CERCLE DE L'OPINION
LE PRÉSIDENT

Paris, le 18 Décembre 1968
1, rue Volney (2°)

Paris 2e

Cher Professeur KISSINGER,

La Presse a fait état du rôle particulièrement important que vous tenez dès à présent dans l'entourage du Président Richard NIXON.

En me rappelant à votre souvenir, je tiens à vous en féliciter très chaleureusement et très sincèrement.

Laissez-moi cependant vous dire combien je suis navré que nos rencontres à Paris - qui avaient été si spontanément confiantes - n'aient pas eu la suite que nous pensions leur donner.

J'en espérais beaucoup pour ma part, afin d'oeuvrer au mieux de nos possibilités, d'une part pour le renforcement des liens d'amitié entre la France et les Etats-Unis, et, d'autre part, pour tout ce qui pouvait concourir à une plus étroite coopération entre l'Europe et l'Amérique.

Il est sans doute plus urgent que jamais d'y travailler, et je tiens à vous assurer que nous sommes tout disposés à le faire de la façon la plus efficace et la plus profondément convaincue.

Souhaitant avoir bientôt de vos nouvelles, et me tenant à votre disposition pour faire un saut à Washington si vous en voyez l'utilité,

je vous prie de croire, Cher Professeur KISSINGER, en mes sentiments les plus cordiaux.

Au Professeur Henry A. KISSINGER
Harvard University
Center For International Affairs
6, Divinity Avenue
Cambridge
MASSACHUSETTS 02138

Gabriel du CHASTAIN
Tél. 722.14.89 (le matin)

Le conseiller
n° 1 de Nixon :
« Nous avons
besoin de
l'initiative
des Européens »

«S
I le « leadership » amé-
ricain continue à jouer
son rôle dans les rela-
tions du monde atlantique, nous
avons besoin de l'initiative et
du sens des responsabilités des
Européens », a affirmé hier soir
M. Henry Kissinger, conseiller
spécial du président des Etats-
Unis pour les affaires politiques,
à l'émission « Panorama ».

M. Kissinger a insisté sur la nécessité pour les Etats-Unis de cesser d'assumer à eux seuls les responsabilités majeures du monde occidental. « Il n'est pas naturel, a-t-il dit, que le rôle dominant dans les affaires de n'importe quelle société européenne soit joué par un pays qui se trouve à 5.000 kilomètres de distance. Il n'est pas question pour nous de nous retirer d'Europe, mais nous devons reconnaître qu'une trentaine d'années après la guerre, l'Europe doit jouer un rôle plus important, dans son propre intérêt. »

De son côté, M. Robert McNa-
mara, ancien secrétaire à la
Défense, a indiqué que dès 1967
M. Kissinger avait proposé que
des contacts indirects solent
pris avec Ho Chi Minh et que
deux Français, MM. Aubrac et
Markovic, auralent été choisis
comme intermédiaires. Il estil-
mait aussi que l'arrêt des bom-
bardements américains au Vlet-
nam permettrait l'ouverture de
négociations, ce qui se révéla
finalement être le cas.

MEMBRES DU CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION

Dr J.-A. HUET
Président

Président du Comité Européen Exécutif de l'Association Internationale de Gérontologie.

Directeur de l'Ecole d'Anthropologie.

Paris - France.

M. Y. PERGEAUX
Vice-Président

Directeur Général de la Caisse Nationale de Retraite des Ouvriers du Bâtiment et des Travaux Publics.

Paris - France.

M. C. TIBBITTS
Vice-Président

Directeur, Programme d'Allocation de Fonds Gouvernementaux pour la Formation.

Service Administratif pour les Personnes Agées

Washington - Etats-Unis.

Dr R.J. VAN ZONNEVELD

Secrétaire général

Président du Comité Européen de Recherche Sociale de l'Association Internationale de Gérontologie.

MEMBRES DU CONSEIL D'ADMINISTRATION
(Suite)

Dr A. CIUCA
Chef du Département de
Recherches Scientifiques
en Gérontologie Sociale.
Bucarest - Roumanie.

Dr W. DONAHUE
Conseiller Technique, Con-
férence de la Maison Blan-
che sur la Vieillesse.
Washington - Etats-Unis.

Prof. R. HUGONOT
Président de l'Office Gre-
noblois pour les Personnes
Agées.
La Tronche - France.

Dr A. LESSA
Directeur du Service de
Transfusions Sanguines
des Hôpitaux Civils de Lis-
bonne.
Lisbonne - Portugal.

M. L.M. MORRISON
Directeur de l'Institut de
Recherches sur l'Artério-
sclérose.
Los Angeles - Etats-Unis.

[Lc]

**Dr P. PAILLAT**
Chef du Département de
Démographie et d'Econo-
mie Sociales de l'Institut
National d'Etudes Démо-
graphiques.
Paris - France.

**Dr N. SACHUK**
Chef du Laboratoire de
Statistiques Démographi-
ques et Médicales.
Institut de Gérontologie.
Kiev - U.R.S.S.

**Dr E. SHANAS**
Professeur de Sociologie.
Université d'Illinois.
Chicago - Etats-Unis.

**Dr H. SHEPPARD**
Président du Conseil Na-
tional sur le Vieillissement.
Chargé d'Etudes, Institut
Upjohn de Recherche sur
l'Emploi.
Washington - Etats-Unis.

**Prof. N. SHOCK**
Directeur, Centre de Re-
cherches Gérontologiques
des Hôpitaux de Baltimore.
Baltimore - Etats-Unis.

THE INTERNATIONAL CENTER FOR SOCIAL GERONTOLOGY

The International Center for Social Gerontology is a non-profit
organization which was founded in Lisbon, Portugal in 1969 by repre-
sentatives of 9 nations. The organization is incorporated in France
and in the State of New York. An Executive Committee of nine and
an Administrative Council of twenty members drawn from 13 countries
are responsible for determining the policies and programs of the Center

The general purpose of the organization is to advance the social
welfare of older people by (a) encouraging and performing research
in various aspects of social gerontology, (b) disseminating information,
on an international basis through the various media and communications
channels and (c) stimulating the development of training programs to
prepare professional and technical workers in the field of social
gerontology.

Consistent with these goals, the Center annually sponsors an
international course on a selected aspect of social gerontology.
The courses offered or planned to date include the following loca-
tions and topics:

<table>
   <tr>
    <td>
     1970 - Lisbon:
    </td>
    <td>
     " Interdisciplinary Work in Social Gerontology"
    </td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
    <td>
     1971 - Florence:
    </td>
    <td>
     " Work and Aging"
    </td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
    <td>
     1972 - Dubrovnik:
    </td>
    <td>
     " Leisure and the 3rd Age"
    </td>
   </tr>
   <tr>
    <td>
     1973 - Oslo:
    </td>
    <td>
     " Recruitment and Training of Personnel in Social Gerontology"
    </td>
   </tr>
  </table>

Each of the courses has attracted 300 to 400 persons repre-
senting many nations. Typically, the courses provide for a compre-
hensive presentation and discussion of important current social
issues and problems confronting all nations whose populations in-
clude relatively high proportions of older people. The proceedings
are published in book form, thus becoming important contributions
to the gerontological literature.

-1-

THE 1973 INTERNATIONAL SYMPOSIUM ON HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL DESIGN FOR OLDER ADULTS

## Background

This year the Center, with the collaboration of the U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, and the American Institute of Architects will hold an international symposium in the United States. The meeting is scheduled for December 11-14, 1973. It will be held in the International Conference Suite of the Department of State, Washington, D. C.

Demographic pressures being created by the extraordinary increases in the longevity of the populations of developed and developing countries are making the housing of older adults a continuing and urgent problem. Great sums of public and private funds are being invested in housing for the elderly by nearly every country, yet there still exists a state of confusion and controversy about the sponsorship, design, methods, techniques, and financing to be employed in providing appropriate housing adapted to the specific needs of older people, especially at costs they can afford.

The housing dilemma of older people (those in the 3rd age) is only one manifestation of aging in today's society and is, therefore, susceptible of solution only if understood and acted upon in the perspective of the broader aspects of national social systems. The low economic situation of large numbers of retirees is a basic consideration. The changing health and energy status of people as they become ever older is another component of the problem. Another is the commitment of most societies to providing opportunities for the elderly to live meaningfully throughout their lives. One particular question which must engage attention at this time when national goals and values are being scrutinized closely is that of the proper allocation of social and economic accountabilities among the public and private sectors. There is great need for all concerned countries to pool their experiences and information and to assess their meaning in reference to constructive social action on behalf of their older adult populations.

Symposium Objectives

The purpose of the symposium is, therefore, to provide an inter-
national forum where gerontologists, and representatives of pension
funds, banks, investment firms, building and trade organizations,
potential sponsors, architects, social-physical technologists, plan-
ners and related professionals, government officials and legislators,
and research manpower specialists can:

- share and evaluate existing information about housing design, management and environmental planning for the elderly in various countries and determine the most effective policies and practices.

- forecast the extent of housing needs in relation to increasing longevity and social and technological change, and evaluate the consequent effects on the housing market.

- stimulate increased investment of pension and other private financial resources in the construction and operation of elderly housing.

- plan and initiate action leading to the establishment of an experimental research, training and information center in Hous-ing of Older Adults which can result in a significant increase in knowledge about the housing market; investment opportunities; new building concepts, design, materials, and the nature of safe, and healthy environments for older people.

- develop plans for new and innovative programs, such as vacation centers and vacation exchange programs, increase the opportunities for older adults with limited incomes to enjoy travel and other en-riching experiences.

- illustrate good housing and living environments for older people by means of an architectural exhibition of designs by professionals and student architects.

-3-

# The Symposium Plan

The Symposium will include Plenary Sessions, Study Panels, an Architectural Exhibition, and opportunities for informal exchange.

## Plenary Session Addresses

- Planning for Older Adults in Dynamic Societies

- The Old of Tomorrow

- Allocation of Responsibilities for Housing Older Adults: Government and Non-Government Sectors

- The Social Role of Investment Capital

- The Spectrum of Accommodations and Environments Required by Older Adults

- Dimensions of the Elderly Housing Market in the United States and Elsewhere

- Management of Adult Housing and Training of Personnel

- The United Nations and Aging

- Enrichment of Retirement Living

The Plenary Sessions will be addressed by distinguished international authorities with vision of the future and will provide conceptual perspectives for the Study Panels.

## Study Panel Topics

- Financing Housing and Related Services: Investment Policy, Market Planning, Political and Social Implications

- Government and Non-Government Policies of Various Countries for Housing Old People

- Creating Total Environments for Older Adults

- Vacation Centers and Vacation Exchange Programs

- Research and Training Related to Design, Construction, Management, Finance, and Need for an Experimental Research Center

- Health Care Related to Housing of Older Adults

-4-

An issue paper will be made available for each of the Study Panels. They will present, in succinct form, pertinent facts and will raise current issues for resolution through recommended action.

The leadership for each panel will include international authorities in the various subject areas. The Study Panels will afford opportunity for exchange of ideas and informal discussions among the participants, and for the development of recommendations to be presented to the Symposium as a whole.

## Architectural Exhibition and Competition

With the assistance of the American Institute of Architects, an architectural exhibition will be organized as a special feature of the Symposium. The exhibition will consist of two parts:

- a non-competitive exhibition of housing designed for occupancy by older people which is already under construction or occupied, to be shown by professional architects from various countries.

- a competitive exhibition of idea designs prepared by students of U. S. architectural schools. Awards will provide study tours of housing for old people.

The winners of the student competition will be announced at the Symposium at which time symposium participants can meet and talk with the architects.

## Symposium Membership

The Symposium is invitational and will be limited to 200 persons, one fourth of whom will be from countries outside the United States. Organizations interested in representation at the Symposium may ask for further details by writing:

The International Center for Social Gerontology
1629 K Street, N.W.
Suite 801
Washington, D. C. 20006
Telephone 202-659-8125

March 15, 1973

3/14/73

PROGRAM FORMAT

<table><thead><tr><th></th><th>Tuesday</th><th>Wednesday</th><th>Thursday</th><th>Friday</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>M. 0</td><td>Training for Panel Leaders</td><td><u>Address</u><br>Social Role of Investment Capital<br><u>Study Panels</u><br>2 Hours</td><td><u>Address</u><br>Dimensions of the Market<br><u>Study Panels</u><br>2 Hours</td><td><u>Address</u><br>Enrichment of Retirement Living<br><u>Panel Reports</u><br>Motions<br>Adjournment</td></tr><tr><td>M. 0</td><td><u>Address</u><br>Planning in Dynamic Societies<br><u>Address</u><br>The Old of Tomorrow</td><td><u>Address</u><br>Spectrum of Accommodations<br><u>Exhibition</u><br>Discussion Viewing Awards Social Hour</td><td><u>Address</u><br>Management and Training<br><u>Study Panels</u><br>2 Hours</td><td></td></tr><tr><td>M. 0</td><td><u>Dinner</u><br><u>Address</u><br>Government and Non-Government Responsibility</td><td></td><td><u>President's Dinner</u><br><u>Address</u><br>The United Nations and Aging</td><td></td></tr></tbody></table>

copy for

KISSINGER, HENRY A.
REFORMED ILLUMINATI GROUP, Mrs. Esther Hamilton Dunlap, President
Taconic Road, RFD#1 Greenwich, Connecticut 06830 July 22, 1969

Mr. Dan Rather, CBS News
FIRST LINE REPORT
51 West 52nd Street, New York City

Dear Mr. Rather:

I always try to get awake by 10 minutes to seven when your FIRST LINE REPORT comes over CBS, and I noticed this morning you said you were reluctant to bring up the "Kennedy Affair" but in the interests of faithful news reporting you felt you must. You said President Nixon isn't talking, nor is any of his staff.

This all sounds very mysterious. The rumors one hears - that Teddy was drunk, that Bobbie's secretary knew too much and had to be stopped from writing a book" and that the Kennedy boys were noted for cheating, especially Teddy, - could all be laid to rest so easily?

And I am surprised you did not mention it in your FIRST LINE REPORT this morning.

Why does not Ted Sorenson speak up? Or Richard Goodwin? Or Arthur Schlesinger, Jr? Or Pierre Salinger? Or Burke Marshall? Or John Kenneth Galbraith? Or Rosy Grier? They all were at the Party were they not?

It was announced over the radio that Teddie was attending a Reunion Party of Bobbie's adherents, and was taking Bobbie's ex-secretary to the last ferry-boat.

Senator Abe Ribicoff was probably there also. And how about our Governor, John Dempsey? They were staunch Kennedy adherents. I remember seeing Senator Ribicoff and Governor Dempsey hovering over and protecting Bobbie as if they were a body-guard on that flying trip through Connecticut where Kennedy worshippers had a chance to see Bobbie at the Park Plaza. The Kennedy entourage was late in arriving at the Park Plaza in New Haven where we had gathered to see him and hear him make a few remarks on his new home in New York State where he was now running for the office of Senator, but we were served champagne all afternoon on large trays, brought in again and again from the Park Plaza kitchens, until the boys finally arrived.

The Kennedys love parties, but the missing link in this one is...WHO were the guests? Was Senator Ribicoff there? Was it he and Gov. Dempsey who were on the 9 o'clock boat the next morning, with Senator Kennedy, this new circumstance which Fulton Lewis 3rd spoke about tonight?

We Greenwich girls are having a very hard time getting Conyers Farm away from the Federal Reserve System fellows who stole Conyers from that well-known Rome playboy, Eugenie Pacelli. We are very anxious to put up our Spa there, with the help of The Connecticut Light & Power Company which needs a resort for their employees. They have no really nice place to play golf. So if you can mention our plight (as well as Teddy Kennedy's) some morning on FIRST LINE REPORT, we will appreciate it greatly.

Faithfully yours,

c.c. to President Nixon
c.c. to 1st Selectman, Greenwich
c.c. to Senator Florence Finney of Greenwich (Hartford Assembly)
c.c. to Mrs. Julian Gonzolez, Greenwich, Conn.
c.c. to Mrs. Townsend Scudder, Greenwich, Conn.
c.c. to Mrs. Ernest Kramer, Greenwich, Conn.
c.c. to Mrs. George Champion, Greenwich, Conn.
c.c. to Mrs. Mary Griswold, Assembly District No. 109, New Haven, Conn.
c.c. to Mrs. Corinne Robinson Alsop Cole, Avon, Conn.
c.c. to Senator Abe Ribicoff
c.c. to Gov. John Dempsey

Esther Hamilton Dunlap, President of "RIG"

RECEIVED

JUL 2 5 1969

CENTRAL FILES

Yearly Subscription to "Rig Letters", $25.00

REFORMED ILLUMINATI GROUP
Mrs. Esther Hamilton Dunlap, President
Taconic Road, RFD#1 Greenwich, Conn. 06830

July 22, 1969

To the Senators and Representatives in the Connecticut State Assembly
State Capitol
Hartford, Connecticut

Dear Friends:

Will you please do everything you can to give comfort and support to Sen. Finney in her RESOLUTION our Group desires her to push through, at this Extra-Session. Namely, to expel Lord Victor Rothschild, an alien, and his goon-flunkey, Lewis B. Rosenstiel, from their illegal seizure of our Conyers Farm in Greenwich, stolen by them from Eugenio Pacelli, Rome's late redoubtable Playboy who refused to stand up for his rights, also, in 1945 and claim the Italian Villa he had Mrs. T. Whitney Blake of Katonah build for him on Taconic Road. (Eugenio really, was scared.)

(Well, he thought all the loopholes had been plugged.) (Didn't he have a smart cookie like Ray Baldwin working for him?) (How could there be a smash-up!) (Eugenio knew Americans are dumb and naive; they believe anything you tell them.) (ha! ha!) (Boys can be so over-confident!) (The last thing they expected was our demand for a Referendum.)

So then what happened.

Lord Rothschild stepped in, to see what he could do in picking up the pieces! "If they demand a Referendum again," he said to himself, "I'll be ready for them! I will have MY people owning all the property in Greenwich!" And is Uncle Rotty busy in the real estate business!

What Rothschild has to do, is wait until everybody is dead, who remembers Ray Baldwin's mad dash over North Street and Taconic Road (he was our Governor at the time), escorting Anton Gavrilovic and the Chink and Dr. Angel of Colombia, South America, and the two Britishers how nice they would have it, here in Greenwich, as Rothschild's fronts! This bunch comprised his U. N. Site Committee. Even in 1969 the new generation does not remember what Greenwich went through in 1945. It was ghastly!

Anton, now running a ladies' lingerie shop on upper Broadway, was Lord Rothschild's choice for "Chairman" of his Site Committee. He is a Yugo-Slav. In an interview with a Greenwich Time reporter he was quoted as saying, "De roads in dis country are so goot! No mud." Anton was all set to like it here very much. We even have paved roads.

So we girls want Rothschild and Lew, his flunkey, thrown out of Conyers Farm so we can go in there and put up our Spa. Our Spa will be for both Democrats and Republicans. It is for the good of the State of Connecticut, not for those foreigners who want to take us over. Senator Florence Finney understands this perfectly and she will make the Resolution. The rest of you must stand by her.

May there be many more Spas, similar to ours, when our pilot project is completed!

Faithfully yours,

Esther Hamilton Dunlap, President of
REFORMED ILLUMINATI GROUP
(photograph enclosed for your study)

Photo of Illuminati

[10]

For 7 years The Councilor has tried to get a photograph of top leaders of the Illuminati secret society in session. We have just obtained this 51-year-old photograph which seems to include most of the top members of the Bavarian organization then living in the United States.

Persons in this photograph financed the civil rights movement, the Russian revolution, much of the U.S. movie and radio industries and major

political parties. They authored the graduated income tax and the federal reserve system.

Most of the persons in this photograph are children or grandchildren of Illuminati leaders who were active in the Red Revolution of 1948 in Europe, and some of them, like Cyrus Adler, were kinsmen of Karl Marx.

Children of persons in this photograph are presently leaders of the civil rights movement, tax-free foundations and the Republican and Democratic parties.

These statements may sound wild, but they are true.

KISSINGER, HENRY A./D*

Dear Ed:

Many thanks for your letter of October 4. It
was good to hear from you again and the only
reason for my delay in writing back must not
be self-evident.

I was interested to learn what you are doing
and am tempted by your invitation to escape to
Florida. At this point, any kind of escape is
impossible, but I will keep your offer in mind
for some less frantic time to come.

Please stay in touch.

Mr. Edward J. Dunn, Jr.
Federal Bureau of Investigation
3801 Biscayne Boulevard
Miami, Florida 33137

10/30/72

October 4, 1972

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs
Executive Offices
The White House
Washington, D. C.

Dear Henry,

This is a note from the past to let you know
that Ed Dunn is alive and well in Miami, Florida. I've
forsaken the Red Menace to combat organized crime down
here - a fact that does not exactly strike terror in
the hearts of the surviving Mafiosi; however, the
climate is more amenable to someone of my present age
and disposition.

I follow your various peregrinations with
amazement and, of course, admiration. I do wish you well
in your endeavors which at times, I'm sure, must be
perplexing to say the least.

Should you find you need a respite from Mount
Olympus (or Key Biscayne) I would be delighted to hear
from you, and will stand at the ready with a few extra
dry restoratives over ice which I'm sure we both could
stand at proper and appropriate intervals.

I presently live at 8385 S.W. 158th Street,
Miami, Florida 33157, telephone 235-2797; and I am
constantly available through the FBI Office of Miami,
telephone 573-3333. In any event, you may be certain of
my continued support of your efforts since I have been
aware, for a considerable period of time, of the efficacy
of your abilities and foresight. Again, should you have
the time, I would be delighted to hear from you.

With best wishes for your continued success, and
kindest personal regards.

EDWARD J. DUNN, JR.

23002
Brookfield, Wisconsin
2942 Santa Maris Drive
Miss Kelly Duane

Henry A. Kissing
Personal Secretary to
Julienne L. Piness

Sincerely,

exact information for your school paper.
I am sorry not to be able to give you more

definite personal plans too far in advance.
Ily unexpected that he never can afford to make
mances of his work are so numerous and frequent
end of December. As you surely know, the de-
to say at this time what he will be doing in the
Unfortunately, it is difficult for Mr. Kissing
holiday plans in your school project.

was blessed that you wanted to include his
response to your letter of November 19. He
Mr. Kissing asked me to write to you in

Dear Kelly:

November 23, 1975

KISSINGER, HENRY V.

Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen · 6500 Mainz · Postfach 46

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
Washington, D. C. 20500

Attn: Mr. Coleman Hicks

Ihr Zeichen und Tag

Unser Zeichen

Tel.-Nebenstelle

Mainz, den

Dear Dr. Kissinger,

In a recent telephone conversation between Mr. David Polland and Mr. Coleman Hicks, concerning the Zweites Deutsches Fernsehen program "The VIP Show", it was suggested I contact you directly about the possibilities for you to appear on this program sometime during the latter part of this month.

"The VIP Show" is a bi-monthly hour special in color and shown at prime time in West Germany, Austria, Switzerland and Sweden. It is composed of filmed interviews and picture stories of world renowned personalities, usually in their own personal surroundings, and has an audience of 30 million viewers.

The filming for the program normally takes from one to two hours. The allotted time to each celebrity on the program varies from ten to thirty minutes, depending on the type of interview and its locale. Questions may be submitted in advance. Answers may be in the language of your choice. The topics are always of a cultural or social nature and are never political. During the past emissions we have had a varied spectrum of guests, which have included: Prince Bernhard, Prince Philip, Mrs. Rose Kennedy, the Vicomtesse de Ribes, John Wayne, Charleton Heston, Andy Williams, Simone de Beauvoir, etc. I am enclosing a recent clipping to give you some graphic idea of the program format.

My German staff and crew for this program will be in American between 16-27 March. It would be a great honor to have you participate in "The VIP Show" at your convenience and at some appropriate locale and time of your choice. We believe your appearance would be of particular interest to the peoples of Central Europe, who have a great interest in your activities and the contributions you are making for world peace.

Thank you for your kind consideration of this request. If you should need further information, I shall be pleased to furnish it immediately.

Sincerely yours,

ZWEITES DEUTSCHES FERNSEHEN

Anstalt des öffentlichen Rechts

PROGRAMMDIREKTION

Unterhaltung

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

June 10, 1969

Dear Dr. Dupree:

I am very grateful to you for all your assistance and
attention during my visit to Providence.

I have found your paper, "The Role of Science in
the Attainment of National Goals," extremely
interesting. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in
sending it, as well as the additional material.

Please give my best to your wife and lovely daughter.

Professor A. Hunter Dupree
Department of History
× Brown University
Providence, Rhode Island 02912

AH:jm

RECEIVED

JUN 1 1 1969

CENTRAL FILES

CENTRAL FILES 3

JUN 1 1969

RECEIVED

AH:Jm

Providence, Rhode Island 02915
Brown University
Department of History
Professor A. Hunter Dupree

Henry V. Kissinger

Best regards,

sending it, as well as the additional materials.
interesting. I appreciate your thoughtfulness in
the Attainment of National Goals," "extremely
I have found your paper. "The Role of Science in
attention during my visit to Providence.

Dear Dr. Dupree:

June 10, 1969

KISSINGER, HENRY A.

BROWN UNIVERSITY Providence, Rhode Island • 02912

DEPARTMENT OF HISTORY

4 June 1969

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
The White House
Washington D.C.

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

It was a great pleasure to meet you and to see
something of you during your visit to Providence, and
I speak for many here in thanking you for making the
sacrifice of coming.

As you requested, I am enclosing a copy of the
text of the paper I gave at the University of Califor-
nia, Santa Barbara, on April 8, 1969 entitled, "The
Role of Science in the Attainment of National Goals."
I had vaguely in mind trying to get it published, but
since I usually must await the glacial processes of
the scholarly quarterlies, I have not yet arranged it.
Therefore if you have any use for any part of the
article, you have my permission to quote it or other-
wise use it at your discretion.

To explain one or two terms, for instance "exis-
tentialist university," I am enclosing also a Xerox
of an earlier article, "Two Universities in Conflict,"
*Oberlin Alumni Magazine*, vol. 63 (December, 1967),
15-18.

With all best wishes for you in your important
work,

AHD:a

A. Hunter Dupree
Department of History
Brown University
Providence, R. I. 02912

Delivered at
University of California,
Santa Barbara, 8 April 1969
Revised

THE ROLE OF SCIENCE IN THE ATTAINMENT
OF NATIONAL GOALS

That science has a role in the attainment of national goals in the United States is no recent aberration. Science and nationalism have grown up together over the last two centuries, and the institutions of American democracy, including those responsible for providing national security, have both used science and supported it continuously from the writing of the Constitution to the present. Such a statement will undoubtedly displease two major groups in our society.

One group--the scientific community--likes to think of itself as completely international and removed from any allegiance to goals set externally to themselves. The organs of the community turn out stacks of reports entitled some variant of *Basic Research and National Goals*, but they usually talk about other subjects because they see the connection between science and the nation state as both recent and ephemeral.

"The idea of governmental support of research is, forgetting the alchemists, not much more than 30 years old."¹
This not untypical ahistorical stance on the part of a scientist

✓ John Verhoogen, "Federal Support of Basic Research," National Academy of Sciences, *Basic Research and National Goals* (Washington, D.C., 1965) p. 272.

is so firmly ingrained that no amount of historical evidence
is likely to convince him that science and the government of
the United States are linked in partnership not merely for
the health of science but for the realization of the essen-
tial purposes of American democracy as well.

The other major group which can have no use for the full
government-science partnership in the American nation is the
New Left. They can see no further than the phrase, the military-
industrial complex, and they condemn it out of hand. Indeed,
their standard of truth as personal authenticity and their in-
sistence on the inhumanity of large organizations generally means
that they can condemn any connection between science and govern-
ment as tainting a pure activity with complicity in killing.
A corollary of their policies would be the dismantling of the
partnership of the government, the universities, and that part
of the industrial sector which is most thoroughly based on re-
search. Such a dismemberment appears to them as a very great
advance over the present situation and a freeing of science from
evil companions. Since the New Left, like the scientists, is
ahistorical, the argument that the partnership is built of deep
traditions in American democracy seems to them irrelevant.

Recent observers such as Alvin Weinberg have opened a con-
tinuing discussion of scientific choice as a necessary prelude
to the allocation of scarce resources for research.² Weinberg's

² Edward Shils, ed., *Criteria for Scientific Development: Public Policy and National Goals* (Cambridge, Mass., 1968).

scientific, technological, and social criteria presumably
come into play only when the money gets scarce, which means
to him in the decade of the '60's. Yet no time in American
history has the resource allocation for research had an
infinite reservoir; scientific choices on scientific, tech-
nological, and social criteria were being made long before
the vocabulary was invented.

No better example of the exercise of scientific choice
exists than the series of decisions made by Vannevar Bush and
James B. Conant and their colleagues in 1940 and 1941. They
decided to go for the exploitation of electronics and nuclear
fission. At least by implication they decided not to go for
jet aircraft and rockets. They also decided to by-pass taking
over-all responsibility for scientific choice so that they
could concentrate on weapons of possible use in World War II.
Hence the goals of a more efficient industry and a brighter
future for the people as a whole they set aside. Likewise
they de-emphasized the pursuit of basic research because of
its lack of contribution to the present conflict. They gave
full priority to the crucial period beyond which was no to-
morrow if they failed.

Having made this set of choices the leaders set up a
flexible system by which they tied those laboratories useful
to their projects, both in the universities and in industry,
to teams of individual scientists of their own personal choosing.
The institutions of peacetime were left intact but tied together

by the newly-designed instrument of the research contract.
If the leaders designed the system, the rank-and-file of the
scientific community made it work by contributing both their
brains and their enthusiasm. Even the critics of the O.S.R.D.
from the semi-Marxist left of the American Association of
Scientific Workers had as their main theme the inadequate
mobilization of scientific talent for the war effort.

The results of the O.S.R.D. system spoke for themselves
at the end of the war. The public and the scientists agreed
in accepting the proposition that a New World had dawned with
the mushroom cloud. After brooding during their confinement
over being the only humans who understood what had happened
within the confines of the Manhattan Project, the physicists
sallied forth from the laboratories to tell the world in 1945
and 1946 of the scientific revolution which had taken place.
The story they had to tell was uniquely dramatic, but they
missed the point that there had actually been no revolution
at all.

Instead, the leaders of the scientific community had
grafted an open-ended and pluralistic system of science support
onto the American political system without disturbing a single
major institution in the century-and-a-half old American
republic. The American presidency had gained a vast new power
to accomplish the purposes of the Nation. The Congress, though
left out during the war years, understood the process well
enough to appropriate more money for scientific research than

any other legislative body in history. The scientists, rather
than returning to penurious freedom, took the large sums of
money entrusted to them and built a research establishment
transcending anything that Europe or ancient Islam had ever
produced. The government largely left control of the decisions
of scientific choice in the hands of the scientists themselves.
What seemed to be decision by government was usually decision
by scientists organized on disciplinary lines and speaking for
government agencies rather than for their home institutions.
The research contract, developed by the O.S.R.D. and applied in
the postwar world to both universities and industry, opened
the way for a federalism by contract in which the barrier be-
tween the public and private sectors of the nation was signi-
ficantly altered to the advantage of both. Scientists could
work for universities on public problems. Decisions throughout
history reserved for governments alone were put out by contract
to non-governmental institutions.

Generations of socialist agitation have not accomplished
a fraction of the nationalization of any industry that took
place in the research industry in the United States. The
contract--the villain of the liberals in the late nineteenth
century as the subverter of the public interest--now became
the means of bringing the leverage of intellectual power for-
merly available only outside the government, to bear on those
public issues with which the government had to cope. If a
socialist revolution had accomplished half this program, it

would be (1) more famous than the October revolution of 1917, and (2) easily explainable in a few catch-phrases such as revolutions have always provided for the interpretations of their histories. A non-revolutionary change, on the other hand, is infinitely hard to explain because it does not break its myriad ties with the past.

The scientists of the post-World War II period knew that the non-revolution which made the new age of science possible rendered a return to the 1930's impossible. They also knew that science itself, with its long traditions and ways of proceeding known only within its own community, had changed little, but that the scale on which they now felt able to operate had changed greatly. In 1945 and 1946 they became a political movement to educate the American people to the facts of atomic energy, but quickly they learned that they did not need to go into the general political arena permanently to make their system of science support operate. Therefore they withdrew from macropolitics and concentrated on making the interrelated system work to their own advantage. They were firmly convinced that their advantage was also the advantage of science. Many of their leaders deeply believed they could serve science and the nation simultaneously. The substantive research results of the post-war era abundantly bear them out.

The interrelated system had three main parts--(1) the government, which provided the financing and presided over the decision-making process; (2) the universities, which provided

the scientists and upgraded their research facilities; and
(3) that segment of industry which, dependent on the govern-
ment as a customer for sophisticated military devices, adopted
a government-financed research way of proceeding. Most of the
industry which produces consumer goods lay outside the umbra
of the research contract and the interrelated system.

The scientific community and the government learned to
live together in this three-part system, but because no revo-
lutionary slogans were available they could not describe it
to the American people or even to themselves in realistic
terms. Therefore what was really one system seemingly broke
into two component parts: (1) basic research, which had as its
definitional principle the proposition that its results were
not useful, and (2) the military-industrial complex (to use
an anachronism), which had as its definitional principle the
proposition that the military security of the nation depended
on research. The record is abundantly clear that the scientific
community accepted responsibility for both these components.
Indeed the arguments for basic research were developed to
their highest degree of sophistication within the military
departments themselves. Scientists who argued for the freedom
and support of basic research did so essentially with the added
understanding that sometime in the future the free research
would pay off exponentially in terms of national security.
J. Robert Oppenheimer put in an appearance at the first appro-
priation hearings for the National Science Foundation not as a
physicist nor as a troubled seer but as a military expert.

Page 8

The true meaning of basic research in the interrelated
system was thus not its lack of connection with the military
goals but the government's respect for and need for the
scientific community as generators of scientific choice in the
university setting. The motto of the first director of the
National Science Foundation was: Not the government nor the
N.S.F. but the scientists themselves make science policy.

The dogma of basic research served well as a national
science policy for many years and would perhaps have con-
tinued to do so if the Cold War had never happened to impose
external criteria on the military component of the system.
Basic research and science-originated priorities failed to
answer the imperatives of the nuclear industry, that "island
of socialism" governed by the Atomic Energy Commission. Both
the peril and the hope of nuclear energy lay essentially with
those scientists, members in good standing of the scientific
community, who lived, moved and had their being in the national
laboratories and installations of the A.E.C. Basic research
as a national policy also had no place for those German enthu-
siasts for rocketry whom the military brought to the United
States after the war. They did not fit the stereotype of the
pre-war refugee scientist; indeed they represented the reverse
side of the coin of scientific choice which the allied leaders
had made for the atom and against the rocket at the beginning
of the war. They also had as their scientific goal the elabor-
ation of the Newtonian system by spacecraft propelled by non-

nuclear fuel. To physicists meanwhile penetration of the
nucleus had come to be synonymous with "real science."

The external criteria of the 1950's called for the H-bomb
and an Intercontinental Ballistic Missile. The choices of the
Soviets played a reciprocal role in the American choices, so
that by the end of the '50's the commitment to an H-bomb
arsenal, a missile delivery system, and the penetration of
space were settled national goals. Whether the choices were
"correct" in an absolute sense or not is impossible to deter-
mine. Yet the serious differences of opinion within the
scientific community and also within the military component
of the interrelated system almost never had as their issue the
validity of the system itself. The scientific community, what-
ever misgivings it might have had about some choices made about
weapons had its attention more than occupied in solidifying
and making permanent the basic research component of the system.
Not only the coming of age of the National Science Foundation
and the National Institutes of Health signalized the decade,
but in each of the armed services little N.S.F.'s devoted to
basic research maintained themselves and gave investigators
in the universities a wide variety of choice.

At the very end of his administration President Dwight D.
Eisenhower warned the nation against the military-industrial
complex. The warning may have originated from anxiety about
the segment of industry and education not dominated by the inter-
related system. Since it could hardly at the time have in-
dicated the conversion of President Eisenhower to a New Left.

position, the only real puzzle in the farewell address was:
Where did it leave the scientific community, who had stayed
with the interrelated system for twenty years without a break?

George Kistiakowsky, as Eisenhower's science advisor,
lost no time in addressing himself to the problem, presumably
calling Eisenhower's attention to the fact that, however in-
advertently, the President had hit the scientists hard, and
to expect them to remain in harness with such rewards was
unlikely.

In the farewell address on 17 January 1961 President
Eisenhower had said:

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop,
has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in
laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion,
the free university, historically the fountainhead of
free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced
a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because
of the huge costs involved, a government contract be-
comes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of elec-
tric computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars
by federal employment, project allocations, and the
power of money is ever present--and is gravely to be
regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in
respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the
equal and opposite danger that public policy could
itself become the captive of the scientific-technolo-
gical elite.³

A recent news story, which attributes the authorship of
the farewell address to Malcolm Moos, calls it Eisenhower's

³ Quoted in [Graham DuShane], "Footnote to History," *Science*, vol. 133 (10 February 1961), p. 355.

"most memorable utterance as President."⁴ No wonder Kistia-
kowsky wanted to know what the farewell address meant.
*Science* magazine on 10 February 1961 carried his statement.

I would like to comment briefly about President Eisen-
hower's reference to science and technology in his
farewell address. Several questions have been directed
to me about it, and since Mr. Eisenhower talked to me
at some length later in the week, others may be inter-
ested to know more about his views than could be de-
veloped in a short talk.

The major point, I believe, which he wanted to convey
was his conviction that the part of science which is
engaged in research for armaments purposes must never
be allowed to dominate all of science or curtail basic
research. He was concerned to see so many pages of
advertisements identifying 'science' with armaments,
asserting to the people that research means just bigger
and better missiles, etc., while very little is said
about the true nature of basic research as a cultural
endeavor and a source of advancing welfare to the people.
And he was particularly anxious that educational insti-
tutions, whose task he sees as the support of free in-
tellectual inquiry and the acquisition of new scientific
knowledge, should not concentrate on large-scale mili-
tary research and development contracts at the expense
of their true scientific endeavors.⁵

For the 1960's the subtle balance as sketched out by
Kistiakowsky involved recognition of the scientific com-
munity's commitment to the national security goal of the govern-
ment. The threat to entrap the universities into short-run
military missions, however, was to be kept in check not by an
established ceiling on the military component, but by using its
response to the missile age as a lever for increased basic research.

⁴ Robert J. Donovan, copyrighted story of Los Angeles Times News Service, *Providence Journal*, March 31, 1969.

⁵ [Graham DuShane], "Footnote to History," *Science*, vol. 133 (10 February 1961), p. 355.

Page 12

Far from being helpless and pure, basic research became a beneficiary of a surge in support for science which has few parallels. Weinberg mentions a jump from $9 to $14 billions as the increment between 1960 and 1962.⁶ This surge to opulence on the Eisenhower-Kistiakowsky formula argues for their formulation of the case for science as the most successful in our history. Again, however, the fundamental elements of the system were so obscure that they could be explained neither to the scientists nor to the American people. The National Academy of Science's *Basic Research and National Goals* (March, 1965) is a grab-bag of conflicting aphorisms rather than a reasoned defense of the system. Indeed too clear a statement of the workings of the system made the leaders of the scientific community uncomfortable. One of the effects of the *Basic Research and National Goals* was to supplant a more coherently conceived report for which the Committee on Science and Public Policy of the Academy had taken collective responsibility in 1963.

The delicate balance between the military component and basic research might have continued to produce increasing support for science and technology in an exponentially increasing scale throughout the 1960's. Most criticisms of the system in the mid-sixties were rather superficial. Although Congress was occasionally restive, many individual members were actually

⁶Alvin Weinberg, "Criteria for Scientific Choice," Shils, ed., *Criteria for Scientific Development*, p. 22.

part of the system through their committee service. Although
small universities griped, they really wished to become big
universities. Although several science administrators and
many scientists had doubts about manned space explorations,
they shrugged and allowed the choice of a manned landing on
the moon to be made without a fight if not without a whimper.
Indeed the scientific community could not maintain the
balance of the system and at the same time make a serious
and public attack on any part of it.

Then a series of shocks rocked the system. The distur-
bers were essentially four:

The rise of the existentialist university and those
affected by the whole outlook of the New Left. They did not
care to understand the balances and compromises of the system
and made no bones about attacking the military-industrial
component with tactics that were deliberately designed, not
to affect a particular choice, but to destroy the system of
making choices. The extent to which this movement was a
part of a revolt against society in general and American
society in particular is a secondary matter here. The primary
point is that the new style revolution is (1) aimed at the
organizational and communications networks rather than at
economic control, and (2) is not even designed to win completely.
Thus it can support an idealized version of research tightly
controlled for short-run social and political ends determined
by charismatic processes within dissident movements and at the

Page 14

same time hope to enjoy the level of support for basic re-
search to which the old system led them to become accustomed.
The net effect of the thrust of the New Left is to wreck the
government-university partnership at the university end.

The second disturbing factor has been the beginnings of
realization of one of the oldest dreams of science--an inter-
national community. This result came about, however, not
because nationalism fell away from the support system we have
just described. Rather the American national system has be-
come (1) world-wide in its operations. The great scientific
agencies of the government have foreign policies and state
departments of their own. (2) The American support system
is so uniquely large that the level of research on the whole
globe is determined essentially by American national scienti-
fic choice, with a consequent demand from the rest of the
world to have a voice in it. (3) The cost of the results of
scientific and technological choice are transcending even
American resources in that some projects can only come into
being with the collaboration of several nations. The logic
of this drive applies as much to the Soviets and the Americans
as it does to the Western Europeans.

(5) The third disturbing factor in the system has been a
violent perturbation in the area of the social science choice.
In the 1940's the social sciences could not absorb large sums
of money and could not produce large results. Hence the leaders
of the scientific community could pass over the problem silently,

and the social scientists had enough sense not to demand
support beyond their power of delivery. In the 1960's the
scientific horizons of the social sciences expanded con-
siderably, not necessarily in step, however, with the explo-
sive demands made under the heading of external criteria.
The federal government has inadequate mechanism and inade-
quate concepts, as do the universities, for creating a
balanced decision flow here.

The fourth disturbing factor is the complete confusion
in which the discussion of the place of the military in
American life has sunk. Vietnam has revived images which
make warfare appear as it did before World War I, an area not
compatible with the high tradition of science. Yet the
necessity of maintaining a world balance of nuclear power
still remains. The only access to the problems, much less the
answers, lies through a massive research effort maintained
permanently at a high level both of quantity of support and
of intellectual distinction. The metaphor of battle no longer
signifies adequately the institutions associated with war.
The word military has come to refer not only to a system of
force but also to systems of information and education. It
describes a set of social institutions whose structure is
parallel to that of the society from whence they emerge. As
such, the military dimension remains a challenge to the whole
scientific community at the very farthest stretch of its ca-
pability. To propose that research funds be withdrawn from

Page 16

the military and transferred over in a straight-line fashion
to pressing social problems is to misunderstand both the scope
of military research and the nature of science. Precisely
here is where the old arguments about the scientists making
science policy come alive again to foil those who consider
massive and simplistic action based on emotion-laden choices
the proper way to confront current national decisions about
science.

While widespread changes in the interrelated system are
clearly going on at present, and we shall undoubtedly see
fundamental changes both of institutions and procedure, some
instruction may be had from the non-revolutionary origin of
the government-science partnership. It was adapted to Amer-
ican democracy as it grew up, and if it remains adapted to
American democracy in-the-large as it changes, the resulting
system can be respectful of the scientific community and its
values at the same time it moves to respond to the needs of
society. Internal criteria for choice can be applied by
scientists who are in a position to judge their own problems
and opportunities, but the best source for external criteria for
scientific choice still remains the democratic institutions
of American society.

Alumnus blames recurring crises at Berkeley and other academic communities on "liberal arts tradition's loss of bearings for both scientists and humanists." The Result:

Two Universities in Conflict

By A. HUNTER DUPREE, '42

IN THE RECURRING CRISES of the Berkeley cam-
pus, everyone is aware of conflict more deeply felt
than the immediate issues warrant, but the conven-
tional division of the university community into stu-
dents, faculty, administration and outsiders fails to
explain why the various groups behave as they do.

The struggle is not within a single university but
rather between two universities in conflict. One, born
nearly a century ago and now full of years and suc-
cess, is the research university that lives in the cubed
towers of the modern campus. The other, the existen-
tialist university, has just emerged blinking in the
light from the byways of outer society, shouting high
aspirations and railing bitterly because it cannot im-
mediately appropriate the property and assets of an
institution it considers morally bankrupt.

Ironically, when the research university was young
in the late 19th century, it appealed to young people
as the home of truth and the provider of freedom.

Charles William Eliot became president of Harvard
in 1869, and T. H. Huxley, Darwin's friend and advo-
cate, spoke at the dedication of the Johns Hopkins
University in 1876. The new research university was
on its way. Daniel Coit Gilman, the first president of
Hopkins, had tried his hand in Berkeley, but he did
not find the new University of California, for all its
federal land grant, to be the right place for the kind of
advanced graduate education by research seminar
which he had in mind.

The new kind of university had its standard of
truth and even its religion in science. The quest for
knowledge through scientific research provided an
ethic and a motive which drove young people to fan-
tastic feats of dedication. This research university
had as its villain the older clergy-dominated college
which it replaced.

In vain did the conservatives protest that building

the moral character of the individual was important
and that the classics provided a common body of
knowledge for all educated men. Their orthodox re-
ligion was obscurantist in the eyes of the moderns,
and such community experiences as compulsory
chapel were the symbols of repression. Science swept
out of the laboratories and converted the rest of the
university, changing political philosophy into social
science. Even the humanities adopted the forms of
science in their research.

The American university is one of the wonders of
the modern world. It contributed significantly to the
explosion of knowledge which has transformed life in
the 20th century, and at the same time it adapted itself
to the change, living with the ever-increasing subdi-
vision of learning into specialties by allowing its own
structure to fragment into departments which are
roughly analogous to the sub-disciplines of scholarship.

It learned to choose its own personnel, the profes-
sor-investigators, on the basis of their contributions
to knowledge. The consistency with which the uni-
versity made personnel selections on the basis of re-
search was—far from being an evil—the main instru-
ment for giving unity and coherence to an institution
which could no longer look for a reflection of all
knowledge in each individual professor or transmit
a precis of universal learning to the individual stud nt.

The American university succeeded beyond the
wildest imaginings of its early advocates. The investi-
gator who had a good idea eventually began to get the
support he needed to go further, and society at large
began to feel that research was a good investment.
Because the return was seldom precisely that envisaged
either by the investigator or by the public, a constant
effort to defend the integrity of the process went on,
both to keep society from imposing short-term goals
and to keep the very success of research in meeting

continued

DECEMBER 1967

15

Universities in Conflict (cont.)

the demands of society from overloading the institu-
tions.

Two other characteristics of the research university
which are lost in the continuous praise of science,
however, must also receive emphasis. In the first
place, the governance of the university evolved from
American colonial roots and had many features in tune
with the natural-rights, democratic, representative
philosophy which makes up the bulk of the American
political tradition. The authority of trustees and presi-
dents derived through grants of power from the pos-
sessors of authority in a democratic society, and the
deblegation carried with it a vast network of consent
and obligations which gave the American university
a moral base in the secular political traditions of the
nation.

In the second place, the research university always included, as a heritage from the past and also as a continuing social function, the ideal of a liberal education. The liberal arts colleges (either separate or inside a big university) cut away from their religious orientation but continued, even though secular, to provide an education focused upon the culture of the individual student rather than upon the manpower needs of the nation. At some private universities the liberal arts tradition continued strong in their colleges, and some of the early land-grant universities (the University of Nebraska as it appears in the novels of Willa Cather comes to mind) had about them a heady spirit of freedom and high culture.

World War II and the period following it intro-
duced major perturbations in the balance of forces

within the American university. Both research and
education became big business, and numbers of stu-
dents and dollars began to shift the typical university
experience away from a strong liberal arts orientation.
The research potential of the universities rightly be-
came recognized as a national asset so vital to all oper-
ations of the government and the economy that the
institutions could not be safely left to the chance of
capricious private donors for support.

The scientist-investigator became a man with heavy
and conflicting responsibilities. He still liked to think
of himself as the free individual sitting in his garret
choosing his own problems, but increasingly he lived
as an administrator even of his own experiments and
graduate students. For many people down the line,
the hope of becoming a free spirit at the head of the
research team became an impossible dream as they
faced the reality of a routine career in a large labora-
tory. As the liberal arts tradition for both scientist
and humanist lost its bearings, increasing numbers of
them lost their morale, some while students, others
later on. The way was opened for an ideal hostile to
the research university and based on entirely differ-
ent philosophical presuppositions.

The existentialist university grew up among those
intellectuals who felt excluded, rejected, or dullened
by the research university. Their quest in the midst
of the disciplines and specializations was for identity,
for individual fulfillment, for escape from the lives of
quiet desperation proffered by the power structure.

They had their own measure of truth contained
within themselves in their own drive for personal
authenticity. Since truth was thus internal, the so-
ciety which hemmed them in was in itself a cheat and
its every demand a hypocrisy. The rationality of both
science and the American political tradition is not
merely arid and distorting; it simply has no meaning.

These outcasts felt themselves spectators, not ex-
istential participants, in the intellectual life of the
research university. Mostly the existentialist univer-
sity developed in intellectual centers not formally a
part of the campus. No wonder the "non-student"
problem has remained insoluble by simple logic. Add
to North Beach the freedom schools of Mississippi,
some pacifists who had been underground since Pearl
Harbor, some Communists who had been underground
since the McCarthy era, some anarchists who had
been underground since the Wobblies folded, and the
style of the existentialist university begins to emerge.

A striking phenomenon in Berkeley, particularly in
1964, was the excitement among religious leaders,
and especially campus ministers, as they talked with
the leaders of the Free Speech Movement. They had
been reading Kierkegaard and Bonhoeffer and Tillich
and Richard Niebuhr and Reinhold Niebuhr in the
seminaries for years, yet the research university had
relegated them both physically and intellectually to
the fringes of the university community.

Not only did the leaders of the FSM describe an

OBERLIN ALUMNI MAGAZINE

existentialist university with burning eloquence; they seemed to the theologians to be fellow outcasts. The ministers felt they saw happening in the Plaza what they had been discussing in their own cells for years.

The quest for personal authenticity became a cornerstone of the new program in which thought and action merged into one. Political activism brought a mission, an involvement in society, which the ministers recognized as kin to their own desire for active witness in place of study.

Can one imagine—and some have felt that they have seen—in the moral aspirations of the existentialist university the dawn of a new day? The fervor, the release of individual creativity, the religious zeal of the new crusade has undeniable charm. Many young people feel the attraction of the “charismatic” leaders even when denying that they individually are in any way connected with left-wing radicalism.

This charm makes many of them flock to the Plaza, hold up their hands in mock votes for strikes, sit-in in Sproul Hall, and yearn for some kind of mystical communication with their teachers. The charm makes many of the religiously inclined overlook the disregard for truth, the distortion of plain fact, and the blatant character assassination practiced by the leaders. It makes bishops insult chancellors. If the movement has even a fraction of the virtue its followers believe it to possess, a dialog between the research university and the existentialist university might be productive of much insight into the problems of the modern world and into how the individual can cope with them.

What has actually happened in Berkeley, however, has belied that bright promise. The existentialist university, while decrying hypocrisy in others, has put

forward an absolutely unrealizable program for itself. Far from retiring into the wilderness and donning the rags of poverty, the leaders have demanded possession of the buildings and facilities of the research university without even promising to give society a receipt.

Indeed, the leaders are so certain of the truth of their own insights that they are almost anxious to guarantee to society that they will use the seized facilities as a sanctuary from which they sortie into society for serious and direct involvement in active affairs. Most of the time the leaders are so busy with pushing their own certainty to the point of totalitarian intolerance that they forget about the restoration of the individual and the free intellectual life of their proposed university.

Their few attempts at reverence—Joan Baez singing the Lord's Prayer—edge close to blasphemy when surrounded by endlessly reiterated anger and mistrust. The existentialists from the seminaries should give careful thought to the possibility that the leaders hate the university more than the church only because the latter is so weak.

Unfortunately the research university has supinely allowed itself to be tarred with the charge of immorality. Its defenders even heighten the impression by arguing that reprisals from society in the form of decreased appropriations are sure to come if the students do not behave. Such an admission of monetary corruption only makes it impossible for the defenders to argue the essential integrity of the research university.

Yet rationality is one of the better measures of truth even in a mixed-up world. The governance of universities is consistent with the delegation of author-continued

"During the reunion of the Class of 1942 I found myself doing more talking than the memory of my rather quiet career as an undergraduate might seem to call for." With these words Hunter Dupree described his thoughts at the conclusion of last June's Oberlin Commencement when he marked the 25th anniversary of his own graduation.

Surprised at the interest shown by his classmates in his opinion of recent events at Berkeley, he suggested that perhaps others in the Oberlin family might be interested in reading "Two Universities in Conflict" which had been published in California earlier this year. He said he would be glad to have Oberlin Alumni Magazine's audience discuss his point of view "even if only to refute it."

The article originally ran in

"Humanity," a magazine published in Berkeley by the Pacific School of Religion for the National Association of College and University Chaplains and the Association of Campus and University Ministers, Methodist Church. Dr. Charles McCoy, editor, kindly has given permission to reprint the article along with the cartoon by Roy Mumme.

In a later issue we plan to include Mr. Dupree's thoughts on "Will Oberlin Go the Way of Berkeley?"

The author of these articles was a member of the Berkeley faculty from 1956 until last June and was closely associated with events there long before the beginning of the crisis in 1964. He was an assistant to the chancelor from 1960 to 1962 and since then has been professor of history.

Fabian Bachrach

### A. Hunter Dupree, '42

This year he is in residence at Stanford's Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences. Next July he will become George L. Littlefield professor of American History at Brown University.

DECEMBER 1967

17

ity in a democracy and is part of the American political tradition. Indeed there is danger of totalitarianism when any group demands and thinks it can get a blank check from society. Furthermore, the American university tradition has never completely lost sight of the ideal of a liberal education, and reforms should consist in recovering its essence, not in destroying its sheltered atmosphere through half-thinking activism.

An informed debate on the relations of the liberal

arts college, the research university, and the existen-
tialist university would be a boon to American society
if carried on honestly. The present atmosphere in
Berkeley has stifled such a debate. Only when an open
case can again be made for all three types, only when
the community trusts itself to hear all the cases and
judge them fearlessly, can confidence return.

Copyright © 1967, Humanity
Reprinted by Permission

5 Faculty Members Study under GLCA Grants

NEW WAYS of analyzing the classics, appreciating Chinese literature, and studying poetry are among the projects five Oberlin faculty members are undertaking this year. The projects are sponsored by the Humanities Program of the 12-member Great Lakes Colleges Association.

The professors are among 44 who
received grants totaling $57,023 in
the second round awards under the
program. The grants, which go to
faculty members of the GLCA col-
leges, are intended to encourage
creative scholarship and original
production in the humanities.
Grants to Oberlin professors this
year total $5,574.

Nathan A. Greenberg, associate professor of classics, received $1,000 to detect repeated thematic elements in Virgil, using Oberlin's IBM computer. In earlier tests using the computer, results indicated a lack of

conscious metrical patterning in
Virgil's "Aeneid."

William F. McNaughton, assistant professor of Chinese, was awarded a grant of $1,600 to gather materials which will help his students develop a critical sensitivity to Chinese literature. Such materials would include musical settings for poems, dramatic and choreographic work based on the literature, filmed novels and short stories.

While on leave this year, Donald Swearer of the religion department is making slides and tapes in Ceylon, Thailand and Japan which will make Asian religions more meaningful to American students. He will also make the material available to other GLCA colleges and the Oberlin audio-visual center. He has a grant of $900.

Warren Taylor, professor of Eng-
lish, received $225 for travel ex-
penses of the Oberlin Poetry Trio

which will present a program on
Chinese poetry and painting at sev-
eral GLCA colleges in 1967-68. Trio
members include Mr. Taylor, Simon
Barenbaum of the French depart-
ment, and Mr. McNaughton.

Charles B. Teske, assistant professor of English, used his grant of $1,859 to prepare and conduct an experimental poetry course in which students in Oberlin's Summer Honors College studied poetry by listening to recorded performances rather than working in textbooks. The experiment determined the value of approaching poetry as an auditory phenomenon.

The GLCA Humanities Program is supported by an $180,000 Carnegie Corporation grant which underwrites 90 percent of the program the first year, 80 percent the second year, and 70 percent the third year. GLCA members make up the balance.

Of the GLCA colleges receiving
awards for 1967-68, Earlham re-
ceived eight; DePauw, six; Albion,

Exhibition Schedule, Allen Art Museum

Nov. 6-27—The drawings of Yves Tanguy (Museum of Modern Art).

Nov. 6-27—Seventeen Prints by Schongauer, Durer and Rembrandt (recent gifts of the Max Kade Foundation to Oberlin).

Dec. 11-20—Photographs by Robert Frank (George Eastman House, Rochester, New York).

Dec. 9-20—Le Corbusier; Photographs, Documents, Plans (French Embassy).

Jan. 4-25—Painters for the Theater; works by Picasso, Larionev, Bonnard, Munch, Dine, and Red Grooms. (Museum of Modern Art).

January—Exhibition of Old Master Prints (Max Kade Foundation).

Feb. 5-28—Contemporary Photographers II (George Eastman House, Rochester).

Feb. 17-March 10—Early Chicago Architecture; Photographs (Smithsonian Institution).

April 4-25—40 under 40; Fifty-four photographs illustrating work of 40 young architects. (American Federation of Arts).

April 17-May 12—Three Young Americans (Biennial Loan Exhibition).

May 19-June 10—Faculty Show; works by Paul Arnold, Royce Dendler, Christopher Muhlert and Forbes Whiteside.

YEARBOOKS AVAILABLE

Extra copies of the 1967
Oberlin College Yearbook are
available for $7.50 plus 50¢ for
mailing costs. Please send or-
ders to the HI-O-HI, Wilder
Hall, Oberlin, Ohio 44074.

Denison, and Oberlin, five each; An-
tioch, Ohio Wesleyan, and Wooster,
four each; Hope, Kenyon, and Wa-
bash, one each. Royce Dendler, in-
structor in sculpture, was the only
Oberlin faculty member to receive
such a grant in 1966-67, the first
year of the awards.
►►

18

OBERLIN ALUMNI MAGAZINE

Berlin Television System
GmbH & Co KG
Studios 1000 Berlin 51
Hausotterstraße 36
Fernsprecher \* 49 22 01
Telex-Nr. 1-81 717

BTS
Manfred Durniok Gruppe

Neue Rufnummer:
49 1 80 45

Telex: 1-81-717

Prof. Henry A. Kissinger
THE WHITE HOUSE
Washington
Washington D. C.
U. S. A.

26-1-1973

Dear Professor Kissinger,

May I extend my sincerest congratulations to your success in the serious problem of finding a solution for the Vietnam crisis.

Since the days as a member of the Harvard class of 1959 when your lectures were the most thrilling ones I always wanted to do something again for the United States.

Since I feel that the image of this great country is also in Western Germany not anymore the best one I would like to suggest to produce a series of maybe six 45 minutes documentary films to present them on West German television with the assistance of U. S. I. S.

- 2 -

BTS (w)

- 2 -

I would like to start this series if possible with a film called THE WHITE HOUSE. The second subject could be - to present the best of American education - Harvard University.

The third subject could be WALL STREET to present the actual effective economical back ground of American industry and economy. The fourth subject could be either the JOHN F. KENNEDY CENTER for the performing arts in Washington or the LINCOLN CENTER of New York city.

The fifth subject should be a portrait of a small community in America's Mid West to give a better understanding for an European audience what the President meant with the "silent majority" of the U.S.A. and another subject could be including NASA material - a film called ON THE MOON to show with yet unknown film material what the U.S.A. have done in space research.

Finally I would like to ask you if you see a chance that I produce a film under the working title "24 HOURS IN THE LIFE OF HENRY KISSINGER" which of course would mean that the film would not be shown before you have seen it and authorized it to be shown.

Since the days of Harvard I have produced more than 300 films literally around the world and have won many prices for these productions. I have also produced a film about President Nixon's last visit to Berlin which you might have seen.

I think that after the settlement in Vietnam it is now the time to start to present the U.S.A. abroad in much more positive ways than it has been done until now.

- 3 -

The Washington Journalism Center

2401 VIRGINIA AVENUE, N.W., WASHINGTON, D.C. 20037 • PHONE 338-4100

JULIUS DUSCHA, Director
ARCH PARSONS, Associate Director

LAWRENCE E. LAY
Director of Corporate Affairs

ARTHUR V
President, WA

HURST R.
Honorary Channelton

FRANK
Publisher, Norfolk Press

D. TENNA
Publisher, Richmond Times

RICHARD
Chief Washington Correspondent

ARTHUR S.
Chairman, White House

KEITH
Assistant General Manager

GEORGI
Chairman, American Institute of Public Opinion

HENRY GEMMILL
Editor, The National Observer

MRS. PHILIP L. GRAHAM
President, Washington Post Company

LEE HILLS
Executive Editor, Knight Newspapers

JOHN H. JOHNSON
President, Johnson Publishing Company

W. M. KIPLINGER, First Chairman
(1891-1967)

December 23, 1971

Dr. Henry A. Kissinger
Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20500

Dear Dr. Kissinger:

The Washington Journalism Center is sponsoring a Conference for Journalists on China in 1972. We wish to invite you to lead a discussion session at the conference, which will be held in Washington from January 23 through 26, 1971.

Editors, editorial writers and reporters from throughout the United States will be attending the conference. The sessions will be held at the Sterling Institute, a conference facility located in the Watergate Office Building, 2600 Virginia Avenue, N.W. The tentative program is enclosed.

The Conference on China is the third in a series sponsored by the Center to help develop among journalists a broader understanding of issues in the news. The subjects of the previous conferences were the national economy and problems of crime and justice in the United States.

Discussion leaders at the forthcoming conference will provide a full range of views on China and will include representatives from the executive and legislative branches of the United States government as well as specialists on Chinese affairs from the academic and diplomatic communities.