CONGRESSIONAL RECORD

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP75-00001R000100300041-9
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 9, 2016
• Document Release Date: September 13, 2000
• Sequence Number: 41
• Publication Date: May 9, 1966
• Content Type: OPEN

Approved For Release 2001/0MISO $ 1
9May196
Mr. MORSE. I know that the Senator
in his speech pointed out some of the
techniques involved in the entire subject
of literacy courses that could be con-
ducted by television and, to some extent,
even by radio or by visual aid. I think
that we should try to do that. I do not
think that we should wait to attack the
literacy problem in Latin America until
we develop the U.S. domestic aspectof
the President's international education
program, although I am all for that.
The Senator mentioned universities
and intelligence agencies in a section of
his speech. It so happens that last week,
at Wayne State University, I spoke at an
institute sponsored by four universities.
But those who came to the institute came
from all over the United States. The
president of the institute is Prof. John
Gange of the University of Oregon. It is
a large group of political scientists.
I was asked to lecture on the very
subject matter that the Senator from
New York has covered in this part of
his speech dealing with universities and
intelligence agencies.
Mr. President, I ask unanimous con-
sent that there be printed at the con-
clusion of my remarks the lecture that
I gave at Wayne University on the night
of May 5, in which lecture I discussed
the subject that the Senator from New
York has raised in his speech.
The PRESIDING OFFICER.
objection, it, is so ordered.
(See exhibit 1.)
Mr. MORSE. I said in the first para-
graph of the lecture:
It has been suggested that I talk to this
meeting on the subject of the gap between
academic research and foreign policy. But
at the risk of being topical and taking a
short-term view, I would rather talk about
a factor in this relationship which worries
me much more. It is the extent to which
academic research and opinions about foreign
policy are polluted by Government sponsor-
ship.
I discussed Camelot in the lecture. I
discussed the situation that had de-
veloped at MIT, and in that respect I
pointed out that in the late fifties our
subcommittee-and President Kennedy
was then a Senator from Massachusetts
on my subcommittee-$150,000 had been
appropriated by the Senate for the sub-
committee to make a study of United
000100300041-9 t , t / . i
ing out of unfavorable incidents in Latin
America.
Similarly the full committee had
undertaken a study of the foreign aid
program, using the same system of con-
tracting to many academic individuals
and institutes.
The first proposal of the Senate was
that there be an investigation of our
Latin American policy in 1958. I asked
that it be changed to a study instead of
an investigation. I then moved in the
committee that the $150,000, or most of
it, be used to enter into contracts with
universities, research foundations, and
centers of recognized authorities on
Latin America to have them prepare for
us a series of monographs that would
be helpful to use to set forth the find-
ings of fact and the recommendations as
to what Congress and the administra-
tion should do in regard to possible
changes in foreign policy.
The then Senator Kennedy from Mas-
sachusetts seconded my motion and made
a strong supporting speech urging its
adoption. The Committee on Foreign
Relations unanimously adopted the pro-
cedural recommendations.
It was out of those studies and recom-
mendations-as President Kennedy told
me on several occasions that he took
them to the White House when he went
there-that he went to work and formu-
lated the great Kennedy Alliance for
Progress program.
One of those studies for the full Com-
mittee on Foreign Aid was prepared by
MIT. I want to say on the floor of the
Senate today that it was a good study.
It was prepared by men at MIT who were
competent to prepare it. But as I
pointed out In my lecture the other night
at Wayne University, we did not know
that the division of MIT that conducted
the study came into creation under a CIA
grant. We do not know today how many
more of the studies on foreign aid and
Latin America were dons by academic
or private agencies subsidized by CIA,
AID, and the Defense Department.
I do not think, at least when the con-
tracts are let as we let that contract, that
such an obvious fact should be kept from
us.
I pointed out in the lecture that as a
result of what has really developed now,
not only in the academic world but also
outside of the academic world, we should
let the reader beware, let the public be-
ware, let Congress beware, and let all of
us beware of these studies that are rec-
ommended out of the universities unless
we know where the funds come from to
finance the center or the professor mak-
ing the study.
I do not think that Congress should
continue to support the CIA, and I said
in my lecture, the Defense Department
and also the State Department, in
financing, undisclosed to the people and
to the country, these so-called academic
research studies because they make
them suspect, and they are bound to be
suspect.
The Senator from New York said that
he would give some thought as to how
this type of work should be done, and I
am all for that. The Senator suggested
the State Department-and that may be
ator from Oklahoma [Mr. HARRIS],
stating also that he had given some
thought to the Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare. That should
be studied further. But I think there is
another suggestion, to which I have been
giving a considerable amount of thought,
that needs to be considered. I am not
so sure that we should not set up a
national foundation of international re-
search study somewhat in the format of
a National Science Foundation, and w?
have a whole series of Federal founda-
tions.
I am not so sure, in order to guarantee
their independence, to guarantee their
objectivity, to free them from any
suspicion that they may be connected
with the CIA or the Defense Departmen.:,
or the State Department, and therefore
their point of view may not be com-
pletely objective, but that we ought to
have an independent foundation to con-
duct what should be independent studies.
But I have reached no final conclusion
about it. I am happy that the Senator
from New York spoke out on this matter,
because he knows, as I know, that the
academic world is greatly disturbed. I
wish he could have seen the reaction
I received from outstanding scholars in
this country following my lecture the
other night, when they came up and said
they were sure I had no idea of the great
controversy going on within the aca-
demic world today because of the views
held by many about these federally
financed research studies, whether by
the American University in this city, or
Michigan State University, or Massa-
chusetts Institute of Technology-which,
as the Senator mentioned, has now dis-
continued its past relationships with
CIA because of the criticism it was
arousing. They said, "If you knew how
we really feel, you will know how wel-
come your remarks were here tonight.
The Federal Government ought to follow
a procedural course of action that will
take America's universities out of the
realm of the suspect."
And they are suspect today. We have
a right, now, when we receive a report
from any American university relating in
any way to the American military or
the American foreign policy, to ask the
simple questions, "Who finances your
center or program? What were your
instructions? What review was your
report subject to?"
As an old academic man myself, I
commend the Senator from New Yor',
on what he has said on that subject,
because I am sure he will find that that
part of his speech will exercise a terrific
impact on American academic life.
One further word. I wish to say the r.
at the beginning, it was never contem -
plated that the Alliance for Progress
program should be a military aid pro-
gram. The military aspects of our aid
to Latin America were never intended, in
the first place, to be encompassed in the
Alliance for Progress program. I think
that is very important, and I stress it
again today..
Yes, a certain amount of military aid
will be needed. But we have too many
leaders in some Latin American coun
tries who seem to think the greatest
~y
statApproved For Release 2001/07 most aCIA DP75 00001 R000100300w0e plo we can send them for meeting
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-5P75-00001 R000100300041-9
the challenge of communism is military
aid. It is my opinion that the military
aid we have sent them has, in many
instances, played into the hands of the
Communist threat in Latin America,
rather than tending to subdue it.
Whatever the views of others may be,
I only wish to say, as I close, what I
said at the beginning: the Senator has
made a speech this afternoon which
updates the Alliance for Progress. It
is a most appropriate speech to be read
in connection with the last speech on the
subject made by President Kennedy, and
I hope all Members of Congress and of-
ficials in the State pepartment, the
Pentagon, and the CIA, as well as the
leaders of the Latin American countries,
will read the Senator's speech, contem-
plate it, and comprehend it; and then
see what can be done to carry out the
great -idealism it expresses.
The Senator from Oklahoma [Mr.
HARRIS] spoke of idealism as being prag-
matic. I know of nothing that is more
pragmatic than an ideal put to work.
That is all the Senator has asked for in
his speech. We have some great ideals
in this country in the field of foreign
policy. However, of late we seem to have
given them an opiate; they are not alive,
not vigorous. They are asleep. I hope
the Senator's speech will serve to awaken
some of them, because that is what I
interpret its purpose to be.
ExHIBIT 1
REMARKS OF SENATOR WAYNE MORSE, INTER-
NATIONAL STUDIES ASSOCIATION, WAYNE
STATE UNIVERSITY, DETROIT, MICH., MAY 5,
1966
It has been suggested that I talk to this
meeting on the subject of the gap between
academic research and foreign policy. But
at the risk of being topical and taking a
short-term view, I would rather talk about
a factor in this relationship which worries
me much more. It is the extent to which
academic research and opinions about for-
eign policy are polluted by Government spon-
sorship.
The Senate Foreign Relations Committee
has recently concluded a series of hearings on
the Vietnam war and China policy in an
unprecedented effort to ventilate ideas and
opinions that will go beyond official policy
on these subjects. It was especially true in
the case of China that we relied heavily
upon academicians, since the absence of
trade, cultural, tourist, and political relations
narrowly confines the extent of public
knowledge and expertise about mainland'
China.
No State Department or other Government
witnesses appeared, primarily because they
declined to appear In public session. But
even so, it soon became evident that much
of the institutional work on Chinese and
Asian affairs is sponsored or subsidized to
some degree or other by the foreign policy
agencies of the Federal Government. - The
Central Intelligence Agency, the State De-
partment and its foreign aid agency, and the
Department of Defense spend tens of mil-
lions each year for academic research. Be-
yond that, we have encountered the problem
of professors who appreciate-as do you-
that expert knowledge of foreign policy re-
quires a familiarity that often must be ob-
tained by working for a foreign policy agency
if not full time, then at least as a consultant.
The influence of present or potential con-
tracts, and of present or potential "consult-
antships" is one of the problems that will
grow as academicians are brought into for-
eign policy formulation. It will grow for the
Congress and the public, too, as we seek judg
ments of international affairs that will be
unencumbered by associatioA tc Lh the agency
that devised the policy under review.
PROBLEM OF INDEPENDENT FOREIGN POLICY
OPINIONS
I would like to take you to a few examples
of the difficulty this relationship poses for
some of us in the Senate. The Foreign Re-
lations Committee has a special responsibil-
ity, in my opinion, not only to consider the
evidence and testimony presented to us by
the Department of State, but to consider also
the shortcomings in a given policy. In the
latter 1950's, we undertook one review of the
foreign aid program by contracting with sev-
eral universities and private consulting agen-
cies to survey various aspects of foreign aid.
The Latin American Subcommittee, of which
I am chairman and was then, did the same
for Latin American policy.
The role of private enterprise in aid, aid
activities of other free nations, and of the
Communist bloc, the objectives of U.S. eco-
nomic assistance, and our military assistance
program were among the subject matter sur-
veyed in the foreign aid study. Commodity
problems in Latin America, problems of Latin
American economic development, and Soviet
bloc activities in Latin America were among
the topics surveyed by contract for my sub-
committee.
We know now, but did not know then, that
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's
Center for International Studies, which re-
ceived one of these contracts, had been
founded a few years before primarily through
a CIA grant. The MIT Center did the survey
of the economic objectives of foreign aid. I
was reminded of this study just a few days
ago, when the CIA man in charge of the
Michigan State project was quoted as saying
"there is nothing sinister in using foreign
aid as a CIA cover nor in using universities as
CIA covers." We still do not know how many
other of our contractors received financial
support from CIA, DOD, or other Federal
agencies in the foreign policy field.
This week, MIT announced that it would
drop its CIA contracts. According to its
director, Max Mtllikan its contracts related
to research on Communism and China. The
amount of cash represented by current CIA
contracts for the MIT Center is classified.
I may say that if we on the committee
were gullible then, we are not so gullible
now. During the China hearings, it became
the practice to ask each witness the extent
of his personal relations with Government
agencies, and the extent to which his insti-
tution was subsidized by Government agen-
cies. As Senator FULBRIGHT put it to one:
"I am trying to find out how independent a
witness you are."
This particular witness was both a uni-
versity faculty member and a leading analyst
for a Washington institute financed almost
entirely by the Defense Department. Indeed,
one man who has been in and out of the
Defense Department, the academic world, and
private institutes, explains that the relation-
ship is so incestuous that it scarcely matters
which payroll he is on.
MICHIGAN STATE AND VIETNAM
By far the most dramatic of these episodes
has been the Michigan State adventure in
South Vietnam. I will not go into the facts
of that project, which are now widely known.
But it is a matter of increasing concern that
the Michigan State administrators seem to
view the role of their Center for Interna-
tional Programs not as an educational pro-
gram but as an operations arm of national
foreign policy agencies. The coordinator
of the MSU Vietnam project, Stanley Shein-
bauln, who caused the facts of that project
to be published, draws a conclusion from
them that must be considered, whether his
discription of what transpired is questioned
or not. He states:
State professors performed
at all levels. They advised on fingerprinting
techniques, on bookkeeping, on governmen-
tal budgeting and on the very writing of
South Vietnam's constitution. One was even
instrumental in the choice of the President
of South Vietnam. But in all this they
never questioned U.S. foreign policy which
had placed them there and which, thereby,
they were supporting.
"The following article on MSU's involve-
ment in Vietnam is merely a case study c:f
two critical failures in American education
and intellectual life today. The first and
more obvious is the diversion of the u.u]'ver-
sity away from its functions and duties of
scholarship and teaching. The second has
to do with the failure of the academic intel-
lectual to serve as critic, conscience, ombuds-
man. Especially in foreign policy, which
henceforth will bear heavily on our very way
of life at home, is this failure serious.
"For this failure has left us in a state of
drift. We lack historical perspective. We
have been conditioned by our social science
training not to ask the normative question:
we possess neither the inclination nor the
means with which to question and judge our
foreign policy. We have only the capacity to
be experts and technicians to serve that pol-
icy. This is the tragedy of the Michigan
State professors; we were all automatic cold
warriors.
"On every campus from Harvard to Michi-
gan State, the story is the same. The social
science professor, trained (not educated) to
avoid the bigger problems, is off campus ex-
pertising for his Government or industry
client whose assumptions he readily adopts.
Where is the source of serious intellectual
criticism that would help us avoid future
Vietnams? Serious ideological controversy is
dead and with it the perspective for judg-
I hope that Mr. Sheinbaum is wrong in
saying that controversy is dead. The teach-
in movement last year on many campuses-
which I encouraged and in which I partic-
ipated on several campuses including the
University of Oregon-encourages me to
think it is not dead. The teach-in a year ago
at Rutgers was reported in the campus news-
paper with an outpouring of enthusiasm, not
so much for what was said as for the all-night
faculty-student intellectual free-for-all
which led one student to say of it: "This was
the first time I felt that I knew what a real
university is."
But there is a price for independence. In
the period of 1959, 1960, and 1961, the Uni-
versity of Oregon and Oregon State Univer-
sity both received foreign aid contracts in
Asian countries. It was given to the Uni-
versity of Oregon to advise on economic
planning by South Korea, and to Oregon
State to advise on agricultural education
techniques in Thailand. Both groups were
highly critical of the performance of the
local government, and of AID for extending
aid, anyway. "Political reasons" were over-
riding. The contracts were not renewed, for
AID does not care to employ persistent cri-
tics any more than anyone else does. But
it was the findings of these two schools with
which I have close ties that prompted me to
to begin looking into aspects of foreign aid
that I had not previously considered.
Perliaps my personal reaction was the only
result of these contracts at the time. But
I am only now beginning to feel that the
whole question of employing academicians
for this job deserves rethinking. How many
university groups sacrifice their contracts for
these intellectual conclusions and how many
become the action arm for the program in
order to sustain the contract?
ACADEMIC RESEARCH ABROAD
Another example that aroused many of us
on the Foreign Relations Committee last year
was the Camelot episode. It was not until
local repercussions in Chile had come to the
MAY l p geed For Release 2001/07/26: CIA-RDP75-00001 R000100300041-9 Continued
 Approved For Release 2001/07/26: CIR4MP$5-00001 R000100300041-9
attention of the American Ambassador that
we knew American University was under con-
tract to the Department of the Army to study
social conditions in Chile that might lead
to unstable political conditions. In lay-
man's language, the purpose of Project Came-
lot and others like it is to survey a country
to get a line on its potential for revolution,
and how it can be headed off or countered.
Last summer we were given to understand
that between 40 and 60 of these studies in
-foreign countries were being financed by the
military agencies.
Camelot was canceled, and an agreement
was entered into between the State and
Defense Departments that henceforth the
studies would proceed only upon the ap-
proval of the State Department.
But the Special Operations Research Office
at American University continues for this
purpose. Its Director described its purpose
as: "the relationships with the peoples of
the developing countries and deals with
problems of aiding in the orderly process of
social change and national development
which 1s of concern to.the U.S. Military Es-
tablishment."
For studying the "orderly process of social
change and national development which is
of concern to the U.S. Military Establish-
ment" the Army budgeted $2,463,000 to the
Special Operations Research Office in fiscal
year 1966. In both Vietnam and the Domin-
lean Republic the orderly process of social
change and national development has re-
quired large numbers of U.S. troops, for it
is the Military Establishment's idea of what
Is orderly that is coming to dominate Amer-
worthwhile. But the bill will have to be
much more carefully drafted than it is now
If tilat result from it is to be achieved.
These remarks admittedly have dwelt on
the dangers of directly subsidized academic
work in foreign policy. They have not gone
into the virtues of such subsidies, and I
think there ? may be some in that public
knowledge in these fields is advanced. I -
hope I have not left you with the idea that
I have no confidence at all in the intellectual
freedom of the academic world, for I con-
tinue to regard it as one of the central and
stalwart elements in the checks and balances
of our free society.
What I would like to emphasize above all
is the problem of public knowledge of the
source of these Federal funds, and the pur-
pose for which they were advanced. It is
the acceptance of published findings and
opinions by a people-and a Congress-un-
aware of their financial backing that I feel
constitutes the danger to foreign policy
formulation. And It is an emphasis and
preoccupation with operations rather than
scholarship and teaching that constitutes
the danger to our educational institutions
from extensive governmental support.
Acknowledgment of . sources, however,
raises questions beyond those of financial
support. Last week, Senator FULBRIGHT called
'to public attention the leading article In the
Nation's most respected foreign policy publi-
cation, the Foreign Affairs Quarterly, which
argued that the Vietcong should not be In-
cluded in any negotiations in Vietnam be-
cause it is a Communist front for Hanoi. The
author was described by Foreign Affairs as a
I would like to see the academic com-
munity survey this subject itself. I would
like to hear the pros and cons of the
criticisms I have made. I would like to feel
that there is some recognition within the
academic social sciences of the dangers in-
volved in Federal financing, and that per-
haps some self-policing is in order.
The "credibility gap" between Govern-
ment and governed is already wider than is
safe for Mir free institutions. More than any
others, the academic community should be
on guard against this gap because the effi-
cacy of intellectual freedom requires not only
a speaker but a listener. The audience of the
academic community consists of the student
and the public. To the extent that either
audience becomes cynical and unbelieving,
academic research will lose Its impact on
the formulation of foreign policy.
scan foreign policy in the undeveloped parts "student of Asia." I wonder how many of
of the world. you here who are students of Asia, as I am,
And for this the academic world is being could publish in Foreign Affairs on that
drawn in not to advise but to implement. basis. But this particular student of Asia,
The entire Defense Department budget for George Carver, Jr., is also a leading Vietnam
research on behavioral and social sciences expert of the Central Intelligence Agency, a
came to nearly $23 million in fiscal year part of his qualifications that was not men-
1966. The CIA budget is classified. But tioned by Foreign Affairs.
these sums cannot help but raise the ques- In his letter to the Central Intelligence
tion of the independence of the results they Agency, Senator FULBIUGHT raised on behalf
produce. ' of the committee the following issues as to
INTERNATIONAL EDUCATION ACT the role of Agency employees In engaging in
It is into this picture that the admintstra- activities designedtb infjri,Ience foreign policy
attitudes in the United States: "Was Mr.
tion has brought its proposal for a new Carver encouraged by the Agency to write this
International Education Act, and to discuss article? Did the author use . information
this aspect of academic research and foreign available to him only by reason of his employ-
policy I shall put on my hat as chairman of ment? Did the Agency approve the article?
the Senate Subcommittee on Education, to Would the Agency have approved the article
which the bill was referred. if it had been critical of administration
Its short title is: "To provide for the policy? Would their employee have been
strengthening of American educational re- free to write a critical article for publication;
sources for international studies and and why was his official connection with the
research." Government not made public? How many
The purpose of the bill is to provide Fed- . other Agency employees have written articles
eral assistance to institutions of higher edu- in their field of interest for publication in the
cation to strengthen their international United States without attribution? How is
studies programs at the graduate level. The this knd of activity related to the role of the
bill carries no specific amount for this pur- Agency as an information gathering institu-
pose, but we are told that about $10 million tion?"
a year is expected to be spent under it. The CIA's explanation was that Foreign
The objective is laudatory. But will the Affairs requested the artici't. But it had
results be laudatory? That Is the question nothing to say about the implication that
we are going into in our subcommittee when the public was exposed to a vital argument
we take up this bill. Does it mean that an- of American policy without knowipg who was
other $10 million will be added to the exist- really responsible for It.
lug funds for Defense and CIA research? What Is coming out of all this is a growing
Does putting the Office of Education In attitude of "Let the reader beware.". Let the
charge of allocating the money mean the public beware, let the Congress beware, that
centers so financed will remain reasonably anything it reads these days Is reasonably
pure in their research activities? Or does free from the intellectual baggage of direct
the permission contained in the bill to self-interest.
"utilize the services and facilities of any These are some of the doubts that I must
agency of the Federal Government" mean express to you on the subject of academic
that the graduate centers so aided will .research and foreign 'policy. I have not re-
merely become another front for the CIA solved them at all, and in fact, have prob-
and the DOD? ably not thought them through, from the
There are some of us who feel that aid to - standpoint of foreign policy formulation.
education through the Office of Education, From the standpoint of higher education,
as distinct from a grant or contract for a I do believe that the desire of educational
specific purpose from the Defense Depart- institutions to become operating arms of
ment. AID, or CIA, may be sufficiently di- foreign policy is leading to bad practices and
vorced from special purposes and sufficiently bad results. That may be'foreign policy, but
free from ties to a particular policy to be it Is not education.
MAY Ar Droved For Release 2001/07/26 : CIA-RDP75-00001 R000100300041-9