Document Type: 
Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): 
Release Decision: 
Original Classification: 
Document Page Count: 
Document Creation Date: 
December 16, 2016
Document Release Date: 
June 3, 2005
Sequence Number: 
Case Number: 
Publication Date: 
June 7, 1976
Content Type: 
PDF icon CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4.pdf2.31 MB
kon-linisIrative - I larmai Use P11' Approved Foi el se 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 NW N"Wr 7 June 1976 MEMORANDUM FOR: See Distribution SUBJECT . 25 June AAUP Annual Meeting and the Offer of Mr, Baldwin to be Helpful at Same (Attached) 1. I phoned Mr. Baldwin this morning to say that we do not have a Van Alstyne letter dated 24 May. You will note that Mr. Baldwin will appear on the panel re CIA/FBI.. He told me it is alluded to in an AAUP newsletter which, he is sending along for Mr. Bush. He went on to say that he wished to be as helpful as possible and would welcome any supporting material or ideas. He also advised that he is a law professor at the University of Wisconsin on loan to the Department and will be returning there in the near future. 2. I expressed appreciation on behalf of Mr. Bush and advised that we would be back in touch with him. Please give me any thoughts you may have for DCI review. Attachment B. C. Evans Executive Secretary STAT STAT Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 June 1, 1976 Approve 6ooelease 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79A "044001100010014 Mr. George Bush Director Central Intelligence Agency Washington, D.C. 20505 Dear Mr. Bush, Executive Registry f46-095 I write as a member of the National Council of the American Association of University Professors and because I have been reading correspondence between its President, William Van Alstyne, and you. Van Alstyne's letter cif May 24 ends_by rPfPrrinq panel discussion on June 25 at the annual meeting on the CIA and FBI covert activities on campuses. I have been assigned the task of appearing on that panel. Your good letter to Van Alstyne of May 11 would, I think, satisfy a great many of us, but obviously Mr. Van Alstyne puts more faith in the generalities of the Church Committee's report than upon your forthright comments. I note that you offer to meet with Mr. Vann,-. syne, and I do hope that you will pursue this, (icspite his rebuff. I deeply believe that your Agency must profit from the competence of the American academic community, and I write simply to express my sympathy and to state that not all officers in the AAUP necessarily agree with its President. Sincerely, ordon B. Baldwin ounselor on International Law Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 Approved Fir;Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79 10 7A001100010014- June 9, 1976 Dear Mr. Baldwin, I Just can't tell you how much a number of us here appreciate your warm letter of June 1st. We are indeed greatly indebted to the academic com- munity in our continuing efforts to provide policymakers with the most sophisticated interpretation of foreign events possible. Sincerely, rte. George Bush Mr. Gordon B. Baldwin Counselor on International Law Department of State Washington, D.C. 20520 xQ*Ut-a. Registrx Room 7--E-12 Meadqu Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 June 7, 1976 Approved Frvr Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79MOi7A001100010q Mr. Ben Evans Executive Secretary Central Intelligence Agency Washington, D.C. 20505 O j I enclose herewith a copy of the AAUP Conference Newsletter which contains, I believe, the letter of May 24 from Van Alstyne to,Bush. It is hard for me to determine what parts of the Newsletter are actual quotes because the Association seems to be sparing in its use of quotation marks. I also enclose a draft of remarks that I may make at the National AAUP Meeting. Because I am unclear as to the precise format of the "panel discussion," it is unlikely that I would be able to deliver all nineteen pages, but I may offer these comments for publication with appropriate academic footnotes, etc., and possible revision in the AAUP Bulletin. I would, of course, be grateful for any of your comments. Sincerely, G*don B. Baldwin C nselor on International Law Professor of Law University of Wisconsin Enclosures: As stated. Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RbP79MO0467AO01100010014- "` Approved FRelease 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M0047A001100010014-4 National Meeting of AAUP Santa Barbara, California June , 1976 Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved F elease 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79MO04 7A001100010014-4 Gordon B. Baldwin Professor of Law University of Wisconsin* In obedience to the injunction about disclosing sponsors, if any, I covenant that there are none and that I am only a Professor of Law. For a one-year period just preceding the A.A.U.P. convention I served in the Department of State as Counselor on International Law. The thoughts expressed here, however, represent my views and not necessarily those of the Department of State, or of any other Government Agency. Approved For Release'72005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved .- Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M0Q07A001100010014-4 An old story illustrates the differences among a lawyer, a philosopher, and a theologian. A? philosopher is like a blind man in a dark cellar at midnight looking for a black cat that isn't there. He's distinguished from.a theologian in that the theologian finds the cat. A lawyer, however, will smuggle a cat in under his overcoat and emerge to produce the animal in triumph. If the "black cat" symbolizes CIA wrongdoing on campus, then, I believe, the Church. Committee report reveals the character of all three professions.* First, the Committee stressed what is neglected here -- that foreign intelligence gathering is vital and that in the majority of CIA's relations with academics there is no cat. Agency inquiries relating to a subject's professional competence should be encouraged, are desirable, -- the.Committee S.Rept. 94-755, Foreign and Military Intelli- gence, Books I, II,.and III, Final Report of the Select Committee to Study Governmental, Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities, 94th Cong., 2d Sess. Approved For Release:2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 2 Approved Nor Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79MDQ 67AO01100010014-4 finds -- and should not be forbidden.* Secondly, the Committee concludes that it is improper for academics to have a confidential relationship with CIA -- although some of us dispute that conclusion; and thirdly, I believe the'.Committee "imports a cat" by suggesting some wrongdoing that just wasn't there to begin with. Whatever the accuracy of the Church Committee's report of facts, we can't easily ignore their challenge: namely, that "it is primarily the responsibility of the American academic community to set the pro- fessional and ethical standards of its members."** .We should, I believe, bear two points in mind as we respond. First, the issue is what now? What standards should we follow hereafter, not simply whether or not CIA violated its mandates in the past. Second, if we establish siards they should be neutral. Professional guidelines and standards that are dependent upon whether or not an individual happens to agree with the present or past foreign policies of the United States are neither helpful, nor are they standards. * S. Rept. 94-755, Book I, pp. 189, 191. ~~ ** S. Rept. 94-755, Book I, p. 191. Approved For Release .3005/66/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 Approved r Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79MD 7A001100010014-4 Of course, we can't ignore the past -- but we don't necessarily have to reach the same con- clusions as the Church Committee, or as our distinguished President, Bill Van'Alstyne. Bill's most recent letter to George Bush* focuses upon three allega- tions of CIA wrongdoing; failure to disclose CIA "sponsorship;" CIA contracts with scholars for the publication of "propaganda;" alleged "operational" use of academics by CIA. As to the first point, the critical issue, Bill says, is that the reader of a journal should take into account whether a publication is written by someone "sponsored" by CIA. One cannot quarrel with a practice that requires a writer to acknow- ledge his employer's identify, but it is more diffi- cult to fix the writer's responsibility for noting other associations. Letter of 24 May 1976, Van Alstyne to Bush, AAUP Chapter Conference Newsletter, 26 May 1976. The first letter from Van Alstyne to Bush is in Chronicle of Higher Education, 17 May 1976,. p. 8. V Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 Approved I Release 2005/06/084 CIA-RDP79M0Q7A001100010014-4 Perhaps we could agree on a definition of "sponsorship" for purposes of deciding how to foot- note an investigator's article. I don't think it would be helpful, however, because many personal associations influence one's approach and it's manifestly impossible to list them all. Our association with the AAUP is surely open, but should those who write on constitutional law always and invariably list their membership, and degree of affiliation in a footnote? When someone writes about the abortion case, should church affiliation, .if any, or lack of it, be footnoted? That associa- tion may be more relevant to the author's conclu- sions than attendance at Yale. Or, if one writes about the proper balance between the powers of the .President and those of Congress, should the current. political affiliation of the author be revealed? What should the rules be, or should we have any at all? The answers are not self-evident. I agree, however, that knowing the sponsorship of a document helps the reader. Look, for example, .at the Church Committee's report which is contained in an awesome tf ilogy of books dribbled out to the Approved For Release-2005/b6/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 5 Approved Fdelease 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M00A001100010014-4 public, part by part. We have received about 2,000 pages in three volumes. Let us remember what we learned during the 1950's about Committee reports. They do not, however revealing, establish facts. Indeed, that is not their primary function. The fundamental purpose of a Committee Report is to further legislative purposes by gathering and dis- tributing legislative findings. Witnesses are carefully selected and screened. They are not, ~^ a^4 aS , cross-examined -- the proceedings are often a draft. The Church Committee's staff did give the executive branch opportunities to comment, and televised and are more inquisitorial than adversary. .The Church Committee's procedures seemed fairer to me than those of the Pike Committee, but still the result was one-sided. The targets of a report may, or may not, be allowed the courtesy of seeing object to parts; and the Committee did delete some material, and condense parts. Bill, properly, asks us to evaluate material in. the light of its sponsors. The Church Committee report should also be evaluated in the light of its sponsors -- who are legislators, not administrators; who are not charged with executive responsibility; and who are not obliged in their daily work to deal Approved For Release 2005106/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 Approved Felease 2005/06/08: ?IA-RDP79M0Q47A001100010014-4 with foreign allies or adversaries. Some may find it relevant that its chairman had apparently decided to become a candidate for President. Moreover, the report is almost entirely the product of its staff -- bright, mainly young, people whose conscience had been seared by their feelings about Vietnam, and probably Chile, but who were uninformed, if not uncontaminated, by knowledge of how academics have historically contributed to foreign intelli- gence gathering. Notably lacking in the report is a sense of history, and of balance. The general outline of the contributions of British academics to their nation's intelligence organizations is well-known.* The work, usually quite confidential, of Oxford and Cambridge donsfcr their intelligence services is unheralded, unremarkable, but doubtless invaluable. Most will assume that an academic is not Justified in lying about a relationship with CIA. Maybe, but the question of disclosure of an association is very complicated. I do know of situations .'Generally,-see material in Brown, A Bodyguard of Lies (1975) ; W].nter..bottom, The Ultra-Secret; Kahn, The Codebreakers; Stevenson, A Man Called Intrepid. Approved For Release_20051 6/08: CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 7 Approved RWRelease 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M0Q&7A001100010014-4 where being misleading, or engaging in prevarica- tion, may be arguably justifiable f_or?a pro- fessional. Lawyers still argue whether or not it is improper to give legal advice which will very likely tempt the client to commit perjury, or place a witness on the stand who will probably tell a lie.* Dean Freedman shows that the answer is by no means certain, and that to even suggest pro- priety risks disbarment. Should a doctor, invariably, reveal his diagnosis to his patient? Perhaps the information will be additionally harmful. I can't condemn, without facts, a physician who "lies" to his patient, nor am I wholly clear that a professor should always, under any conveivable set of cir- cumstances, tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth. I happily refrain, however tempted, from describing some of my students as dopes. Is it unethical for someone studying the possible toxic .effects of microwave radiation loosed by the Russians to seek information from reputable academic scientists on the ground that he's about to purchase .a*microwave oven? H.H. Monro, generally known as * See Freedman,"Professional Responsibility of the Criminal Defense Lawyer;'64 Mich. L. Rev. 1469 (1966). Approved For Release 2005/6/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved W Release 2005/06/08 :8CIA-RDP79M0f07A001100010014-4 Saki, wrote,entrancing short story about a talking cat, Tobermory, who always told the truth. That cat lead a wretched -- and short -- life. In.a large sense, deception is part of the game of nations. Individuals are inevitable participants, and philosophers dispute whether the rules of ethical behavior applicable to individuals can apply in the international arena. The second of the Van Alstyne complaints is that CIA contracts "with scholars for publication to be used as 'propaganda' which nonetheless. appears to be professionally detached and reliable scholarly publication." The third complaint concerns allegations that CIA makes "operational use" of academics in a "covert" fashion. The Director of Central Intelligence takes issue with the thrust of all these allegations in a letter of May 11th. "None of the relationships [with CIA]," says Mr. Bush, "are intended to influ- scholar's work. We specifically do not try to inhibit the 'free search for. truth and its free ence what is taught or any other aspect of a exposition.'"k * Letter of 11??Ma11uyl 1976, ~AAUP Chapter Conference Approved For I elease'2005 :_IA Rfl~~M0046lA001100010014-4 Approved FRelease 2005/06/08 : ZIA-RDP79M07A001100010014-4 Neither Bill, nor the Committee, seem to find this assurance comforting. Bill asks for a blanket assurance from the Agency that it will not employ any academics for "covert" operations. Central to the Church Committee's report is its distinction between open and clandestine rela- tions. Broadly, the Committee believes that the .independence and integrity of an educational program are endangered per se by secret relationships. I'm not sure why. If, for example, a'local real estate dealer hired a business. school professor to study -the feasibility of a shopping center on a particular piece of land, should the identity of the, undisclosed principle make an ethical difference to the academic: Woolworth, Penney, Sears, CIA, or an Arab prince? Would it make an ethical difference if the dealer's real objective were a factory, or some other use? The. problem of when a confidential relationship is in the public interest deserves deeper thought than the Committee gives it. "Parenthetically, I emphasis that all contacts between the Department of State's intelligence branch and the academic community are open -- the Department wants it that way. Funding sources are always disclosed, and a consultant or contractor Approved For Release-200506/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100610014-4 10 Apprpved Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M0Qg7A001100010014-4 with the Department is not deceived. I made inquiries about this and was firmly urged to emphasize the openness with which the Department proceeds. Ordinarily, if time allows, requests for-bids are advertised, but the Department also invites those with research ideas to submit them. Its budget is small,-unfortunately, but the Depart- ment's interests are so wide ranged that Iurge anyone with foreign policy, or foreign area inter- ests, to consider approaching the Department for support. Surely there is a valid distinction between .performing research and being "operational" -- the edges are clear but the line between them is not sharp nor self-defining. Perhaps the Committee realized this in admitting that "it does not recom-. mend a legislative prohibition on the operational exploitation of individuals in private institutions by the intelligence agencies. The Committee views such legislation as both unenforceable and in itself an intrusion on the privacy and integrity of the American academic community."* The Committee, therefore, does not resolve the appropriateness of * p. 191. Approved For Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 11 Approver Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79MW67A001100010014-4 an individual academic's decision to offer assistance to the CIA, or another intelligence agency, voluntarily without disclosing his offer to the public generally, or to his dean or a department specifically. The Committee does recomend, without giving its reasons, that the CIA's internal directives "require that individual academics used for operational purposes by the CIA, together with the President or equivalent official of the relevant academic institution, be informed of the clandestine ...CIA relationship." I find this provision curious and also raising questions of academic independence. Should a professor who agrees during his summer "vacation to write a report on the geology of Central Asia for the CIA be obliged to tell the President of the university of his "employer," his-- t ravels, and about his work? Ordinarily Presidents and Chancellors are not concerned with-such specifics. We generally applaud an administration that leaves us alone and sees that the budget is balanced and classes are taught; nor can we pro- perly object if we're asked to give a full day's work for a day's pay. Should universities issue rulings limiting, or regulating, the contacts of academics with the CIA? Of course, some institutions Approved For Release-2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 12 Approve r Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79MW67AO01100010014-4. decide not to undertake classified research -- that's a different problem, but a blanket rule would raise serious questions of impairing free association. The Committee's uncertainty about recommending legislation may partly be attributed to some doubt as to whether or not it is a federal function to set ethical and professional standards. Is Con- gress authorized to tell us when we may not decide- to have a confidential relationship with the government? Furthermore, can we assuredly say it is never in the government's interests to employ confidential agents? Presidents of the United States have repeatedly employed secret agents, and the Supreme Court one hundred years ago upheld their employment without statutory authorization as con- stitutional.* The Church Committee's discussion of the con- ?stitutional problem of regulating intelligence gathering was pitifully weak. The extent to which Congress has constitutional authority to control * Parenthetically, at least two members of the Supreme Court have had professional experience in intelligence work; Justices Powell and Stevens. Approved For Release- 2005106/08: CIA-RDP79M00467A001100610014-4 Approved apt- Release 2005/06/08 :1CIA-RDP79MW7A001100010014-4 the means of gathering it, and to require disclosure of the product is not clear. Foreign intelligence is primarily an executive department need, flowing from particular responsibilities in foreign affairs and in national defense. Several Supreme Court cases support arguments that Congressional power both to control the means and to obtain the infor- mation here is limited (Totten, Curtiss-Wright, C & S Airlines).* Federalist Paper #64 alludes to foreign intelligence, states that the President may obtain it, and decline to furnish it to Con- gress. Furthermore, international law may limit the means employed. None of these legal questions are adequately addressed by the Church Committee report -- I found its law discussion short, incom- plete, and misleading. Furthermore, the Church Com-. mittee did not cover the rich historical literature revealing state practices. These are relevant, if not decisive, in determining what international law requires. Totten v. U.S., 92 U.S. 105 (1876); U.S. V. Curtiss-Wright, 299 U.S. 304 (1936); Chicago and Southern Airlines v. Waterman S.S. Corp., 333 U.S. 103 (1948). Approved For Release--2005/b6/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved F Release 2005/06/08 : ad-RDP79M0Q,g 7A001100010014-4 The Church Committee does not, I believe, adequately understand that confidential relation- ships may be in the public interest. We are gen- erally agreed that some confidential relationships should be fostered by both the legal order and by professional/ethical standards. These include communications between husband/wife, priest/penitent, and doctor/patient. Legislators now hear requests that we create other confidential relationships; newspaper reporter/informant, for example. Recently some members of Congress expressed an interest in supporting the confidentiality of information supplied to the government by Indians. The Church Committee, however, has some misgivings about con- fidentiality as it involves intelligence gathering and the Committee. casts doubt upon the propriety of an individual's decision to assist covertly the government agency charged by the Congress and by the President with the duty of obtaining the best possible foreign intelligence. The CIA's involvement with academic institutions was listed in the Church Committee under four .categories, in which academics: Approved For Release=2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved P Release 2005/06/08 :CIA-RDP79M0Q47A001100010014-4 1. Provide leads and make introductions for intelligence purposes; 2. Collect intelligence abroad; 3. Conduct research and training which may be financed, overtly or covertly, by CIA; and 4. Are funded directly or indirectly by CIA. As to each of these four, the Committee commented briefly. First, the material relating to how academics provide leads and make introductions for intelli- gence purposes was substantially abridged in the report -- at the request of the executive branch. The primary reason was not so much to hide something about which the agencies are ashamed, but to pro- tect methods and sources, and the privacy of . individuals and institutions. I've not seen any .suggestion whatsoever that any of the leads and introductions violated state or federal law. ....Some of the questions raised here involve matters of propriety and fairness more than questions of legality. First and foremost, we have ethical obligations toward our students, and even Approved For Release-2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved Nw Release 2005/06/08: i IAA-RDP79M0Q,U7A001100010014-4 if the law requires us to speak, most of us would be uncomfortable if required to disclose a con- fidence entrusted to us by a student. Furthermore, we surely feel that we should not place one of our students in an embarrassing position. We enter here a sensitive area in which the questions are so difficult that we may be unable to make firm rules. Some of our foreign students have become, or will become, important political figures at home. Should we assist our own foreign policy makers who deal with them? What are the limits to that assistance? If one of our foreign visitors has a particularly unhappy, or striking, experience here, should that information be passed on. Of course, all. students have rights to their privacy, but all Americans share a common interest in dealing .fairly, intelligently, and effectively with foreign leaders. The Church Committee does mention extensive Soviet intelligence and espionage activity directed against the United States. Other countries also maintain agents here. The Committee notes that foreign visitors to the U.S. include intelligence agents,.secret police, and others in whom we have Approved For Release 2005\06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 17 Approved i;wr Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79ME 67A001100010014-4 some interest, and against whom we ought to protect ourselves. Statistically, we can predict that foreign agents are among our students; perhaps their duties include reporting on.their fellow- students. What should we do? Finding the balance between improper intrusions into the lives of our inhabitants, and protecting ourselves and our wards from improper foreign activity is difficult, but it is a practical problem. With respect to academics collecting intelli- gence abroad, the Church Committee called attention .to various CIA directives forbidding the operational use of anyone lecturing or studying abroad under a grant from the Board of Foreign Scholarships which administer the Fulbright-Hayes program. I can testify, as a recipient of two such grants, that I was never approached by any U.S. intelligence organization to give them my thoughts and opinions. Indeed, I felt neglected in 1967 after our family hurriedly left Egypt that I was only asked to report to our local Rotary Club. The Committee saw no: danger in "debriefing" travelers, or con- suiting with academics about their observations, while abroad. . Approved For Releaser2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved Fib Release 2005/06/08 :1IA-RDP79M0QQ,67A001100010014-4 Furthermore, under the existing rules, grantees under Ford, Rockefeller, and Carnegie programs may not be used operationally, nor may persons employed by these foundations be used. The Church Committee, however, did urge that the prohibition apply to others who were funded under other U.S.-sponsored programs. The rationale for this suggestion was fiscal, rather than ethical. For the CIA to use persons who were funded by Con- gress for non-intelligence purposes was misleading Congress. Misleading Congress may be foolish, but it is not necessarily illegal or unethical. The Church Committee's confusion of congressional and ethical issues is understandable, I suppose -- but not forgiveable. I cannot fault the Committee, however, for challenging us to reconcile our obligations as citizens, with our responsibilities as academics searching for truth. An accommodation is more difficult for us than for many of our colleagues abroad, because our country is large, powerful, and envied. Others do not necessarily wish us well, but we must deal with other nations regularly, Approved For Releaser2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved'1Wr Release 2005/06/08 :CIA-RDP79MQW67A001100010014-4 and, to the maximum extent possible, with knowledge of their interests and intentions, if we wish, ourselves, to be effective. In the long run whether or not we enjoy academic freedom depends upon our ability to defend its principles, not merely against our own government, but against,our adversaries abroad. We do a rather good job defending ourselves from our own government, but, if the Church Committee's recommendations are taken literally, will do a much poorer job defending ourselves abroad. Approved For Release- 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approved For R ea a 065/Q 4iRM 7A001100010014-4 U Approved For Release 2005/ Q8 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Routing ' Slip w,a,vrs to `zKp C ACTION INFO DATE INITIAL 1 DCI X 2 DDCI X 3 D/DCI/IC 4 S/MC 5 DDS&T 6 DDI X 7 DDA 8 DDO X 9 D/DCI/NI X 10 GC X 11 LC 12 IG 13 Compt 14 D/Pers 15 D/S 16 DTR 17 Asst/DCI X 18 AO/DCI 19 C/IPS 20 H. Kno c e x 21 CAR X 22 C /Revie Staff TO: See my note of 7 June, same subject. ycr /I- GV~ONS YU MAK'S 1 ,T AcR~Xo Y .Ei?~S 2gWUlscfb Ott- Acr 7a G Fpr,-% ' ~' 4,vy De/ hEzv_ o 6, 8, 9, 17, 21, and 22: Approved For Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79 Approv d,For Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79M0 467A001100010014-4 NO. 3 May 26, 1976 To Chapter and Conference Officers From: Joseph Duffe Pro op sals for Annual Meeting Action. Under Annual Meeting procedures, proposals relating to the internal organization and activities of the Association (as distinguished from resolutions, which are concerned with subjects of general interest) were to be submitted to the Washington Office by May 25 in order that they might be distributed to chapters and conferences for consideration in advance of the Annual Meeting. Mimeographed copies of the proposals submitted by that date are enclosed with this Chapter/Conference Letter. AAUP Legislative Da . The enclosed announcement includes full details of the activities scheduled for Thursday, June 21+. Everyone who anticipates attending the ..Annual Meeting is invited to participate in AAUP Legislative Day. Pre-registration As requested. ,2. CORRESPONDENCE WITH DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY Enclosed with the Chapter/Conference Letter of May 1u was a letter from President Van Alstyne to Director George Bush of the CIA concerning the report of the Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities. The CIA Director replied by letter of May 11 and President Van Alstyne responded by letter of May 20. The texts of these communications follow. (For the time being, the CIA's May 11 letter and President Van Alstyne's May 20 response are not being released to the press.): May 4, Van Alstyne to Bush The recent report of the Senate Select, Committee on Foreign and Military Intelligence has confirmed what was already published elsewhere: that the CIA has for.ye.ars covertly used academic institutions and employed academic persons in ways which compromise institutional and professional integrity. Universities and scholars have been paid to lie about the sources of their support, to mislead others, to induce betrayed confidences, to misstate the true objects of their interest, and to misrepresent the actual objectives of their work. In ending the practice of CIA employment of missionaries and journalists for covert operations, you have demonstrated your concern for and your willingness to protect the integrity and independence of those institutions. As national President of the American Association of University Professors, I call upon you now to provide the some guarantees against misuse and subversion for our colleges and universities so that they may be freed of the stigma of covert, and often unknowing, participation in manipulative government operations conducted by the CIA. The American-Association of University Professors espouses the professional freedom of teachers and scholars not as some peculiar entitlement of their own but as a duty that they owe to their students and to the community as a whole. For. Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 'Approve or Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79l Q467A001100010014-4 this reason, the 1940 Statement of. Princi Alec on Academic F rcar?om ard Tenure, issued jointly by the AAUP and the Associ ton o~ tm^xican_ colleges and endorsed by approximately a hundred learned and professional associations, provides: "Institutions of higher education are coi.duca.ed for the common good and not to further the interest of ether the indi?:ridual teacher or the institution as a whole. The common good depends upon the free search for truth and its free exposition." A government which corrupts its colleges and universities by making political fronts'of them has betrayed academic freedom and- compromised all who tench. When colleges and universities are made conduits of deceit and when faculty members are paid to lie, there is an end to the coim:on good of higher education. On behalf of the American Association of University Professors, I write to express nrj dismay and utter repugnance at the disregard for the integrity of insti- tutions of higher education shown by the CIA. The practice of shamelessly exploit- ing the reputation of American academics for trustworthiness, which has characterized CIA activity in the past, evidently continues today. I see no reason whatsoever why higher education should not be treated with the same.. regard.previous- ly ohown in your action ending the covert use of missionaries-and journalists by the CxA.,.:. .I ask you to.. take steps to end the exploitation of the acede.mic community and ...to disengage-the Agency frem covert activities which induce academics to betray their professional -trust. . .,The American academic community awaits the necessary forthright CIA guarantees .that .its integrity will not be further.corupromised. May 11, Bush to Van Alstyne I received your letter of May 4, 1976, concerning CIA relations with the -academic community on the same;day that you released it to the press and gave a press interview about it. The fact that you did.not await a response from me before making your letter public is some?fenat troubling' Unfortunately, your doing this could suggest to others that your purpose_is something other than the resolution of the problem you perceive. Having said that.., I firmly. *reject your allegations that CIA corrupts American "colleges and universities by making political fronts of them," that they "are made conduits of deceit" and that ."faculty. members are paid to lie." These charges.,refleet.your ignorance. of the true nature of the relationships we now have with American educational-institutions and their faculties.. To issue a statement that I am taking "steps.to end the exploitation of the academic community," as you request, would eive,credibility to. the series of erroneous assumptions and allegations in your letter.. Whatever,.you?have heard about the past, I can-.assure you that there is now no reason for the members of your 'association to fear any threat to their integrity or their high sense of purpose from'CIA. The Agency has sevej-a1 kinds of relationships with scholars.and scholarly institutions--They include negotiated contracts for scientific research-and z (2 development,i'contrac.ts for social science research.-on the many matters that affect .foreign policy paid. and. unpaid. consultations between scholars and CIA research _1 I analysts{,_1dontaets-with individuals who have travelled abroad, and other similar contacts that help us.fulfill our primary responsibility; i.e.., to provide the policy makers of our government with iuformation and assessments of forei.gn..develop- ments. We seek.the voluntary and witting cooperation of individuals who can help the foreign policy processes of the United States. Those who help are expressing a freedom of choice. Occasionally such relationships: are confidential at our request, but more often they are discreet at the schol.ar's,request.because of his concern that he will be badgered-by those:who feel he should not be free to make this particular choice. None of the relationships are intended to influence either what is taught or any other aspect of a scholar's work,, Wa specifically do not try to inhibit the Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4 Approv f or Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79AW467AO01100010014-4 "free search for truth and its free exposition." Indeed, we would be foolish to do so, for it is the truth we seek. We know that we have no monopoly on fact or on understanding, and to restrict th,.' search for the truth would be extremely, detri- mental to our owns purposes. If CIA were to isolate itself from the good counsel of the best scholars in our country, we would surely become a narrow organization that could give only inferior service to the government. The complexity of inter- national relations today recuires that our research be strong, and we intend to keep it strong by seeking the best perspectives from inside and outside the government. Your letter indicates a serious lack of confidence in people in your own profession--a view that I do not share; that is, your belief that your acade.c colleagues, including members, of your. association, would accept pay "to lie about the sources of their support, to mislead others, to induce betrayed confidences, to misstate the true objects of their interest, and to misrepresent the actual objectives of their work." It is precisely that kind of irresponsible charge that tends to drive responsible relation-,-.,hips away from openness and toward the secretiveness that you seem to abhor. Finally, Professor Van Alstyne, the seriousness of your charges demands that we find a way to:..-ard 'better understanding. Because we owe that to both our organizations, I invite you to meet with a few senior officials of this Agency for that purpose. May 24, Van Alstyne to Bush According to the Final Report of the Senate Select Committee To Study Governmental Operations with respect to Intelligence Activities (i.e., the "Church Committee"), the CIA has involved American academics and academic institutions in at least three respects which compromise their professional integrity. In addition, there are intimations in the Report in its italicized passages (which a footnote identifies as having been heavily edited "at the request of executive agencies") and a separate statement by Senators Phillip Hart, Walter Mondale, and Gary Hart suggesting still further involvement which, in the view of those Committee members, implies still other improper uses. (E.g., at p. 568 they write: "The discussion of the role of U.S. academics in the CIA's clandestine activities has been so diluted that its scope and impact on the American academic institutions is no longer clear-modified to the point where the Committee's concern about the CIA's blurring of the line between overt and covert, foreign and domestic activities, has been lost.") The three respects that appear to be evident from what was not abridged in the Report are these: a) Generally, an academic is expected to note his relation with an outside sponsor in reporting or publishing the results of his work in order to enable the reader to take that sponsorship into account. (Among law reviews, for instance, the standard rule is that an article subsidized by an interested party, or even a manuscript submitted by an attorney whose firm represents a client with an interest in the subject with which the article is concerned, must, at a minimum, disclose that relationship.). It is, of course, no answer at all that the author might himself prefer that the sponsorship not be disclosed. It is my understanding that the CIA has involved itself in this kind of unprofessional conduct. The general awareness that it is done necessarily undermines the credibility-of all published research. b) The Report speaks directly also of CIA contracting with scholars for publication to be used as "propaganda" which nonetheless appears to be professional- ly detached and reliable scholarly publication. Of course one can readily appreciate the exploitative value of trading upon the reputation of scholarly work to induce greater readership credibility than more forthright disclosure of its sponsorship and propaganda intention. would bear. Insofar as there is a deliberate withholding of the true object of such publication, and a willful omission of disclosure that professional ethical standards would otherwise require, I believe Approved For Release 2005/06/08 : CIA-RDP79M00467AO01100010014-4 Approvor Release 2005/06/08: CIA-RDP79W467A001100010014-4 it not too strong to have described these practices as calculat