PROFESSORS WHO PLAY POLITICS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00965R000807410001-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: January 11, 2012
• Sequence Number: 1
• Publication Date: May 7, 1987
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

STAT -
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/11: CIA-RDP90-00965R000807410001-4
WASHINGTON POST
ARTICLE APPEARED 7 May 1987
ON PAGE A -am', -
George F. Will
Professors Who Play
Politics
h
Aron professors play politics, the bitterness is
often inversely proportional to the stakes. That
was the case when some scientists recently
denied Prof. ,SamgelHuntiparpp. of Harvard
e s
mershop m the National Academy of
ACtdally, Huntington's vocation, properly pur-
sued, makes him unsuited to the academy as it
evidently wants to be understood And his civic
virtue would make him uncomfortable in the
academy as it is currently composed.
Huntington is a distinguished political sci-
entist who has served several presidents in
national-security capacities, and his critics say
he has committed other sins too. He and a
colleague recently published a scholarly arti-
cle, "Dead Dictators and Rioting Mobs: Does
the Demise of Authoritarian Rulers Lead to
Political Instability," and did not note that the
CIA helped fund the research. A scandal, no?
No. The CIA had a rule (now modified) against
acknowledgment of support. The CIA has good
reasons for not advertising its interests, and there
are people eager to infer that if the CIA is
interested in the consequences of dictators'
deaths, it is interested in causing such deaths.
This article, as well as his support for the
Vietnam War an his "conservatism" (he is a -
Hubert Humphrey Democrat) were important
catalysts of opposition within the academy. How-
ever, there also was the argument that "soft"
scientists (social scientists such as political scien-
tists) do not belong in the academy with "hard"
scientists such as physicists and mathematicians.
It is reasonable to suspect this argument was
in part a cloak for political opposition, given that
there are 177 social scientists among the acade-
my's 1,462 members. opposition to Huntington
was led by a passionate left-wing mathematician
whose criticisms of Huntington's mathematical
methodology were refuted by Herbert Simon, a
Nobel laureate in economics.
Were Huntington's "hard" science oppo-
nents really interested in distinguishing them-
selves from social scientists, their position
might be supported by some political scientis
(including one lapsed professor of political
science: me). Many political scientists do
frame their research so the results can be
reduced to arithmetic expressions that suggest
explanatory or predictive powers comparable
to the laws of physics or other generalizations
of the natural sciences.
Prof. Allan Bloom of the University of Chicago
rightly says the issue is whether this leads to
distortions of social phenomena, or the peglect of
p
enomena that cannot be mathematized, or the
construction of mathematical models unrelated
to the real world. Political science is divided
between those who are enthusiasts of science
and those who are interested in politics.
Many "behavioral" approaches are political
science with a political agenda, albeit one
understood dimly, if at all, by most practition-
ers. Behavioralism aims to explain the political
order in terms of nonpolitical causes (econom-
ic, psychological or others), rather than the
core concerns of political philosophy-convic-
tions about and desires for freedom, equality,
honor, distinction, justice.
Contemporary political science is a tossed
salad of psychology, sociology, economics, de-
rision theory. And over in a quiet corner is
political philosophy-the contemplative life that
is political science as Aristotle understood it.
Political philosophy, properly undertaken, is
political because its subject is law-giving to
achieve justice. It is science in that it involves
the incorporation of empirical findings to facil-
itate the achievement of proper goals.
However, much modern political science is
different, and its aim and the aim of modern
politics coincide.
The aim of modern politics, from Machiavelli
on, has been to simplify politics by orienting A.
away from ideals of excellence and nobility, to low
but solid passions and goals. Modem politics
conceives of man not as a political creature
fulfilled by life in a well-ordered polity, but as a
solitary "self," and it aims only to regulate
selfishness. If selfishness always is-or can be
encouraged to be-a constant powerful force, like
planetary gravity, then a science of politics, com-
parable to Newtonian physics, is achievable.
Huntington, a political scientist who under-
stands the irreducibly philosophical nature of
his vocation, should be content to leave the
academy to the "hard" scientists whose
vocations, although dignified, are different.
However the academy, by the undignified po-
litical bigotry that was a component of its
action against Huntington, calls into question
its fitness, and that of its subordinate organi-
zation, the National Research Council, to re-
ceive public funds for research projects that
result in advice on public policies.
The academy was founded during the Civil War
to advise the government in military-engineering
problems. Since then, there seems to have devel-
oped an inverse relationship between the techni-
cal virtuosity and civic virtue of the scientists
controlling the academy. _
Declassified in Part - Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2012/01/11: CIA-RDP90-00965R000807410001-4