for papers. This may provide helpful suggestions as to topics which would be of interest to industry.

3. The Syllabus for the academic year showing outline of topics (page 2) and basic readings (pages 3 and 4) and readings allocated to special topics.

Any desired quantity of these documents may
be had as you may need them.

As I understand it, Jim Straubel does not feel that he can sell a program until one has been formulated. You suggest that you can formulate a tentative program out of these materials and, after checking it with a sample of industry representatives, send it to us to see if we think that we can manage this type of enterprise. This seems to me a reasonable method of getting over the difficulty that we now find ourselves in.

Cambridge 38, Mass.

1 August 1960

Dear Henry,

Since I read all your reprints with
religious fervor, it is only fair that you
should return the compliment. I proposed to
cross-examine you on the enclosed, especially
the footnotes. However, since I recognize that
it would not be in the public interest to absorb
your energies in such inconsequential trifles
as the Rule against Perpetuities, I shall be
satisfied to cross-examine your wife in your
stead.

I hear troubling news about your
picking up women in Rome! Act your age.

enclosure - Reprint - Perpetuities Legislation:
Hail Pennsylvania!

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Director, Harvard Defense Studies Program
6 Divinity Avenue

Cambridge 38, Mass.

PERSONAL

8 August 1960

Dear Henry,

Here is the original of a letter
from Trevor Dupuy with enclosure. I have
one hope that somehow or other we can get
this guy on the premises. There is a great
deal to be said for taking people who have
absolutely boundless enthusiasm and drive in
the precise directions that we think are
important. I assume that you agree with me
about Trevor's ability.

enclosures 3

August 24, 1960

Professor Barton Leach
Langdell Hall ILS

Dear Bart:

Just a brief note to thank you
for your several letters and the reprint
hailing Pennsylvania. I'm afraid that as
far as Trevor Dupuy is concerned my hands
are tied, but I will continue working on
it. I look forward to seeing you soon.

All the best.

Cambridge 38, Mass.

4 October 1960

Dear Henry,

Do you happen to know of Brig. Gen. Robert Lee Scott, Jr., USAF (retired -- or, as he puts it, fired)? He is the author of "God Is My Co-pilot" and a half-dozen other books, including a very good one on Chennault.

Scott is a fascinating speaker, particularly when he gets on the subject of the Pentagon civilian hierarchy in its dealing of the public relations business. Bob was made Director of Public Relations in the Air Force, believed naively that it was his job to further Air Force public relations, and got the heave-ho for doing just that.

I have made a tentative and unofficial suggestion to him that, if he comes up this way (he lives in Phoenix and has just finished a new book), he let me know with a view to giving the students the benefit of hearing from an authentic War Hero who is also articulate in speech and in print and who doesn't give a damn what he says.

October 18, 1970

Professor W. Barton Leach
Langdell Hall ILS

Dear Bart:

Many thanks for your note of the
10th. Of course I would be glad to send
it on to Buchan to see whether they would
be interested in publishing it, and will let
you know as soon as I hear anything.

Incidentally, I thought it was a
first-rate piece of work, though I would
like to add the following observations.

(1) The German General Staff had nothing
to do with the fall of Bismarck.

(2) Despite all the weaknesses which you
very properly point out, and despite inferior
resources, I don't think they did all that
badly. After all, they did fight the whole
world to a standstill for four years.

All the best.

Copy: HAK

NATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD

Arnold Air Society

Administrative Headquarters

MILLS BUILDING — ROOM 309

WASHINGTON 6, D. C.

**Honorary National Commander**

General O. P. Weyland USAF (Ret)

**Honorary Board of Directors**

Honorable James H. Douglas
Deputy Secretary of Defense

Honorable David L. Lawrence
Governor of Pennsylvania

Gill Robb Wilson *
Space Education Foundation

James H. Doolittle *
Space Technology Laboratories, Inc.

Howard T. Markey
President, Air Force Association

Mrs. Henry "Hap" Arnold

General Thomas D. White USAF

Major General Richard H. Carmichael USAF *

Brig. General Robert L. Scott USAF (Ret) *

Brig. General William J. Bell USAF

Colonel J. T. Hills USAF

**Chairman**

Colonel Albert B. Starr USAF

**Vice Chairman**

Dr. William Laird
University of Pittsburgh

**Executive Secretary**

Colonel Louis J. Ciecolli USAF (Ret)

**National AFROTC Advisor**

Captain Harry F. Noble USAF

**Industrial Relations**

Major General Albert Boyd USAF (Ret)
Vice President, Westinghouse Electric Corp.

Thomas G. Laphier, Jr.
Vice President, Convair

J. B. Montgomery
Gas Turbine Division, General Electric Corp.

**Public Relations**

Walter Cronkite, CBS

Robert "Bob" Cummings, NBC

Herbert Lauterstein

Carl J. Long, Air Force Association

Mrs. Ruth Young, Air Force Association

C. Greg Van Camp

**Education**

Dr. Edward H. Litchfield
Chancellor, University of Pittsburgh

Peter J. Schenk
Vice President, Mitre Corporation

Dr. Frank E. Sorenson
University of Nebraska

**Legal**

Judge Samuel A. Welss
Common Pleas Court, Pittsburgh

**Historians**

Lt. Colonel Raymond Humphrey USAF

Lt. Lawrence R. Cotter USAF

* Permanent Directors

14 NOVEMBER 1960

DR. W. BARTON LEACH
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL
CAMBRIDGE, MASSACHUSETTS

DEAR DR. LEACH:

IT IS MY PLEASURE TO INFORM YOU THAT THE AWARDS COMMITTEE OF THE ARNOLD AIR SOCIETY HAS SELECTED YOU AS THE RECIPIENT OF THEIR EDUCATOR'S AWARD FOR THE YEAR 1960.

THIS AWARD WILL BE PRESENTED TO YOU FOR OUTSTANDING CONTRIBUTIONS TO UNIVERSITY LEVEL STUDY OF VITAL QUESTIONS OF NATIONAL DEFENSE, AS A PRINCIPAL ARCHITECT OF THE MULTI-DISCIPLINED APPROACH TO SUCH STUDIES AS EXEMPLIFIED BY THE HARVARD DEFENSE STUDIES PROGRAM OF WHICH YOU WERE THE FIRST DIRECTOR.

OTHER AWARDS TO BE PRESENTED WILL BE THE MILITARY AWARD TO GENERAL THOMAS D. WHITE, CHIEF OF STAFF, USAF; AND THE CIVILIAN AWARD TO DR. SIMON RAMO, EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT, THOMPSON RAMO WOOLDRIDGE, INC.

THE CITATION WILL BE PRESENTED AT THE ARNOLD AIR SOCIETY NATIONAL CONCLAVE AWARDS BANQUET, TO BE HELD IN THE SHERATON CADILLAC HOTEL, DETROIT, MICHIGAN, ON FRIDAY, MARCH 25, 1961 AT SEVEN O'CLOCK P. M.

MORE THAN 1500 ADVANCED AIR FORCE ROTC CADETS, ALL TO BE COMMISSIONED IN THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE IN JUNE, WILL BE PRESENT DURING THIS EVENT.

WE SINCERELY HOPE THAT YOU WILL BE PRESENT AS OUR HONORED GUEST TO RECEIVE THIS AWARD.

Copy - Henry Kissinger

16 November 1960

Dear Don,

I do not want to bombard you with items con-
cerning the Defense Studies Program. But, on the other
hand, since this Program is under your jurisdiction, I
feel that I should provide you with whatever ammunition
is available for protecting the Program administratively
and financially. I therefore enclose two other items.

1. At the risk of appearing personally immodest, I enclose a copy of a letter of 14 November from the Arnold Air Society making an award which gives some indication of the standing of the Program in serious military circles. (Perhaps you do not know that the Program -- no individual -- was made a similar award by the Air Force Association three years ago. Katzenbach went to the meeting to accept the award, and the bronze plaque is in the DSP offices.)

2. One of the earlier students in the Program was Marshall K. Wood who at that time was a civil servant in OSD. He advanced rapidly in OSD and is now on the staff of the National Planning Association. I enclose a copy of a letter from him and of his address on "The National Security Dilemma" to The Institute of Management Sciences on 20 October 1960.

Very sincerely,

W. Barton Leach
Professor

WBL:has
enclosures -

copy. ltr. 14 Nov. 1960 WBL from AAS
" " 14 Nov. 1960 WBL from MKW and enclosure

Dean Don K. Price
Graduate School of Public Administration
Littauer 121

LAW SCHOOL
MEMORANDUM

FROM Leach

To Kissinger

This is for your money-raising file.
Note p. 2. Incidentally, Posvar, the
author is not a former member of the
seminar; he just wishes he had been --
and may well take a sabbatical here.
He is a "permanent professor" at the
AF Academy.

FRAMEWORK FOR THE STUDY OF DEFENSE POLICY

By Colonel Wesley W. Posvar, USAF

The American college student of the 1960's is preparing for a lifetime of dangers and fateful decisions in the international sphere that neither he nor his teachers can predict nor fully comprehend. There are indications that we are approaching a great watershed of history, a cataclysmic period in which civilization may undergo such alteration as to lose its relationship with the past in the continuous sense that we have known. The crisis may come in a general war, or in a massive confrontation of the economic, political and social forces which drive the great competing international power systems.

Human beings have a natural tendency to discount statements of such gravity as these, and to look instead for a silver lining, to anticipate a happy future effortlessly arrived at. We have a marvelous facility for distorting or ignoring the facts if they do not readily assuage our fears. Nevertheless it is a fact that a sinister force, communism, is at large with the unrelenting purpose of destroying the values, the institutions, and if necessary, the populations of the Free World. Communism has been scoring successes which are unprecedented in the history of aggression—since 1945, the gains have been five times the territory which Hitler's armies conquered in World War II, and nearly 800 million people, the total population of the earth in 1775. These successes have not served to satiate the communists. On the contrary, communism is now penetrating new continents and permeating susceptible levels of society in some remaining free nations. Coupled with these dangers is the ominous fact that both major antagonists in the world struggle possess a military technology which can destroy entire segments of a nation's power and kill tens of millions of its people. The communist enemy has furnished ample proof by word and deed that the price of lack of vigilance and strength on the part of the Free World may be to suffer defeat in this terrible form.

These circumstances give critical meaning to the study of international affairs. They should give vital purpose to every young citizen, especially the Air Force Academy cadet, who will eventually play an active part in shaping national policy and in constituting our national posture for survival. These circumstances are the basis for the program of instruction in in-

[ie]

ternational relations and defense policy in which you are now engaged.

## Characteristics of the Study of Defense Policy

Until this time in your cadet career, your studies of the social sciences have been mainly traditional and comparable to courses offered in civilian collegiate institutions. This is true of most of the instruction which all cadets receive in two years of history, a semester of geography, a year of government, a year of psychology and management, a year of law, and a year of economics. It is also true of the international relations course which you completed last semester. As you progressed through these studies, you undoubtedly have been aware of an increasing amount of professional content, material which was directed to you specifically as a future career officer of the United States. Such professional content is prominent in the courses of military history, management, and the second semesters of law and economics.

The Defense Policy Course which you are now commencing is the culmination of this trend toward professional content. It is a unique course of instruction, designed by officers in the Department of Political Science especially for your needs. While it is professional, it is academic in every sense of the word. As with your study of international relations, you will during your study of defense policy draw upon your knowledge of all other social sciences, particularly government, history, and economics, and you will employ your facility for analysis and verbal expression as developed in your study of the humanities. You may even enter upon a new plateau of understanding, one which is an object of advanced scholarship in the social sciences—an "integrated" understanding of political, economic, and social relationships as they operate to produce national policy and national security.

A principal characteristic of the Defense Policy Course is that it must remain current, employing the most recent material which is available. Five or ten years ago many of the present problems and issues of defense policy did not exist; two or three years ago they may have just become the object of study and discussion within government planning staffs; and only now are they appearing in congressional testimony, speeches by officials, and critical public writings. The task of preparing this course is, therefore, never-ending, for it involves continual screening of recent periodicals, research papers, and books. In these circumstances there can be no teaching device like the textbooks which you have employed in previous courses. Instead, you are provided with a collection of readings which have been selected and arranged, with connecting narrative, by this department. Each year the content of the course changes by about one-third, and very few of the readings which were included in the first edition in 1958 now remain.

In spite of the changing content of this course, which may result in a different kind of learning experience for you, it should be emphasized that this is a serious program which requires and deserves determined student

2

effort. Defense policy is the object of research and analytical writing by
a group of scholars and intellectual leaders, both inside and outside of
government, who are making important contributions to our national se-
curity. You will become familiar with many of their names and their ideas
during this course. Defense policy, variously titled "national security
policy" or "problems" or "studies," occupies a respectable academic
position and is offered for study at a growing number of other educational
institutions throughout the United States, generally at the graduate or the
senior undergraduate level. From a pioneering standpoint, the most
notable of these has been the Harvard Defense Studies Program, founded
by Professor W. Barton Leach, an active adviser on policy in the Depart-
ment of Defense, and presently headed by Professor Henry Kissinger.
The Air Force Academy program in defense policy is among the first to
be organized and is probably the largest at the present time. All of your
instructors have accomplished extensive graduate level study in the broad
field of international relations, with special emphasis on the kind of material
in this course, and maintain continual contact with the sources and authors
of this material.

The Content of Defense Policy

Quite properly, the first question to be asked by the student of defense
policy is "what is it?" "What are we studying; what are the boundaries
of the subject matter?" "What are its relationships with the terms
national security, foreign policy, strategy, etc.?" These are also the
questions which plague the course planner, and it is very difficult to
answer them in a manner which is satisfactory to all. Nevertheless, it
is important to start the study of such controversial material as this
with some definitions of terms, even if they are arbitrary. There can be
no more fruitless discussion than one in which the participants argue on
the basis of different semantic assumptions, and are unaware of or un-
willing to admit their differences.

On the highest level of our study we are concerned with national security
policy, of which defense policy is a part. National security policy is the complete
range of integrated decisions and courses of action taken to secure our national aims. In
this context, we regard national aims as those aims which deal with threats
originating from outside our country. National security policy may be
roughly subdivided into foreign policy, which is concerned mainly with our
relations with other states, and defense policy, defined below. There is
a temptation to simplify the relationships between these terms by saying
that national security policy is the business of the National Security Council,
foreign policy is the business of the Department of State, and defense
policy the business of the Department of Defense, with each agency, of
course, working for the President. However, this statement is true only in
the grossest sense, for these areas overlap and are interdependent in
very complex ways. Any policy-level official who is concerned with one

3

[lc]

of these areas must also be concerned with the others. His area of concern
can perhaps better be described as a special viewpoint of common problems
rather than a clearly defined category of responsibility.

Sometimes a third subdivision of national security policy is identified, that is, domestic security policy. This area pertains to internal actions taken in support of our external national aims, actions ranging from counterespionage to economic measures which strengthen the industrial base for war. Domestic security policy is seldom treated separately because it is an interest common to practically all agencies of national government.

Based on the descriptions above, it may be said that you are now half-
way through a year-long sequence of studies of national security policy.
Your international relations course last fall began with a study of the
international environment, with standard historical and theoretical content.
It followed with a sub-course which surveyed United States foreign policy,
and you are now commencing defense policy, the final stage of the sequence.

Our definition of *defense policy*, as a component of national security
policy, is *those decisions and courses of action taken to organize and bring to bear military power to secure our national aims*. This definition requires further examination in order to understand the scope and content of the course.

The scope of defense policy is determined by the scope and character-
istics of the national aims themselves. It should be clearly understood
that military power is useful for purposes quite beyond or apart from the
essential task of winning wars of military engagement. In recent years
we have become increasingly concerned, even preoccupied, with the aim of
deterring war. In achieving other national aims, military power is openly
employed in a whole variety of noncombatant circumstances, ranging
from airlift of food, diplomats, and United Nations troops, to the classical
show of force as a means of exerting national pressure. Much more im-
portant, military power is tacitly employed in every international dealing
between antagonistic nations, as a conscious or subconscious factor in the
attempt to gain or protect whatever national interest or objective may be
involved. In this sense, the military power of the United States rides with
the President when he visits a foreign capital, just as effectively as if it
were packaged, labelled, and placed on the seat beside him. Likewise, as
Mr. Khrushchev delivers a tirade to the General Assembly of the United
Nations, the military power of the Soviet Union furnishes added substance
to his every phrase.

An important implication of our definition of defense policy is that mili-
tary power is an *instrumentality* of our government in securing national
aims. This points up an important aspect of our study—the political au-
thority of the nation and the relationship of the military establishment
to that political authority. Defense policy, therefore, includes an exam-
ination of civil-military relations and of the principle of political primacy—
primacy of the responsible organs of government over the military. De-
fense policy requires a thorough understanding and appreciation of political

4

authority in the United States government, the basis of that authority, how and where it is distributed, and how and where it operates upon the military.

As we examine our subject further, we become concerned with "those decisions and courses of action taken to organize and bring to bear military power . . ." We find that two general categories are involved: first, those activities which we may arbitrarily but usefully label *defense management*, and which are means for achieving strategy, and second, *strategy* itself, the end product of all defense policy decisions and courses of action. Under defense management, as the means for achieving strategy, lie such areas as budgeting, research and development, organizational structure, the allocation of military forces and missions, or, in essence, the *process* of making strategy.

The term "strategy" has a host of historical usages and nearly as many meanings as there are authors. In this context, we shall use strategy, or, when desiring greater precision, military strategy, to mean the actual development and use of military power on a scale which can secure national aims. In strategy, we are concerned with the significant issues and concepts involving the size and nature of forces, and the employment and deployment of forces.

The difference between defense management and military strategy is the difference between means and ends, or between the *procedural* and the *substantive* aspects of defense policy. A rough method for illustrating the difference might be to say that, by and large, the business of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (and portions of their staffs) is military strategy, whereas the business of the Office of the Secretary of Defense (operating through the service staffs) is defense management. The Secretary of Defense furnishes the level of policy integration, such as it exists, which we call defense policy.

## Organization of the Course

The definitions and explanations above provide the key to the content and the sequence of organization of the Defense Policy Course, which is divided into principal sections as follows.

Part I. *Parameters of Defense Policy Formulation.* There are certain considerations which underlie the formulation of the defense policy of the United States. They comprise the military, political, and economic environment of the policy-maker and of the organizational machinery within which he works. Three sub-headings are identified: the Communist Threat, in terms of both intentions and capabilities; the American Political Climate, including national aims and the characteristics of our political system in its exercise of control over the military; and the Realities of Resource Availability. In the latter, an attempt is made to examine military technology, and both the power and the weakness (as alleged) of the national economy as basic determinants of defense policy. We are concerned here with these resource

5

factors to the extent that they influence the policy-maker or operate
beyond his control. In later sections, resources will be taken up again,
to analyze the degree to which they are responsive to management con-
trols such as those exercised in the budget process. Part I, in summary,
may be regarded as an examination of the relatively independent factors
or variables (hence, parameters) which operate to govern the general
shape of United States defense policy, and which set the broad limits
within which our policy-makers exercise their discretion.

Part II. Organization and Processes for Strategy-Making. Having examined the par-
ameters for making defense policy, the next task is to learn how it is
made. This is done in two steps. First is an examination of the Institu-
tional Environment, from the Constitution through the President and each
successive policy level down (or across or around) to the service planning
staff. The second step is to bring this institutional framework to life, in
an examination of Military Planning and Resource Allocation. This title
highlights the dominant role of the budget-making process in the making
of military strategy. Dollar decisions are tantamount to strategic decisions,
for such decisions determine which programs shall die and which shall
survive, and to what extent. These programs, in turn, comprise the shape
of our future national military power. Successful strategy-makers have to
be successful budgeteers. Study of the inner workings—and awesome com-
plexity—of the national policy machinery reveals the distressing, converse
fact that successful budgeteers are not necessarily good strategy-makers.
In summary, Part II completes the environment for the making of military
strategy. It demonstrates the procedures by which strategy is made, and
the limitations of those procedures, as essential background for the final,
substantive stage of the course.

*Part III. Problems and Issues of National Military Strategy.* In military strategy we have the end product of defense policy. Determining a proper organization for this subject is especially troublesome, because any given sequence of material may unintentionally reflect a bias on the part of the editors and transmit it to the student.

We have decided to treat military strategy in three sections. The title
and contents of the first section, Defense Against the Direct Threat, have
been chosen carefully to include the whole range of possibilities in dealing
with the atomic striking power of the Soviet Union. These possibilities
include offensive and defensive power, both active and passive, and also
disarmament. In this section we attempt to go beyond the pat argument for
"deterrence" against general war, and to take account of the possible
need for fighting and winning. The second section, Collective Defense of the
Free World, is designed to avoid the mistake of drawing a simple line
of demarcation between general war and limited war. Collective defense
is treated here as a possible requirement in general war and in a variety
of other contingencies as well. The nonmilitary objectives of collective
defense are not overlooked. The final section, Future Dimensions of
National Strategy, opens up some of the developments, such as possession

6

of atomic weapons by numerous nations, and the prospects for warfare
in space, which may drastically alter the national security environment
in coming years.

One general comment should be made about the three major headings
into which the Defense Policy Course is divided. Each category of in-
formation presented is essential to a thorough understanding of the next,
and to an integrated understanding of defense policy. The political and
economic climate in which policy is made, the machinery for making
policy, and the policy questions themselves are interdependent and in-
creasingly complex in that order.

A likely result of your first incursion into the realm of national policy
in this course will be some dismay at the realization that there is no such
thing as a simple problem or a simple solution when the whole complex
fabric of military strategy is involved. This realization is the essential
first step in your preparation for eventually taking an active role in the
making of military strategy. If you are to be effective in that role, life-
long habits of professional study and reading should follow your intro-
ductory work in this course.

Mr. Khrushchev was recently quoted as saying: "We will win by means
the West does not understand." He was referring to events in the period
in which you will serve out your careers of public service. His words are a
mortal challenge to your country and your way of life, and they present
a personal obligation to each of you to prove him wrong.

7

Air Force, USAFA/1-1098

23 November 1960

Dear Tommy and Curt,

In the Harvard Defense Policy Seminar, which Henry Kissinger and I operate jointly, I have intentionally exercised self-restraint in asking either the Chief or Vice Chief to come to us as guest lecturers. I have not wanted to ask a personal favor, nor do I wish to do so now. But this year I think it would be a good thing, if it could be arranged, to have one of you talk to this group.

We get a good deal of Army and Navy thinking. Jim Gavin is only a couple of miles away from here and usually gives one lecture. Arleigh Burke was with us last year and may come again this year. So I feel that this group should get some Air Force thinking at the most authoritative level.

The Seminar is quite unique in my educational experience. Nominally we have about 50 members -- some of them quite senior people from the three Services, the State Department, etc. But the audience at each session is usually around 120, the rest being non-participating members of the various Harvard faculties, the MIT faculty, Mitre, the Naval War College, Lincoln Labs., etc. A substantial number of un-registered graduate students usually attend -- unregistered because we don't have the facilities of taking care of them as regular students.

The atmosphere is informal. There is a certain amount of wisecracking back and forth, at which Kissinger is quite adept. We have a Seminar room that is plush by academic standards with a big table that seats about 30 people. Those who cannot get a seat at the table sit on the other side of the room from the lecturer so that he is facing all who are present.

As to subject, if either of you feel you can come, we should like to leave this entirely to you. It is a fairly sophisticated audience by the time February comes around and you can certainly talk at the level which would be appropriate at the National War College. One of the things that always interest the students is how decisions are made and how they ought to be made. A practically perfect topic for this purpose would be the episode in which you had to choose between the F-108 and the B-70 -- as presented in the AIR FORCE Magazine

- 2 -

article entitled "The Air Force Makes Up Its Mind." What were the facts and arguments on each side of this controversy that could cause the Weapons Board to go one way and the Air Council and yourselves to go the other? Also, how can a very difficult problem like this be settled without noise within the Air Force when we all know that similar choices that go across service lines are likely to produce public explosions? One or two big problems are a whole lot better than generalizations; it is quite easy to distill the generalizations from the examination of a particular problem.

Another possible topic would be the current budget -- the issues which the budget raised and what decisions were made and how. But, I repeat, anything that you feel is appropriate will be fine with us. Some officers have brought along one or two junior officers who make an initial presentation, with the senior then adding his personal touch to it and answering the questions. The usual pattern is about fifty minutes of initial talk and then an hour of questions and discussion.

The Seminar normally meets from 4 to 6 on Wednesday afternoon, but we are able to change this to Friday if that is more convenient to the guest. As to date, any time between the middle of February and the end of March would be just about right with us.

As you well know, if this poses an excessive burden upon your time and duties, I will understand completely; but I should like these young men to have the benefit of seeing one of you two in action. One of our graduates has been in the White House in this Administration. And another is Kennedy's No. 2 speech writer now and will doubtless so continue. I have a feeling that over a period of time the teaching in this Seminar is likely to have some impact on our defense policies at the civilian level.

Very sincerely,

W. Barton Leach

General Thomas D. White
Chief of Staff
United States Air Force
Washington, D. C.

General Curtis E. LeMay
Vice Chief of Staff
United States Air Force
Washington, D. C.

LAW SCHOOL
MEMORANDUM

FROM Leach
To Kissinger

Here ix are two copies of the Harvard Law School Record, with an account of the DSP at p. 12. I suggest you send one copy to the right guy at the Ford Foundation because the President's annual report, also enclosed, fails to give Ford credit for initial financing (see p. 11); and we certainly don't want Ford to get mad at us.

President's Report

TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS:

GENTLEMEN, — I have the honor to report to you on the work of the academic year 1959-60, the 324th year of Harvard College.

A year ago at this meeting I was able to announce completion of the fund-raising aspect of the Program for Harvard College. The revised current accounting shows a total amount of $83,272,660 in gifts and pledges. Of this sum more than $64 million ($64,315,969) has already been paid in. The costs of the Program were $2,295,358, or less than 2.8 per cent of the amount raised. Not only did no deduction have to be made to underwrite these costs, which were met from unrestricted income of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences as the fund raising progressed, but interest and appreciation during the campaign added almost another $5 million to bring the over-all figure to something in the order of $88 million.

Evidence of the importance of the Program for Harvard College continues to multiply. In 1955-56, the year immediately preceding its initiation, the amount spent on salaries in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences was $5,079,000. Last year it was $8,590,000. This year it will be over $9 million. Though a considerable part of this steady advance has been made possible by increased tuition income, certainly the amount of the gain would have been much smaller had there been no Program. This year the budget of the Harvard College Library anticipates expenditures of $2,024,000. This is $800,000 more than was spent in 1955-56. Eight hundred thousand dollars is equivalent to the income on $16 million of endowment at the University's current rate. There are other evidences: The total amount of aid given in scholarships and loans in the College five years ago was approximately one million dollars ($1,076,000). Last year it was more than $1.75 million. During this same period the amount of aid given in the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences more than doubled — rising from nearly $1.5 million in 1955-56 to more than $3 million last year.

[ 1 ]

The brick and concrete of new construction give further testimony to the power of the Program. Quincy House and the towers of Leverett House have added approximately 500 residential spaces for undergraduates of the upper three classes, though the apparent magnitude of this gain shrinks when it is remembered that before the Program began there were approximately a thousand more students living in the Houses than had been originally intended. Because their conversion to freshman use antedates the Program we cannot count among its achievements the two additional dormitories, Greenough and Hurlbut (formerly University-owned apartment houses). But Pennypacker Hall, opened to freshmen two years ago, is owed to the Program. And the Program has also made possible the rehabilitation of the older freshman dormitories situated in the Yard—Thayer and Hollis two years ago; and Holworthy, Stoughton, and Matthews last summer. Though the Program asked for only $2 million for freshman housing, we have already spent almost a quarter of a million dollars more than this sum on these advances, and Grays and Weld remain to be renewed. But we now furnish attractive residential quarters for most of the 1,144 freshmen in residence, whereas before the Program began only 991 could be cared for—and these only by making liberal use of double-decker beds and thus seriously crowding the antiquated buildings.

The James Bryant Conant Laboratory provided the first significant increase in space for chemistry since 1928. Boylston Hall has been marvelously reconstructed internally to provide almost a hundred additional faculty offices, library space for French and German, and, for the first time in the College's history, a laboratory center for the study of these and other modern and ancient languages and literatures. The additional space asked for astronomy has been found through a cooperative arrangement with the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory which has constructed a new building on Observatory Hill to be shared by it and the Department. Additional faculty offices have been provided in the Biological Laboratories and in Pierce Hall, administrative center of the Division of Engineering and Applied Physics. The Loeb Drama Center, a dream for generations, opened this fall to the great delight of all here who care for theater. The much-needed Health Center is at last about to be realized in a building which will also provide considerably more space for

[ 2 ]

faculty offices. In the design stage are a large building for the
behavioral sciences on Kirkland Street and the Carpenter Center
for the Visual Arts next to the Fogg Museum on Quincy Street,
the latter by the internationally famed architect, Le Corbusier.
New playing fields have been provided for the intramural pro-
gram in athletics. Several old ones will soon be made over. Two
tournament squash courts have been built. The upkeep of the
Dillon Field House and the operation at Red Top have been
endowed. A matter of very serious current concern is to achieve
ample and adequate housing for married students and younger
teachers, as well as to build a tenth House for undergraduates.

The Program has contributed and continues to contribute much
to strengthen Harvard College. But the resources received
through the Program do not correspond exactly with the needs
set forth five years ago. In a few instances goals were happily
oversubscribed. For example, whereas we asked for $4 million
for financial aid for undergraduates, we shall have received nearly
$12 million in this category when all pledges are paid. Similarly,
the $5 million requested for new chairs was oversubscribed by
almost $2.5 million. Less happy, however, is the fact that the
total of the original goals not met by restricted gifts exceeds the
amount of unrestricted money available by a considerable mar-
gin. There are at least three buildings constructed or being planned
whose costs will sharply exceed the original estimates (though
in each of these cases — the Loeb Drama Center, the Health
Center, and the Carpenter Center for the Visual Arts — generous
additional restricted gifts have met or will meet the higher costs).
So despite the impressive margin by which the Program exceeded
its combined goal, serious financial problems continue in the way
of carrying out various specific details within it.

To remain vigorous a university must constantly aspire to self-
betterment. It is especially heartening, therefore, to note among
events of the past academic year the numerous studies of their
educational activities conducted by faculties and departments and
the several new educational efforts growing out of them. I must
defer to another year a detailed discussion of these developments
except to remark that they extend from the Law School at the
northern perimeter of the University to the School of Dental
Medicine in the heart of the medical area in Boston.

[ 3 ]

Central to any university's work is the scholar-teacher. This fact carries the implication that one of the most pressing responsibilities of an institution of higher learning is to insure a continuing supply of such men and women. The number of officers of instruction at this University now exceeds 4,400. Of these, approximately 1,500 are Teaching Fellows and Research Assistants, and there is, of course, a fairly constant turn-over in this group, augmented by losses and gains in other ranks. This natural process has perhaps recently had a bit more assistance from Washington than we might selfishly like. But at the same time we can only admire the taste which our colleague, the President-elect, has shown in his choice of our officers. Actually we are both pleased and proud if Harvard's losses can make easier for Mr. Kennedy the incredibly difficult task to which he has been called.

Normally about a thousand individuals receive first appointments here each year. Many of these are of short duration, for a year, or for terms of two, three, or perhaps even five years. But many senior appointments without limit of time are also required both to keep the Faculty at its full strength by offsetting retirements, and to add strength as new fields of study and teaching open, or the number of positions in older departments proves inadequate to meet new demands. About sixty new senior appointments without limit of time are made each year. Some of these appointees are found among younger members of our own staff; many others, however, are regularly brought from outside — unfortunately, usually from other universities, though to many of these institutions we in our turn both steadily send and sometimes unwillingly lose scholar-teachers.

If it is to keep abreast of and initiate fresh ventures, and continue strong, a university needs to have scholar-teachers of achievement and promise in a number of age groups — young men in their twenties and thirties as well as more mature scholars — and thus perhaps the primary task of universities is constantly to produce fresh supplies of scholar-teachers. Harvard's accomplishment in this respect is extraordinarily good, for it is a relatively rare sight to see an academic procession in America which is not richly sprinkled with Harvard doctoral hoods. Four years ago, as reported at that time, there was established in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences a Standing Committee on Teaching as a Career. I cannot demonstrate that this has had anything to do

[ 4 ]

with it, but whether it has or not, the number of undergraduates
who think of entering teaching has since that time been on the
rise. Last year enrollment in the Graduate School of Arts and
Sciences continued to advance from the recent low point of
1,434 in 1953-54 to 1,779. The figure has moved up again this
year (1960-61) to 1,858. The graduate students enrolled at
Radcliffe must be added to this number. Last year these were
382; this year, 441. Three hundred three Harvard and 32 Rad-
cliffe Ph.D. degrees were awarded last year. Of the 303 men who
received the Ph.D. degree, 194 have already taken positions in
teaching or administration in a large number of colleges and uni-
versities; 59 are doing research; 26 have post-doctoral fellow-
ships; 9 have taken positions with the Federal Government; and
3 have accepted posts in museums.

But the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences is not the only
source of supply at Harvard for teachers. Thirty per cent of the
5,915 living alumni of the Medical School are doing some teach-
ing. Of these teachers 58 per cent hold professorial rank; and
over 500 of them hold full-time teaching positions. No one of
the 85 medical schools in the United States is without at least
one Harvard-trained teacher. Most have a number. And 16 of
the deans of medical schools, and 14 associate or assistant deans, a
total of 30 of the principal administrative officers of medical
education in the United States, are either graduates of the Harvard
Medical School or had a significant part of their training in one
of Harvard's seven Associated Teaching Hospitals. It is also clear
that the educational influence of Harvard medicine, in large
measure also because of the contribution of the School of Public
Health, reaches around the world.

No less impressive is the record of the Harvard Law School in
producing teachers. As the innovator of the case method in legal
education it was the main source of law teachers for American
law schools adopting that method late in the past century and
early in this one. After use of the case method had become wide-
spread, it continued, as it still continues, to play a prominent role
in the education of law teachers. The *Directory of Law Teachers
in American Bar Association Approved Law Schools, 1960* lists
1,531 teachers of law in 131 schools. Of this number 388, or
25.3 per cent, either have Harvard degrees in law, or have taught
or studied here; and 209, or 13.6 per cent have the Harvard LL.B.
degree. Here Harvard's contribution is more than twice that of

[ 5 ]

its nearest competitor. A study made a few years ago showed that over a quarter of all the graduate degrees held by teachers in the member institutions of the Association of American Law Schools were Harvard degrees. Also significant is the fact that during the past four years fellowship funds provided by the Ford Foundation, plus others controlled by the Law School, have brought 68 young teachers of law from other American and Canadian law schools to Harvard for advanced training.

Similarly the Graduate School of Business Administration has become an important source of teachers. Most instruction in business in the United States (though this is not true at Harvard) is at the undergraduate level. The latest available figures (those for 1955-56) show that there were then 163 schools of business (only six of them exclusively graduate schools) in the United States. Four hundred twenty-four other colleges and universities had undergraduate departments or divisions, as opposed to separate schools, and many more offered at least a few courses in business.

Of the 6,000 regular full-time teachers of business in this country less than half have earned the doctor's degree. Because of this situation the Graduate School of Business Administration began in 1953 to place increased emphasis on its doctoral program. Last year a record number of 24 doctoral degrees were awarded by the School. The number will seem small in face of the need, but its significance is magnified when it is recalled that during the 25 years from 1928 until 1953 the number averaged about three a year.

The Business School has also held an eight-week course every summer since 1955 for teachers of business from other institutions interested in learning how to use the case method effectively. Last year it also conducted a special year-long Institute of Basic Mathematics for Application to Business for 41 senior faculty members from 32 colleges and universities. The aim of this program was to help these teachers, most of whom instruct doctoral candidates in other institutions, to familiarize themselves with the newer mathematical and statistical methods which have become increasingly important in making business decisions. Still another contribution was the second International Teachers Program designed to enable teachers of business from abroad to become familiar with the Business School's methods and aims. And the School continued through members of its faculty to lend assist-

[ 6 ]

ance to several efforts in business education overseas. The extent
of this latter development may be indicated by the fact that 242
of the 710 cases in the most recent volume of the Intercollegiate
Case Bibliography are in languages other than English.

It is reported that one out of every five male undergraduates in
the United States is now studying business. What a striking sta-
tistic contrasted with the beginnings of higher education in this
country when most undergraduates at Harvard were studying for
the ministry!

But the past decade has also seen a sharply accelerating demand
for teachers of religion. Departments of religion have been
created in many colleges and universities which did not previ-
ously have them, even in publicly supported ones, and both the
number of courses in religion, and the enrollment in them have
greatly increased. There are only a few theological schools,
situated in universities, which are properly equipped to prepare
college and university teachers of religion. Among these few
Harvard has an exceptionally high percentage of doctoral can-
didates and post-doctoral students planning careers as teachers
in divinity schools or in undergraduate departments of religion.
There has also been a dramatic increase here in the number of
candidates enrolled for the Ph.D. degree in the History and
Philosophy of Religion in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences.
Eight years ago there were only two. Last year there were 58 —
almost as many graduate students as there were in Government.

Additional examples of deep concern and extraordinary effec-
tiveness in encouraging and preparing college and university
teachers are to be found in other departments of the University,
including various of our museums, but I must turn now to suggest
a few of the things we are doing for education at another level.
A number of the graduates of the College go directly into sec-
ondary school teaching each year. Though we may not now be
sending out quite so many masters and potential headmasters for
independent schools as we once did, still we continue to send out
significant numbers of promising candidates. The Appointment
Office of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences records that 24 seniors
applied last year for teaching positions of this kind. These and
other graduate students enabled this office last year to fill 49
requests for teachers from private secondary schools.

But it is through the Graduate School of Education that Har-
vard makes its chief contribution to education at the pre-college

[7]

level. The number of requests for teachers and administrative
officers received here in a year has reached astronomical propor-
tions. There were 9,453 last year. From its list of graduates seek-
ing new positions the School could fill only 381 places. There
were more than 6,000 requests for which it had no candidates to
suggest. But slight as its contribution is made to appear by the
magnitude of the problem, still its capacity to help is steadily
increasing.

There were only 99 full-time students in the Graduate School
of Education twelve years ago; last year there were 494 in a
total enrollment of 682. Of these, 237 individuals (93 men and
144 women) were candidates for the degree of Master of Arts
in Teaching. Harvard's Graduate School of Education estab-
lished this pioneer program 25 years ago, and from it developed
the Twenty-Nine Colleges Plan (introduced in 1952), designed
to recruit strong candidates from liberal arts colleges and prepare
them for teaching positions in primary and secondary schools.
Encouraging evidence of this program's success is this year's en-
rollment chosen from a pool of 500 applicants from 45 liberal
arts colleges.

There are other programs of the Graduate School of Educa-
tion which contribute significantly to the enormous task of im-
proving elementary and secondary education. A special doctoral
program to prepare guidance officers for secondary schools has
been in operation since 1958. A revised version of an Adminis-
trative Careers Program established several years ago to prepare
experienced teachers for positions as superintendents of schools
and principals of junior and senior high schools was put into
effect last year. This autumn thirteen carefully selected teachers
were admitted to the revised program. Last year 23 communities
selected graduates of the program as school superintendents while
17 other graduates became principals of secondary schools.

For the third successive year the School of Education is also
operating an Academic Year Institute for secondary teachers of
science and mathematics. This program, supported by Federal
funds, is designed to strengthen the academic backgrounds of the
teachers enrolled by giving them a year in a university to learn
as much as they can of new developments in science and mathe-
matics. It is worth remembering that this program was initiated
by the National Science Foundation the spring before the launch-
ing of Sputnik. To date 192 high school teachers of science and

[ 8 ]

[1c]

mathematics have studied at Harvard under the program and in general have taken the bulk of their work in courses given in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. The same is true of the John Hay Fellowship Program, privately supported by the John Hay Whitney Foundation, which offers further university experience to secondary school teachers of the humanities. There are still other high school teachers here who do not qualify under either of these programs but are brought to the School of Education with private funds for refresher courses.

Reference must be made to at least one more relatively new effort of the School of Education. This is an extensive program of research on problems of schools, which is known as the School and University Program for Research and Development. Now financed by a grant from the Ford Foundation, it has been undertaken jointly with a number of nearby school systems. Under it, senior members of Harvard's faculty have worked closely with school personnel, seeking to find answers to school problems of urgent importance. There have been too few organized efforts of research related to the immediately pressing problems of schoolmen carried on in cooperation with them. To indicate how backward we have been in educational research in general, Dean Keppel points out in his report this year that the United States Office of Education has only $6 million to devote annually to research projects, while other branches of the Federal Government spend $119 million on agricultural research, and private industry invests something like $8 billion a year on product development and market research.

These are by no means all the instances of programs or departments within the University which produce teachers and research workers for schools, colleges and universities. But they will show that in a complex educational enterprise, ever dependent for its own continued vitality upon the recruitment of teachers, Harvard's achievement in producing those individuals who can nourish the enterprise here and elsewhere is substantial indeed, and happily is growing stronger.

Of course, teachers and research scholars are not our only product. There is manifold evidence in this room that the University contributes to many professional fields and, through all of them, to informed and responsible citizenship.

Twenty-five years ago the gift of Lucius N. Littauer made

[ 9 ]

possible the establishment of a special school to give advanced training to individuals who wish "to prepare themselves for public administration at the higher policy levels, especially to those whose early years of public service suggest a probability of high advancement in government service on the basis of first-rate intellectual ability." The School's aim was never to prepare individuals skilled only in the procedural techniques of government, but rather to give advanced training to men and women capable of rising to positions of policy-making responsibility, and at the same time to help to formulate wise policies through research.

Sixty of the 66 students enrolled in the School last year either came directly from government positions or at least had served internships in public administration. Twenty of them came from abroad, 16 of these from active careers in 14 foreign governments. Thirty-five of the 46 Americans came from agencies of our Federal Government. Especially large contingents were drawn from the Foreign Service and from various military departments. On the other hand the Federal Civil Service has not yet taken full advantage of the opportunity presented by the Government Employees' Training Act of 1958, which encourages civil servants to attend universities for advanced training.

From its beginning the Graduate School of Public Administration has sought to develop constructive working relationships with other departments of the University. Underlying this effort is the School's recognition of the fact that the American government is not built on a closed professional bureaucratic system, but recruits its servants in its highest positions from among individuals who have had their training in a wide variety of professional schools, such as law, engineering, business, public health, and now increasingly in arts and sciences, though there are some recruits without such experience. This system, which brings many kinds of people and a variety of talents to the upper reaches of the work of government, provides strength, but also obviously creates a very large problem. Government, to be effective, demands an understanding, cooperative relationship among men of various educational backgrounds and experiences to mount a constructive, unified attack on the policy and administrative problems which the specialists, and the general administrator and politician, are together called to solve.

New developments in the School of Public Administration are

[ 10 ]

being shaped by recognition of the need to bring together specialists from different disciplines to work on problems of government. Plans were advanced here last year for a new program in teaching and research in the field of science and public policy under the direction of Dean Price. This effort involves scientists and engineers (including several recently in government service) and scholars from the Departments of Social Relations, Economics, Government, and the History of Science. The Seminar on Defense Policy and Administration, originally created and financed jointly by the Law School, the School of Public Administration, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, and the Business School, won support from the Carnegie Corporation for a new three-year period. Finding a point of departure in a Water Resources Seminar, the Division of Engineering and Applied Physics and the School of Public Health joined with the School of Public Administration last year to explore the possibility of instituting greater cooperation in teaching and research. In conjunction with the Schools of Public Health, Medicine, and Business, the School is planning a new program in the economics and administration of medical care. Another effort, this time with the Graduate School of Education, is concerned with major issues of national policy in education. And the School continues to devote major attention to the political, economic, and social dilemmas of developing nations.

This sampling of current programs in the Graduate School of Public Administration serves to emphasize the way in which the various scholarly specialties of a university can be brought together to illuminate complex problems of public importance and put the experience of scholars at the service of those of diverse backgrounds who are grappling with the solution of governmental problems. For, as Dean Price wisely remarks, "The range of government policies, and the depth of study necessary to deal with them adequately, can be matched only by the resources of the University as a whole."

A number of Harvard scholars associated with the Graduate School of Public Administration were involved last autumn on one or the other side in the presidential campaign. I am confident they were helpful and that public life gained by their presence. But a far larger number, without partisan interest and unnoticed by the press, continued to work on the processes of administration and policy development within various executive and other

[ 11 ]

governmental agencies. This will go on. For a modern university shares many interests with government and can be helpful to government in many ways. It also finds that its own programs are greatly enriched, as they are made more relevant, by a lively mutual exchange.

It is important to state at the outset of a discussion of the relationship between the Federal Government and universities, that this is a two-way street. Federal money is not given to universities for their purposes, but comes to them rather as a rule for services performed — for sponsored research and special training programs — or it is granted in the form of matching funds for buildings and improvements or for the purchase of special equipment. But after this qualification has been made, it is still significant for us that 57 per cent of the total expenses of the School of Public Health were met in 1959-60 by Federal funds, and that the situation of the Medical School is fast approaching a similar proportion. Including approximately $4 million supplied by the Atomic Energy Commission to meet the year's expenses of the Cambridge Electron Accelerator now building here, nearly $8.5 million of the $28 million budget of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences came from the Federal Government. In sum, approximately a quarter of last year's consolidated budget of $73 million for the whole University was supplied by Federal funds. These funds were of course enormously helpful to us, to science, to the solution of problems of importance to government, and to education; and they are large, and growing. A wider view of this matter the previous year showed that approximately four-fifths of the budgets of at least two private universities in this country now come from various agencies of the Federal Government, and that a majority of the other strong private universities occupy positions on the scale somewhere between the two at the top and Harvard's place, relatively near the bottom.

Such blanket figures tell very little about the facts of an enormously complicated situation. This is not a situation to be deplored, but it is certainly in need of clear understanding. The Federal Government is not so much an enormous monolithic institution as a complicated amalgam of many agencies and departments, each with its own responsibilities, concerns, and problems, each being administered "in the public interest" by a large number of people holding a variety of views within it. We in the

[ 12 ]

universities are very seriously in need of a map showing the many
sources within the Federal Government from which moneys for
many purposes — principally the Government's purposes (which
are not necessarily those of education) — flow into institutions of
higher learning. We also need histories of the legislative enact-
ments, and of the complex network of interests served in each,
which started the various existing streams of funds flowing. And
we need a clearer, over-all view of the various points of entry
within universities through which these funds come to us, and of
their effects on our traditional aims and practices.

From considerations such as these we last year decided to
undertake a careful study of all the points at which Federal
moneys come into our operations in order to get a better under-
standing of the new situation of increasing involvement with the
Federal Government into which we are steadily growing. Daniel
S. Cheever was appointed a Special Research Assistant to the
President to carry out this study this year. We have also had a
part in getting a larger study started to include investigations
similar to ours being made in about twenty other colleges and
universities of varying kinds in different parts of the country, as
well as a survey of the complicated existing legislative situation
in Washington which undergirds the Government's relations with
institutions of higher learning. This study is being conducted
under the auspices of the Carnegie Foundation for the Advance-
ment of Teaching with funds supplied by the Carnegie Corpora-
tion. It will be some time before its results are accessible, but
when they are, they should provide a considerable body of
ordered factual information which we have long needed in order
intelligently to consider a complex situation of very great and
growing significance to both education and government.

The Federal Government can no longer do its work without
universities and without the help of the highly trained people who
pursue their investigations in universities. This was true long
before the present widespread increased awareness of the im-
portance of science to government. But each year now it becomes
more so, in every field of policy formation and administration.
For this reason the Federal Government must look forward to
spending larger amounts on education. Similarly the universities
— private and public alike (no longer just the Land-Grant col-
leges) — find that the Federal Government is of enormous and
increasing importance to them. More and more they will look to

[ 13 ]

the Federal Government for help. For good or ill, we have come to a period when we must work more closely together — and this can be for good, for enormous good, if only we understand what we are doing as we go along. We must take thought together how the relationship is to be made as fruitful as possible, and be careful at every stage of the way to provide adequate safeguards for autonomous interests which rightfully exist within the relationship and must be maintained.

One of the most distinguished and influential departments of this university is its Medical School. Because of its work and that of the hospitals and other medical schools in this community, Boston is a world center for medicine, for medical education, and for research in medicine. Health is a basic national and world need. It is the task of schools of public health and of medical schools to maintain and advance it. In this country there is a growing national shortage of physicians. There are also already more than 800 unfilled teaching positions in the nation's medical schools. It is estimated that before the decade is out, just to stay where we are, we shall need 3,000 more doctors annually than are now being graduated each year by our 85 medical schools. The need for improving the quality of medical education and the amount and quality of medical research is no less pressing.

It is because of the imperatives of this situation that a Program for Harvard Medicine has been organized and launched. Harvard and its Associated Teaching Hospitals have joined together in the Harvard Medical Center to endeavor to raise $58 million to strengthen the teaching and research programs in which they are jointly involved. Their aim is to provide more and better prepared teachers for medical education, more research scientists in medicine, and so more and better trained doctors for the practice of medicine. The distant aim is the healthier and fuller life which all of us increasingly demand as a basic right. Money for research alone cannot do this. Only greatly increased numbers of teachers, scholars, and practicing doctors can begin to do the job. Of the $58 million now being sought for Harvard medicine, approximately $22 million has already been secured in gifts and pledges.

The numbers of the Harvard Faculty of Medicine increased by 93 per cent in the past nine years — from 684 in 1951–52 to 1,319 in 1959–60. But whereas 36 per cent of the Faculty were

[ 14 ]

full-time in 1951-52 this proportion had fallen by 1959-60 to 30 per cent. During the past 25 years the endowment funds of the Medical School have increased from approximately $17 million to $42 million. But during this same period the School's operating expenses have grown nearly tenfold from $1,003,278 in 1935-36 to $10,378,541 last year. It is also significant that none, or virtually none of the $1,003,278 spent 25 years ago came from the Federal Government (I find only one item of income, $1,666 from the U. S. Public Health Service for rent of space); whereas $6 million of the nearly $11 million spent last year were Federal funds.

The Harvard Medical School and its seven Associated Teaching Hospitals need more capital funds to enable them to pay fair and more competitive salaries, to have more tenure positions in both the basic and the clinical sciences and, further, to enable them to establish positions in new, developing fields of high promise. They also need increased unrestricted capital funds if the Faculty is to preserve its liberty of decision concerning the most promising areas in which to seek to advance knowledge free of the necessity to guide its choices because of the availability of outside funds. There has also long been a need—now happily almost completely met—for a new central library for medicine in Boston. Hence the new Program.

Harvard has been blessed for some time by having, year in and year out, the best pool of applicants of any medical school in the country. And surely its faculty ranks among the first. Since a heroic new effort is now needed to strengthen medical education, on which in the long run the country's ability to conduct medical research, and so its contribution to greater health in the world, obviously depend, it is fitting for Harvard here also to endeavor to lead by undertaking a new effort to lift medical education to a higher level. Neither here nor elsewhere can we rest on past achievements. As much as any other department of the University, Harvard medicine must eschew complacency and move ahead, and this, with its new resolve, it will certainly do. Meanwhile we are deeply grateful to Mr. Ridley Watts '23 for accepting the demanding responsibility of leading this ambitious Program for Harvard Medicine. We are confident it will prosper under his leadership. We are also grateful to Mr. William M. Rand '09 for the very helpful part he played in the early stages of the Program and for his leadership in its initial impressive success.

[ 15 ]

The world of scholarship is entering what promises to be an exciting new period in scientific investigation. We at Harvard are well staffed for this, are already deeply involved in it, and intend to continue strongly to advance in this area — on both sides of the Charles River. We also have a large and growing commitment in the social sciences, and are as concerned as any to pursue the scientific study of men and of groups of men. We need to know for the sake of knowing — and yet there is promise, too, that such study may bring, in some better day, an effective order and richer life to the myriad societies of this earth.

Artists and poets have always known that the ultimate worth of an individual is measured by the depth of his spiritual development. Much the same is true of universities. For this reason the acquisition of the Loeb Drama Center stands out as one of the most memorable events of the past year, for the plays to be performed in this handsome building cannot fail over the years to reveal much in this University concerning the internal condition of men. Equally promising are programs in art which are developing in the College, a number of them informally in the Houses, but also a larger one directed by a faculty committee which we expect will find a suitable home in another year in the Center for the Visual Arts soon to be built on Quincy Street, through the generosity of Mr. and Mrs. Alfred St. Vrain Cabenter. Two new professorships in the fine arts were filled last year, the Gleason Professorship of Fine Arts and the Abby Aldrich Rockefeller Professorship of Oriental Art. Three new professorships were established in literature, the Irving Babbitt Professorship of Comparative Literature, the Powell M. Cabot Professorship of American Literature, and the Henry B. and Anne M. Cabot Professorship of English Literature. And there were other gains for arts and letters.

The death of the much revered Bernard Berenson '87 early in the academic year brought to the University his Villa I Tatti with its rich collection of art and its magnificent library. This Villa, at Settignano near Florence, is to be made a center for Renaissance studies, as Mr. Berenson had long desired. He left his entire estate to the University for this purpose. But despite the considerable size of Mr. Berenson's worth, a study has shown it to be inadequate to support the kind of educational program which, in the judgment of the faculty committee appointed to advise on the matter, Harvard should endeavor to carry on at I

[ 16 ]

[10]

Tatti. Consequently we are now involved in an effort, under the leadership of Mr. Roland L. Redmond '15, to raise an additional $2 million of endowment for this purpose. But surely as long as men care about men as individuals, as distinct from items in statistical averages, the Renaissance — especially the Italian Renaissance — will continue to be an enticing and rewarding field of study.

As an addendum to the academic year it is a pleasure to note that only last week we were able to announce a grant of $5 million from Old Dominion Foundation to the Trustees for Harvard University to enable us to establish in Washington an inter-university Center for Hellenic Studies. The purpose of this center shall be, in the words taken from Mrs. Truxtun Beale's will, which devised land for the purpose, "to rediscover the humanism of the Hellenic Greeks." The program here, as at I Tatti, will chiefly provide opportunity for mature students, preferably young post-doctoral scholars, in this case of Greek arts, letters, and history, to pursue advanced studies and to write. But it is also designed through their work to broaden and keep alive in western culture the influence of the classical Greeks in the confident hope that this will continue to speak to men of their spiritual concerns as this influence has done so effectively again and again in the past.

Such is a selected summary — apparently long, but actually almost incomprehensibly brief when measured against its full range of activity — of only a few of many important accomplishments within the University last year. In the end it can be said, I believe, that the University had another good year. It continued to discharge its task of providing stimulating intellectual opportunity; at the same time it increased its capacity in a number of directions to be useful to individuals and to society. This is the perennial work of a university.

There remains the sad annual duty of recording the names of those servants of Harvard, both active and retired, whose deaths occurred during the calendar year 1960. The roster is, I regret to report, a very long one and contains 37 names, among them some of our most valued teachers and alumni. We keenly feel the loss of two of the University's most distinguished scholars in the behavioral sciences, as well as two former Housemasters who,

[ 17 ]

though advancing knowledge in their chosen fields, also gave
much of their lives to making the Houses a richer experience for
undergraduates in Harvard College.

We mourn five active or former members of the Board of
Overseers. The Honorable Richard Bowditch Wigglesworth '12,
LL.B. '16, United States Ambassador to Canada, in the second
year of his six-year term, died in Boston on October 22, 1960, at
the age of sixty-nine. The names of four other former members
of the Board—all of them devoted Harvard men—should be
mentioned: Mark Antony De Wolfe Howe '87, A.M. '88, Litt.D.
'54, Biographer of the Harvard Dead in the War against Ger-
many 1918-25, and Overseer 1925-31 and 1933-39; Meyer
Kestnbaum '18, M.B.A. '21, Overseer 1954-60; John Phillips
Marquand '15, Litt.D. '53, Overseer 1954-60; and Arthur Wilson
Page '05, Overseer 1951-57.

*The following deaths occurred among those on Harvard's retired list:*

JOHN DRESSER ADAMS, retired Instructor in Orthopedic Surgery, died January 16, 1960, in his eighty-fourth year. The first president of the Boston School of Occupational Therapy, Dr. Adams held teaching posts at Harvard from 1912 to 1919 and from 1928 to 1942. He also served as Chief of Orthopedics at the Jordan Hospital in Plymouth, at the Boston Dispensary, and at Beverly and Lawrence General Hospitals. He was a member of the Harvard Medical School Class of 1902.

JOHN DONALD BLACK, Henry Lee Professor of Economics, *Emeritus*, died April 12, 1960, in his seventy-seventh year. During his lifetime Mr. Black was probably the nation's leading student of the economics of agriculture and gave, in the words of his colleagues, "dimension and form to this branch of economics," and made Harvard, "an institution with no very intimate ties to farming, a major center during his lifetime of agricultural research and instruction." Professor Black's teaching and research had a major influence on agricultural policies both in this country and elsewhere. His scholarly output was prodigious in extent. Among the most important of his writings was *Production Economics* (1926), but he contributed significantly to such varied subjects as marketing, agricultural cooperation, land tenure, land economics, price analysis, forestry, population theory, food and nutrition, farm labor, and national and regional agricultural policy. He was primarily a teacher of advanced students, and the alumni of his

[ 18 ]

courses formed a devoted coterie who peopled the colleges and universities of the land as well as national and state offices concerned with agricultural policy-making. Mr. Black came to Cambridge, Massachusetts, from his father's homestead in Cambridge, Wisconsin, by way of the University of Wisconsin, Western Reserve, Michigan College of Mines, and the University of Minnesota. He continued active teaching at Harvard until the age of seventy-six, although he actually became *Emeritus* in 1953.

DELOS JUDSON BRISTOL, JR., retired Instructor in Obstetrics, died December 12, 1960, in his seventy-fifth year. A graduate of Yale College and the Yale Medical School, Dr. Bristol was an early resident physician at the Boston Lying-in Hospital and a member of the Lying-in staff from 1917 until 1957. His Harvard teaching appointments were concurrent with this service until his resignation at the end of 1946. He had held the title of Instructor since 1930.

WALTER EUGENE CLARK, Wales Professor of Sanskrit, *Emeritus*, and Honorary Associate of Kirkland House, died September 30, 1960, in his eightieth year. In his active lifetime Mr. Clark was one of the leading American scholars of Indian history and learning. Perhaps best known are his translations of an ancient work on mathematics and astronomy, *The Aryabhatiya of Aryabhata*, and his two-volume work, *Two Lamaistic Pantheons*. His Ingersoll Lecture on *Indian Conceptions of Immortality* and his essay on Indian science in *The Legacy of India* suggest what might have been the scope of a projected cultural history of India which other responsibilities prevented him from fulfilling. Mr. Clark was both the pupil and the successor of the late Charles Rockwell Lanman in the Wales chair, which Mr. Clark assumed in 1928 and held until his retirement in 1950. He also served as editor of the Harvard Oriental Series. Hundreds of undergraduate of the thirties and forties will remember Mr. Clark not only as an effective teacher of Sanskrit or Pali but also as the quiet, kindly, and thoughtful Master of Kirkland House, a post he held for precisely a decade (1935-45). He and Mrs. Clark gave much to the life of Harvard College.

WILLIAM MORSE COLE, Professor of Accounting, *Emeritus*, died December 15, 1960, in his ninety-fifth year. A graduate of Harvard College in 1890, Mr. Cole first offered a non-credit course in accounting in the Department of Economics in 1900-01 as a vocational aid for seniors. Five years later the course achieved credit status, and when the Business School was founded in 1908, Mr. Cole became an Assistant Professor there and teacher of one of the first required courses. He was made a full Professor in 1916 and continued to teach account-

[ 19 ]

ing until his retirement in 1933. A highly respected teacher known for his strict intellectual discipline, he was the originator of one of the major types of accounting statements, the "source and application of funds statement," used extensively by professional accountants, and his books on accounting were highly regarded. A gracious and thoughtful person, he continued alert and interested in Harvard affairs until his death.

CLARENCE HENRY HARING, Robert Woods Bliss Professor of Latin-American History and Economics, *Emeritus*, and Honorary Associate of Dunster House, died September 4, 1960, in his seventy-sixth year. Mr. Haring was a pioneer scholar in the study of Latin-American history, particularly in the history of the colonial period, but by virtue of his position he became also, as a colleague has expressed it, "a kind of unofficial ambassador to the lands to the south of us." He was broadly interested in a whole range of Latin-American cultural topics, but especially in history, economics, and politics. His major books included *The Buccaneers in the West Indies, Trade and Navigation between Spain and the Indies in the Time of the Hapsburgs, South America Looks at the United States, The Spanish Empire in America*, and *Empire in Brazil*, as well as dozens of articles and reviews on modern and contemporary aspects of Latin America. He and Mrs. Haring presided for fourteen important years (1934-48) over the destinies of Dunster House and its members. It will be for this, as much as for his scholarship, that Mr. Haring will be remembered in Harvard annals, and those who recall his mastership apply to his regime such terms as "sense of balance," "a gift for avoiding extremes without falling into a dull and empty compromise," "dignified formality," "deep sympathy and warm sensitiveness." Mr. Haring was a *summa cum laude* graduate of Harvard College (1907), a Rhodes scholar at Oxford, a doctoral candidate here, and a teacher at Bryn Mawr, Clark, and Yale before becoming Professor of Latin-American History and Economics in 1923. He continued teaching at Harvard until 1953. He kept an interest in writing and teaching until the time of his illness.

EDWARD BURLINGAME HILL, James Edward Ditson Professor of Music, *Emeritus*, died July 9, 1960, in his eighty-eighth year. In the Fiftieth Anniversary Report of the Harvard College Class of 1894, its witty Secretary, Professor E. K. Rand, cited Mr. Hill as "prestissimo of the Harvard Track Team, interpreter and embodiment of the French spirit in music, nulli secundus among American composers." Mr. Hill was the son of Henry Barber Hill, Professor of Chemistry (1884-1903), and the grandson of President Thomas Hill (1862-68). After studying music in Boston and Paris with men like Chadwick, Widor,

[ 20 ]

Lang, and Whiting, Edward Hill began in 1908 an academic connection with his Alma Mater which lasted until his retirement in 1940. He was a leading authority on contemporary French music and his courses on orchestration for composers and on the history of music for laymen influenced a whole generation of Harvard men. He was the author of an important book on *Modern French Music* and published dozens of articles on musical subjects. In addition he composed many orchestral and chamber works, as well as a few for voice, and his compositions were more frequently played by Koussevitsky and the Boston Symphony than those of any other American composer of his time.

HENRY WYMAN HOLMES, Professor of Education, *Emeritus*, died June 14, 1960, in his eightieth year. He was another in that splendid company of Harvard College graduates who devote their lives to the University. Four years at College (A.B. 1903) and one in the Graduate School (A.M. 1904) were followed by three years of school teaching, whereupon he became an Instructor in Education and began the long climb up the academic ladder. From 1912 to 1920 he served as Chairman of the Division of Education and helped the late Professor Paul Henry Hanus raise the matching funds necessary to establish the Graduate School of Education in 1920. For the next twenty years he served as the School's Dean and retired as Professor of Education in 1947. Even then he did not cease to exhibit concern for the development of informed and upright citizens. The Civic Education Project of which he was the co-founder became the Civic Education Center at Tufts, and Mr. Holmes served as its co-director until 1957. His confidence in democracy, his unwavering belief in human dignity, his dedication to the cause of educating the leaders of our nation's schools made him a most important figure in the development of the Graduate School of Education and in the growth of public concern for teacher training on a truly university level. The Master of Arts in Teaching Program was a model for such efforts, as was the two-year Master's degree in education and the comprehensive examinations — all of which were developed under his guidance. His influence was widely felt through his books, articles, and reports on educational topics of national significance.

WILLIAM GUILD HOWARD, Professor of German, *Emeritus*, died August 10, 1960, in his ninety-second year. Professor Howard's short, precise, neat figure was a familiar part of the University for more than half a century. During forty of those years — a period of ups and downs in American attitudes toward Germany — he was in the forefront of Germanic studies in this country and a valued member of the Faculty. His Harvard teaching career began with his appoint-

[ 21 ]

ment as an Instructor in 1895, and he became a full Professor in 1921 and *Emeritus* in 1935. With Kuno Francke he edited the twenty-volume edition of *The German Classics of the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries*, to which he contributed three introductions and a half-dozen translations. He also wrote many articles and reviews on eighteenth and nineteenth century German literature — among them papers on Hebbel, Grillparzer, Keller, and von Kleist. Probably his most important work, however, was his edition of Lessing's *Laokoon* which is considered by many to be the best historical commentary on German esthetics of the eighteenth century. Esthetics were a special interest and he produced a number of articles on the English critics of the eighteenth century and how they affected German letters. Mr. Howard was secretary of the Modern Language Association from 1912 to 1919 and President in 1921.

MANLEY OTTMER HUDSON, Bemis Professor of International Law, *Emeritus*, died April 13, 1960, in his seventy-fourth year. In an era of both hope and disappointment in the achievement of world order, Mr. Hudson made his great mark as a tireless worker for international law, as a member of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (1933-45), and as Judge of the Permanent Court of International Justice (1936-46). Judge Hudson took the LL.B. (1910) and S.J.D. (1917) degrees at Harvard and joined the Law Faculty as Lecturer on Law in 1918 after having taught at the University of Missouri. He became Professor of Law in 1921 and Bemis Professor in 1923, a post he held until becoming *Emeritus* in 1954. In the 1920's Judge Hudson organized the Harvard Research in International Law, a kind of clearing house for publication and study of different aspects of international legal activity. He was the author of *World Court Reports* (four volumes), *International Legislation* (nine volumes), *The Permanent Court of International Justice, Handbook on the World Court, By Pacific Means*, and many other books, articles, and reviews. His annual articles on the World Court received the prize of the American Society of International Law, and a medal in his honor has been established by the same society to be awarded from time to time for achievement and scholarship in international law. As a publicist in his field, he was a practical man, as well as a scholar driven by high ideals. The new program in international legal studies at Harvard is largely an outgrowth of his manifold activities, which have had wide influence throughout the world.

HAROLD SPRAGUE KEMP, retired Lecturer on Geography, died July 23, 1960, in his eighty-first year. Mr. Kemp's teaching career at Harvard began with an Instructorship in the fall of 1930 and lasted until his retirement as a Lecturer in 1947.

[ 22 ]

WILLIAM GORDON LENNOX, Associate Professor of Neurology, *Emeritus*, died July 21, 1960, in his seventy-seventh year. Dr. Lennox spent his entire professional life studying epilepsy and its treatment, and his writing and teaching helped change both public and professional attitudes toward the disease and its victims. His 239 papers and three books — *Epilepsy from the Standpoint of Physiology and Treatment* (1928); *Science and Seizures* (1941); and *Epilepsy and Related Disorders* (1960) — helped rouse national and international interest in the problem. His particular scientific contributions came in the fields of electrocephalography, anti-convulsant drugs, and genetics; and scientists came from all over the world to visit the diagnostic and research training center which he developed at the Children's Hospital. From 1922 until his retirement thirty years later Dr. Lennox held a Harvard appointment. As his friend Dr. Stanley Cobb remarked recently in the *Harvard Medical Alumni Bulletin*, "Above all he was a fine physician whose unfailing kindliness endeared him to his colleagues and to sufferers in his chosen field. No medical scientist has more successfully dedicated himself to the study of one disease."

GUSTAVUS HOWARD MAYNADIER, Assistant Professor of English, *Emeritus*, died October 12, 1960, in his ninety-fourth year. One of the senior *Emeriti* among the Faculty, Mr. Maynadier had retired in 1935 after nearly forty years of teaching. He was known for his course on the English novel and for his advanced instruction in composition during an era when the English Department was dominated by literary scholars like Kittredge, Lowes, and Wendell. A graduate of Harvard College in 1889, he took his doctorate in 1898 and in the same year assumed his first Harvard teaching post. Among his books were *The Wife of Bath's Tale: Its Sources and Analogues* (1901), *The Arthur of the English Poets* (1907), and *The First American Novelist?* (1940). He was a kind and considerate teacher and a thorough gentleman who was much beloved by the students in his courses, and by the members of Kirkland House in the life of which he played an active role.

MARTIN MOWER, retired Lecturer on the Fine Arts, died August 24, 1960, in his ninety-first year. A water colorist, Mr. Mower studied painting under Charles H. Moore and later with Denman W. Ross. In the mid-nineties he became assistant to Charles Moore in the drawing and painting courses in the Department of Fine Arts. Seven of his works are exhibited in the Fenway Court in Boston, Massachusetts, including a portrait of Mrs. John Lowell Gardner. Mr. Mower, a member of the Class of 1894, will be remembered for his warmth, taste, charm, and humor.

FRANK ROBERTS OBER, John B. and Buckminster Brown Clinical Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, *Emeritus*, died December 26, 1960,

[ 23 ]

in his eightieth year. Dr. Ober was one of those busy specialists who despite the pressures of outside practice give a large portion of their lives to the teaching of the younger generation of physicians. He was a native of Mount Desert Island, Maine, where his father was a store-keeper and where Dr. Ober himself practiced in his early years. Dr. Ober received his university education at Tufts and interned at the Carney and Children's Hospitals and had a long connection with the Children's Hospital. Dr. Ober served as chief orthopedic surgeon of the Children's Hospital from 1931 until 1946 and as Surgeon-in-Chief of the New England Peabody Home for Crippled Children from 1929 until 1946. A man of great personal warmth and compassion, he was actively associated with the Harvard instructional program in ortho-pedics for more than thirty years and held the Brown chair from 1937 until 1946. He also served as Assistant Dean of the Faculty of Medicine in charge of Courses for Graduates from 1928 until 1945. He was the editor of the famous Jones-Lovett work *Orthopedic Surgery* and of Lovett's *Lateral Curvature of the Spine and Round Shoulders*.

HERBERT WILBUR RAND, Associate Professor of Zoology, *Emeritus*, died on December 23, 1960, in his eighty-ninth year. While Mr. Rand used to say that although he was never an undergraduate at Harvard, he was "grafted" into the College Class of 1897 during his graduate school days. Originally Mr. Rand had intended to be a civil engineer but he turned to zoology and began his thirty-eight year career as a Harvard teacher in 1900. He was the author of a number of papers on experimental morphology, regeneration, and skin transplantation. He was also co-author (with Neal) of *Comparative Anatomy* (1936) and of *Chordate Anatomy* (1938). For six years after his retirement, he served as associate editor of the *Journal of Morphology*.

FREDERICK FULLER RUSSELL, Professor of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, *Emeritus*, died December 29, 1960, in his ninety-first year. In 1935 he was appointed Lecturer on Preventive Medicine, Hygiene and Epidemiology and member of the faculties of Public Health and Medicine. This was followed by an appointment to full Professor in 1936 and Professor *Emeritus* in 1938. Professor Russell was chief of the Board of Health Laboratories, Ancon, Canal Zone, 1915-17, and Director of the Public Health Laboratory, Rockefeller Foundation, 1920-23. His army career, which was a long and distinguished one, began in 1898 and ended in 1921 with his retirement as Brigadier General. For his work in preventive medicine he was awarded the Gorgas Medal by the Association of Military Surgeons of the United States. In the words of former Dean Burwell he was "a tower of strength, wisdom, and friendship."

[ 24 ]

WILLIAM HENRY SMITH, retired Instructor in Medicine, died December 1, 1960, in his ninety-second year. Dr. Smith's long career in Harvard medicine was centered at the Massachusetts General Hospital where he served for forty years. He was appointed Assistant in Clinical Medicine in 1900 and Faculty Instructor in Medicine in 1910, a post he held until 1931. From 1942 until his death he held the title of Honorary Physician of the Massachusetts General Hospital. He was a much beloved and respected "master in the art of teaching clinical medicine" and his ward rounds are said to have been examples of the best in bedside teaching.

IRVING JAMES WALKER, Clinical Professor of Surgery, *Emeritus*, died January 26, 1960, in his eighty-first year. A graduate of Harvard College (1904) and of the Medical School (1907) Dr. Walker combined teaching and practice in a busy career during his long association with the Boston City Hospital. In 1928 he became Surgeon-in-Chief of the Fifth (Harvard) Surgical Service at the City Hospital and simultaneously Clinical Professor at Harvard, a post he held until his retirement in 1941. He was also Surgeon-in-Chief of the Malden Hospital.

LAURISTON WARD, Curator of Asiatic Archaeology in the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, died February 1, 1960, in his seventy-eighth year. Although he had graduated from Harvard in 1903, Mr. Ward's firm academic association with the University did not finally begin until 1932 when at the age of fifty he decided to take up graduate work. He received the A.M. degree in 1934 and was asked to teach a course in Asiatic prehistory. From that time forward until his retirement in 1948 he served as Lecturer and Tutor in Anthropology. His days as a curator date from 1937, and he maintained this connection until his death. As his early specialization would suggest, Mr. Ward was particularly interested in the prehistory of Asia and the spread of Neolithic culture from the Middle East to Northern Asia and the Far East. His surveys and his restudy of past data contributed importantly to the clarification of Mesopotamian prehistory of the early fourth millennium B.C. He served as Chairman of the American School of Prehistoric Research (within the Peabody Museum) and organized the Council for Old World Archaeology, a group intended to disseminate information about current work. He also contributed more than 800 titles to the already sizeable collection of scientific fiction in the Harvard Library. In earlier life he had been a newspaperman, a travel agent, a lecturer on Indian art, and an enthusiastic member of the Bull Moose wing of the Republican Party. His colleagues have termed him independent "almost to the point of

[ 25 ]

stubbornness," but they valued him for his gifts as a teacher, for his
intellectual integrity, his modesty, generosity, and wit.

*The following deaths occurred among those in the active service of the University:*

WILLIAMS COCHRAN, Assistant in Orthopedic Surgery, died March 29, 1960, in his fifty-seventh year. A large part of his professional life after graduation from the Medical School was spent as a medical missionary in North China under the auspices of the Presbyterian Board of Missions. Following his release from a Japanese prison after World War II, he served at the Taylor Memorial Hospital in Hopei, but he left China in 1950 after the Communists came to power. A member of the staff of the Massachusetts General Hospital, he received his first Harvard appointment in 1957 and served on an annual basis until his death.

PRENTICE VAN WALBECK DUELL, Research Fellow in Etruscan Art, died April 16, 1960, in his sixty-sixth year. Mr. Duell was an archeologist and historian of architecture, particularly known for his studies of the Etruscan frescoes in Tarquinia and of the mastaba of Mereruka at Sakkara in Lower Egypt. Since 1939 he had been associated with the Fogg Museum although he was only active here for a few years. He was believed to have known more than anyone about the pigments used by the early painters of the Mediterranean area.

LLOYD CLARKE FOGG, Instructor in Pathology, died February 28, 1960, in his sixty-first year. From 1948 until his death he had been chief of the Pondville State Hospital Laboratory, where he had also been Research Cytologist particularly concerned with the biological effects of radiation in man. From 1932 until 1936 he was annually appointed Research Fellow in Preventive Medicine and Hygiene and from 1945 until his death he served variously as Research Fellow, Assistant, and Instructor in Pathology.

ALBERT HAERTLEIN, Gordon McKay Professor of Civil Engineering and Associate Dean of Engineering and Applied Physics, died June 7, 1960, in his sixty-fifth year. He was one of the most helpful and devoted members of the Harvard Faculty, whose competence in his subject and warm interest in students made him a beloved colleague and friend of countless alumni. A graduate of Harvard College (1916) and one of the small company of civil engineers who did advance work in the temporary joint Harvard-M.I.T. program just before World War I, Mr. Haertlein joined the Faculty of Engineering in

[ 26 ]

1928 and taught at Harvard continuously until his death. He served as Secretary of the Engineering Faculty and as Director of the Squam Lake Camp. The former post lapsed with the merger of the Engineering School with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences; the latter closed during World War II, and never reopened because of the changing pattern of education and employment for engineering students, but he and Squam Lake will be long and pleasant memories for many. He was indefatigable in his contributions to engineering standards through his support of various engineering societies and his membership on the Massachusetts Board of Registration of Professional Engineers and Land Surveyors. His service to the profession was widely recognized by a number of significant national and regional awards. A colleague has written of Haertlein that "to him the needs of the student came before the convenience of the instructor and the call of the classroom before the pretension of practice. In a busy university he was one of those rare people who had time for others."

IVAN MURRAY JOHNSTON, Associate Professor of Botany, died May 31, 1960, in his sixty-third year. A taxonomic botanist, he had a wide firsthand knowledge of the plant life of the Western Hemisphere which he used with great effect in his herbarium work. His most significant contribution was his work on the borage family of plants. He received his doctorate at Harvard in 1925, won a Sheldon Traveling Fellowship, and spent much of the next few years in South America and in Europe. His first Harvard appointment came in 1931. He was appointed Associate Professor of Botany in 1938. From 1946 to 1947 he was Supervisor of the Herbarium and Library of the Arnold Arboretum and from 1948 until 1953 he was Associate Director of the Arboretum. Nearly a dozen botanical specimens bear the taxonomic epithet *johnstonii* in honor of his part in their identification.

CLYDE KAY MABEN KLUCKHOHN, Professor of Anthropology, Curator of Southwestern American Ethnology, and Member of the Faculty of the Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, died July 29, 1960, in his fifty-sixth year. It is no exaggeration to say that Mr. Kluckhohn was one of the leading social anthropologists of the world, a man whose studies ranged over linguistics, archeology, physical anthropology, and ethnology. While he was particularly noted for his work on the Navaho Indians of New Mexico, he confined himself by no means to one limited field of interest but was ever curious about man and his life on earth. He was the organizer and first Director of the Russian Research Center at Harvard and the co-author (with Bauer and Inkeles) of *How the Soviet System Works*, a volume

[ 27 ]