THE TUFTS PAPERS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 6
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: July 22, 2010
• Sequence Number: 33
• Publication Date: October 30, 1981
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
Observer
re \\The Tufts Papers'
To our readers
Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), a
federal law providing for citizen access to
government documents, subject to certain
exemptions.
On Nov. 14, 1979 and Sept. 17, 1980, the
1 CIA released 53 documents totalling 83
pages, which covered the period of 1961 to
1976.
The CIA made deletions on most of the
documents before releasing them. Some
pages are virtually blank. Other docu-
ments, such as mailing lists for CIA docu-
mints, are blank except for Tufts' ad-
drew. Four of the documents with the
deletions are stamped "SANITIZED"
meaning that sensitive portions had been
expunged.
The CIA withheld 30 documents and
V refused to confirm or deny the existence
of any others. The deletions and with.
n' holdings were made, according to the CIA,
to protect its intelligence sources and
methods, and the personal privacy of
various CIA contacts. These are two of
is classified for national defense or foreign
policy purposes, which would invade a
person's privacy, or which would reveal or
tend to reveal the identity of a confidential
source of information. Three pages of FBI
files were not released from Washington
headquarters.
The FBI released one two-page docu-
ment on Aug. 13, 1980 after being located
by the CIA during a search of its files in
response to the March 1978 request.
In addition to the three exemptions
employed in the earlier release, the FBI
obliterated some material to protect infor-
mation related to its internal rules and
practices.
In response to a May 1981 FOIA request,
the FBI field office in Boston released
four documents totalling eight pages,
withheld two pages, and referred eight
files to Washington headquarters, where
they are being reviewed.
What follows in this special supplement
are articles analyzing the contents of the
On Mar. 21, 1979, the FBI released 132 policies towards disclosing information to
?i pages from its Washington headquarters, government agencies, an examination of
covering 1955 to 1972. Many of the FBI the Freedom of Information Act, and a
documents released were duplicates, and^ report on CIA recruitment at Tufts.
others contained the same information in A copy of the files obtained by the
FBI monitore
Tufts politics
Documents released by the FBI detail
investigations into bombing incidents, at-
tempts, threats, and alleged plots and
other crimes, at Tufts? some of which
were politically motivated. The docu-
ments also disclose that the FBI
monitored political activity unrelated to
crime.
At various points the FBI followed
political activity by reading and clipping
articles from the Tufts Weekly, the
predecessor to the Observer; received
reports on campus unrest following the
1970 drug bust of 12 students; refused to
evaluate the patriotism of the Tufts
v faculty at the request of a private foun-
dation; and investigated the 1971 bombing
of Fletcher Dean Edward Gullion's office.
Fletcher Bombing
Gullion's office was destroyed during
the morning of Mar. 21, 1971 by fire bomb
?'. which created a two-alarm fire and caused
$75,000 worth of damage. FBI documents
noted that 'security, criminal and racial
' (Continued on page S-6)_
ft'
CIA consulted
ignored law
reveal that the CIA maintained consulting
relationships with Tufts personnel, pos-
foreign students at Fletcher and had at
least a passing interest in political ac-
tivities of Tufts students.
the released documents, the CIA offered
Professor Geoffrey Kemp of Fletcher
$1250 and out-of-pocket expenses for a
6000-word essay titled, "Impact of
Traditional Rivals" and attendance at a
colloquium on International Political
Implications in the Event of Nuclear
unclassified, published, and available to
the public. A CIA employee wrote Kemp
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
Overt CIA recruitment occurs at Tufts
By S'T'EPHEN LABATON
For years students and staff
bass speculated about CIA
rseraltmamI and spying at Tufts.
? Eve beard some pretty kooky
a odes about it," said Fletcher
Dun of Students John Roche,
who questioned the veracity of
lemon and innuendoes that have
ebealated around the campus to
pad years.
CIA recruitment is an open
process coordinated by the place-
not offices of the university.
According to officials at Fletcher
sad President Mayer, there is no
.evert recruiting o? :ampus.
No Tutu policy exists which
yrebibits covert recruitment.
although there are policies at
Harvard and MIT. Nor is there a
written university policy against
lbs no of students or faculty by
Is"egence-gathering organiza-
*an to spy on Tufts.
Hocks said this week that there
is Is covert recruiting," and
that "to my knowledge there
sever bas been any."
"I consider the relationship
(bstwan the CIA sad Fletcher)
is be very straight forward."
Fldeber Director of Placement
Unity vaBibber Hams said.
"we now make it more or less
bnpertant than any other type of
organisation that recruits on
FINCber professor Robert
Ptsttgraft said that "students
have the right to work where
they, want. The CIA has been
ataeb maligned. but people tend
In forget that it's important that
we build the CIA into an effective
organ of the government."
"rho, CIA is a part of our
Sam soot" Fletcher Profes-
sor Field Havitand explained. "If
a person wants to do that kind of
work, there's no reason why he
sboslda't. Recruitment just
ae teben agency needs and in-
dlviaal desires"
Hariland said covert recruiting
"would be rather difficult for the
at" to prevent, but we would
try no, stop it."
According to the Career
8eWance and Placement Office.
13 undergraduates were inter-
viewed last year by the CIA for
Jabs. four received fifes, and
two accepted posts. The
pisicber slams; book for 198041
oft is abstain asemployees of the
Cu. not of 23 alumni who work
for BtseaecMive office of the
students coins out of
snaatieg with the CIA. ec u ter.
f sy fay that its the weirdest in-
isrview they've ever had." said
Career placement officer Terry
Sertaaso. "They ask students if
Mey're willing to spy. if they
' wNd feel comfortable using a
gnu, Sr wears" a bullet proof
vast'
Applying l or a positiaa with the
CIA entails filling out a five-page
skile act and qualifications sup-
P1. nwnl, submittutg a personal
binaa y statement and medical
ineaeds. and taking a polygraph
test administered by the agency.
T e FBI routinely conducts the
iavestigattons an applicants to
the CIA.
one question the CIA asks on
lts application reads: "Are you
now or have roar ever been a
member of any foreign or
domestic organization. asuria-
lion, movement, group, or com-
bination of persons which is
totalitarian. fascist. Communist,
or subversive or which has
adopted, or shows, a policy ad-
vocating or approving the com-
mission of acts of force or
violence to deny other persons
their rights under the Constitu-
tion of the United States, or
which seeks to alter the form of
government of the United States
by unconstitutional means?"
Harvard has written guidelines
prohibiting covert recruitment,
and governmental background in-
vestigations about persons
without their prior consent.
Covert recruitment was
described by the Committee on
Relationships between the Har-
vard Community and United
States Intelligence Agencies in
its 1977 report to Harvard Presi-
dent Derek flok. According to
the committee's understanding,
"when the recruiter believes that
a likely candidate has been iden-
tified, the name of the candidate
is reported to the CIA which then
conducts a background check on
with the information obtained.
Neither the recruiter nor the CIA
informs the individual at this
stage that he or she is being con-
sidered for employment or other
purposes by the CIA."
The committee declared, "The
existence on the Harvard campus
of unidentified individuals who
may be probing the views of
others and obtaining information
for the possible use of the CIA is
inconsistent with the idea of a
free and independent university.
Such practices inhibit free dis-
course and are a distortion of the
relationship that should exist
among members of an academic
community and in particular of
the relationship that should exist
between faculty members and
students."
The Committee questioned
"whether it is appropriate for a
member of the Harvard com-
munity to trigger a secret
background investigation of
another member of the com-
munity." which would constitute
an invasion of personal privacy
and could entail further govern-
ment intrusion onto campus to
collect information The Com-
mittee also expressed concern
that recruitment of foreign stu-
dents might lead to CIA requests
that they violate laws of their
home countries.
Recruitment of foreign students
Is one of the CIA's largest
doles Roche
domestic operations, according
to Morton Halperin, director for
National Securities Studies.
Covert recruiters are paid by the
CIA or are volunteers according
to Halperin. The list of Fletcher
enrollment statistics in CIA files
obtained by the Observer is the
only indication thatthe CIA may
havg recruited covertly at Tufts.
Tufts rejected CIA funds
By JONATHAN KAHN
President Mayer has rejected
at least two CIA funding offers in
the past four years, but officials
said this week that the university
has no specific policy on whether
similar gifts should be accepted.
In 1978, the CIA offered
between $108,000 and $200,080 for
the Fletcher School to establish
an Energy Policy Study, ac-
cording to Fletcher Assistant
Dean Jeffrey Sheehan. The
money was offered to an inter-
national economics class study-
ing the impact of the then newly.
discovered Mexican oil fields.
Mayer said then that he had re-
jected the funds because the
Tufts association would "make
much of our work abroad very
much more difficult and put
same of our foreign students into
difficulty when they go home."
The other grant offer came
when the CIA offered Tufts an
undisclosed amount of money to
do research on world famine,
Mayer said.
"The CIA asked Tufts to do the
survey," Mayer said. "but we
said thanks but no thanks. We
were doing it anyway," he main-
tained, "and if it were known
that we were working with the
CIA. we would be less well-
informed."
According to Sheehan,
"There's no institutional policy
that either acceptsor rejects
grants from government
organizations." He said all
grants "would be considered on a
case-by case basis."
Vice President of Development
Thomas Murnane said
"whenever we have a grant, it's
reviewed by the university for its
appropriateness for the univer-
sity."
Director of Government Rela-
tions Carla Ricci described the
university review process as the
"yellow form." The faculty
member involved in the proposed
grant fills out a form which
describes the grant in detail. The
form is sent to the department
chairman, the particular school's
dean, the government resources
office, and the accounting office.
Ricci said. "If the grant is from
a security organization, or it has
implications beyond straight
forward research, or there is
anything unusual about it, it will
go through the president's of-
fice," she said,
Ricci said there is one form of
research over which the univer-
sity has no control: "those ac-
tivities that the individual faculty
member undertakes on his own
private time."
The only apparent university
policy on grants, appears in Sec-
tion V of the faculty handbook un-
der the heading "classified
research" It states that "in
general. grants and contracts in-
volving classified research or in-
volving U.S. or foreign intel-
ligence agencies are not ap-
propriate."
Ricci said, "There's absolutely
nothing like" CIA funds at Tufts
now, despite many funds from
government organizations. "The
bulk of them come from straight
forward agencies like the depart-
ment of energy, the National
Science Foundation, and the
department of transportation."
Sheehan said that sometimes
Fletcher also has contacts from
government agencies, and that
Fletcher is currently undertak-
ing research funded by the Inter-
national Communications
Agency and the Agency for Inter-
national Development.
Sheehan said "to my
knowledge, (the 1978 offer) is the
only CIA offer of sponsorship of
anything to the school."
Murnane added, "We have not
had any offers" from any intel-
ligence gathering agencies.
The two articles beginning an
page S-1 of this supplement
were written by Ken Bresler A'79
and were revised by Stephen
Labaton A'93. Bresler, who
originally filed for the documents
in 19711, is a student at Harvard
t,aw School. Labaton is Editor of
this supplement.
?e"e`'g` Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
Reagan proposes change in information act
My TODD WHITE
Fifteen years ago, the
Freedom of Information Act
bseame law. This satisfied many
reporters and scholars who had
base atotsing the United States
goossmneot of hiding files which
the public had a right to see.
They could now file requests un-
der the new act to obtain public
documests from any federal
agtmey.
Fidteen days ago, the Reagan
Administration asked Congress
to drastically revise the act and
b Gait the American public's
seem to knowledge about its
glsernnent. On October 15, As-
sistant Attorney General
Jest an C. Rose presented a bill
es behalf of the White House and
testified before a Senate subcom-
mittee.
The recent bill proposed that
requests only be honored to
American citizens and resident
alien, that fees be raised, and
that deadlines be relaxed for
Mderal compliance to informa-
tion requests. "The proposed
ameodments...were much more
drastic than critics expected,"
The Washington Post wrote the
ga lowarg day.
If the bill becomes law federal
eoQts will forfeit much of the
authority Congress delegated to
them in 1974 to reverse national
security classification. In that
year of Watergate cover-up
stories and CIA exposes,
Congress empowered users of the
Freedom of Information Act
(FOIA), who were so far only al-
lowed to obtain declassified or
wseeret data, to contest in
court the secrecy stamp given
daily to thousands of national
security documents. For the
site of "effective government"
fits court privilege should now be
overturned, according to Rose.
Only it documents had been clas-
sified as secret by an "arbitrary
sad capricious" government
decision would a court retain
power to strip their secrecy and
gene their release.
"Diaries, journals, telephone
logs, desk calendars or personal
or research notes." of govern-
ment officials would be off limits
to FOIA users. Rose explained
that, "such materials are often
nothing more than an extension
of an individual's own memory.
"We are concerned that in
some instances the act has been
used in ways that are inconsis-
tent with the original objectives
of the Congress." Rose said
before the subcommittee, ac-
cording to the October 16 New
York Times. But he reaffirmed
Reagan's critics, maintaining
"We are fully committed to car-
rying out the philosophy and
spirit of the act."
His proposed "Freedom of In-
formation Improvements Act"
would prevent disclosure of con-
fidential sources of government
information. All data that would
"tend to" reveal the identity of a
confidential source or even infor-
mation gained from him or it
would be withheld by the U.S.
Documents that may endanger
a witness or potential witness
would likewise be restricted.
Material formerly withheld only if
its release would "interfere"
with an "ongoing investigation or
enforcement proceeding" would
now only have to "relate" to
those proceedings for it to be
kept secret.
This responds to the persistent
complaints of the FBI and CIA.
Though both agencies are ex-
empted from some of the act's
requirements, they say they are
not getting as many tip-offs as
they did before the FOR. The
agencies contend that the intel-
ligence units cannot convince in-
formants that everything given
to them will remain absolutely
confidential.
Senator Orrin Hatch (R-Utah),
who questioned Rose at the sub
committee meeting, had said
previously that the FOIA "is so
broadly written that it is en-
dangering informant information
r-..&.g30. ?Positt
104ro%MS F,o nity Sod
BEN n~afse8s eriide-. ;AOpke
Tot..
I"(r! .(ou to N J nor
d ~~ m t'"e` AWNS
1n
ns 01111
yfgs. Tie t>tnd acs
eQeaca --~s GH~'Fi: Es 1o two
09
sr--~' not r .~
~11sf~ us
Interviews - 9:00 - 3:30, 3rd Floor,
Film & Info - 3:45 - 4:30, 2nd Floor,
Bolles House, NOVEMBER 3. [phone].
(so that) we only have about 25
percent of the domestic intel-
ligence information we used to
have."
Although actual criminal and
civil investigations are not
released, hundreds of yearly re-
quests from prisoners for
material related to their convic-
tions lead the FBI to suspect that
the identities of informants can
be pieced together. Curiously
though, the FBI cannot document
any case where an informant's
life was jeopardized by the
release of information, according
to an article in the August 1961
National Journal.
Anxious that the FBI not pull
the veil over itself again, enjoy-
ing the secrecy it had before the
late 1960's, civil liberties groups
remind the public of the FOIA re-
quest filed by eight Washington
journalists in past years.
In response to the request the
FBI divulged 53,000 heavily cen-
sored pages describing the I5-
year counterintelligence cam-
paign against domestic dissi-
dents in which the bureau tried to
upset the political activities of
the NAACP, the Student Non-
violent Coordinating Committee
and other groups.
Schemes like these and others.
such as illegal mailopening,wifl
be encouraged if FOLA is cur-
tailed, say the critics of the
proposal. Many records ex-
tracted under the FOIA have led
to embarrassing and ugly stories
for Washington and for local
governments and businesses.
The New York Times reported
that researchers opened files on
unsafe nuclear reactors, con-
taminated drinking water, hazar.
dous TV sets and ineffective
drugs. Regarding investigative
reporting, Rose said. "Our
Proposal, we believe, is very
moderate and limited, and not
designed to affect the press ...A
full and informed press is vital to
the preservation of a
democracy."
Jack Landau remains uncon
vinced. As director of the
Reporters Committee for
Freedom of the Press he told the
Times that " the kind of govern.
ment accountability we've known
will not exist if the administra-
tion bill-a 'frontal assault' on
the act-is passed." He has
charged that Reagan officials
seem to believe that government
information "should be closed
unless they can be convinced it
should be open."
The White House regards the
records of the CIA in this way' it
will soon propose total exemption
for America's leading spy agency
(akin to pending bills by Senator
Chafee (R-R.I.)and Senator
Alfonse D'Amato (R-N.Y.) and
also for its affiliates, the
National Security Agency and the
Defense Intelligence Agency.
It addresses the persistent CIA
complaint of getting the cold
shoulder from foreign intel-
ligence services on sharing infor.
mation. Unable to assure them
of strict confidentiality, CIA
Director William Casey wants no
more "sensitive intelligence in-
formation" to wander out of
Langley. Virginia through com-
pliance with the act. The oppo.
nents to these sweeping revisions
remember former F OIA dis-
closures detailing CIA plots
against the Cuban and Chilean
governments and 40,000 pages
released on behavior control
programs involving drug ex.
perimentation on unwitting vic-
tims. They dread the new
secrecy privilege, especially
when it could be coupled with
Reagan's pronouncements that
the spy agency be legally permit-
ted to infiltrate and influence
domestic organizations.
Written in a draft proposal
order earlier this month, this lat-
ter proposal could be im-
plemented with a stroke of
Reagan's pen. Whereas citizens
today have to be suspected of in-
volvement in terrorism or
foreign counter intelligence
before they could be put under
physical surveillance, the new
executive order would waive this
condition.
The requests
By now, an estimated one mil-
lion requests for pieces of infor-
mation are handled annually by
federal agencies. The tax-
payer's bill on requests adds up
to about $50 million per year and
fees collected only cover perhaps
2 percent of the total cost. But
the Freedom of Information Act
is not so much overused as it is
misused, conservative critics
say. Critics such as Hatch fear,
among other abuses, industrial
syping. Hatch has cited one com-
pany which requested confiden-
tial information on its competitor
from a government agency
(Hatch refuses to name the agen-
cy (. The agency released the
competitor's data on "a new
technique to mask offensive
odors produced by gamma ray
sterilization of medical devices,"
according to the July CQ Weekly.
Businesses, instead of scholars
and journalists, request the most
information under the FOIA-
about 60 percent of it, said
Harold Relyea, a Congressional
Research specialist. Some com-
panies complain of industrial
spying and others allegedly com-
mit it, but few will disclose
names or implicate another
business. Curiously they "do
not want to call attention to
cases." according to the National
Journal.
Accordlhg to George
Washington University Law
Professor Robert Pozen, in-
dustry may be ?crying wol"
because so many sensitive
secrets have been vulnerable
since the act's founding. Think
back to what the Center for Auto
Safety extracted through the
FOIA about the danger of Ford
Pinto gas tanks. Ford Motor Co.
remembers; it had to recall the
Pintos. However, the industrial
debate over the FOIA is not as
simple as how to best protect em-
barrassing records or clues to
"trade secrets" (which are
Protected from the act).
Companies are becoming
reluctant even to yield data to
Washington in the first place. At
best they are wary of not being
granted confidentiality and at
worst not warned before dis-
closure. Citing the FOIA and its
consequences, businesses
refused the Security and Ex-
change Commission the invest-
ment information it wanted from
them for its study on reforming
the stock options trade.
Businesses are also wary of
contesting in court the govern,
ment's right to divulge data.
Whereas the public may sue the
government in court under the
FOIA to force disclosure, a com-
pany must sue Washington under
the more restrictive Ad-
ministrative Procedure Act.
The Administration's response
to this according t .The Times, is
to "permit the government to
charge for documents that
provide information with a tom.
mercial market value and allow
it to adjust fees for responding to
requests," and require the
Government to notify an in-
dividual or business that had sup-
plied commercially sensitive in.
formation and permit them to
contest the release of that data. "
House of Representatives at-
tention to all FOIA amendments
is not expected until next year.
Senate action may begin later
this fall.
!W 5-4 Observer October, 76. 5061
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
Using the FOIA and learning its value
By KEN BRESLER agreed that the request would be made of.
Is April 1975, when Vietnamese corn- ficially by the Observer.
rests were preparing for their final as-
adtenSaigon. Tufts University accepted The CIA required confirmation from an
see for admission. By the time I enrolled Observer editor that my request was filed
Asa freshman in the following September, on behalf of the newspaper, and that the
rumors were rife that academics at Voserver was affiliated with Tufts Univer-
Fetcher had assisted U.S. military and in- sity. After four letters from me to the
hligeece services, particularly the CIA, CIA, one enclosing a letter from an
Is formulating policy for the war effort in Observer editor, and three letters from
Vbabmwn. the CIA in return, the CIA finally
L 1118 I decided to try to discover how acknowledged in a fourth letter dated June
slurp truth these allegations held. I had 26, 1978, that it was processing a request
takes a leave of absence from Tufts and for documents pertaining to Tufts.
was interning in the Washington office of The CIA mailed that letter to the
then-Congressman Robert Drinan (D- Observer, even though no correspondence
Yesse.). His staff put me in contact with had originated there and even though it
Washington organizations that are ex- had the Observer editor's summer ad-
Parisced in using the Freedom of Infor- dress. I didn't get my hands on the letter
asatlen Act (FOIA), a federal law that al- until the following October, when the
Ipws citizens access to government docu- editor with whom I had been dealing was
rb subject to certain exemptions. no Ion h
t
h
On March 17, 1978, I filed FOIA requests
with the CIA. and-curious about its ac-
ttvkea at Tufts-the FBI. Filing a re-
is simple. It entails addressing a let-
ter i+emiflled as an FOIA request to the
aplrApiate office of individual agencies,
pwiding as much information as possible
shat the desired documents.
kbr requests were broad. In both cases I
asked for a copy of all''retrievable
" pertaining to "activities at
71d4 University or concerning its faculty,
OaAing assistants, research assistants,
doinistrators, undergraduate students,
students, noncredit students.
sedamic and nonacademic staff, as well
as thin organizations and publications."
I hlad the requests without mentioning
tlbat I was a Tufts student. I stated my wil-
~ms to pay search and copy fees for
dsasm?ts, but asked for a waiver on the
giewub that release of the information
went kaadit the public.
A FBI granted my waiver request
0111hd71complication, and a year later,
slimly before I was graduated, it sent me
1111111 documents it had compiled from its
Waakiigtes headquarters. (Although the
FM stipulates that federal agencies
awn release requested documents within
des waiting days. that deadline is routine-
i?on'ed by agencies and citizens as un-
eeamsubly short.) I didn't consider a year
tang to wait, especially since the FBI
kept me informed of its progress.
Beeaviug documents from the FBI's
tloMon held office took even less time; I
ngaosted them List May and received
attend of them in August. Eight files
aril by this request were sent to
WaibNlWn for review, where they are
-K
Obtaining docwments from the CIA re-
41akead a little more patience and
Perseverance. The CIA was not willing to
ger wi
t
e newspaper.
Perhaps the CIA didn't intend all the
wrangling by mall between March and
June to slow down the request, but that
was the effect. And Perhaps the CIA
didn't realize that the Observer office isn't
Occupied during the summer, and that col-
lege newspapers don't always complete
stories that require years of follow-up, due
to staff turnover and graduations, but CIA
procedures made it difficult to keep track
of the FOIA request.
The June 1978 letter from the CIA
stated, "Our best estimate at this time is
that it will probably take at least six to
eight months to complete the processing
of your request." That time limit expired,
as did the ones that followed, without
release of any documents. Eventually the
CIA stopped making estimates.
By the fall of 1979, I was increasingly in.
credulous that the CIA was dealing with
the request in good faith. I had received
my BA from Tufts the previous May and
had begun work as a legislative assistant
to Congressman Drinan. Drinan, who sat
on the Government information and In.
dividual Rights Subcommittee, which has
jurisdiction over the FOIA, also became
concerned at the CIA's apparent lack of
response and agreed to intervene.
Mike Levy, an intern for Drinan,
assisted me in preparing a memo for the
Congressman, who then wrote a letter to
the CIA, complaining about the delay. The
letter was partially successful; after
writing memos to Levy and placing
telephone calls to me, the CIA released
the 32 documents it had compiled at that
point.
I didn't get the remaining 21 documents
until September 1980. The CIA asserts
that It mailed them to the observer office
in August 1999-again in the summer-but
they were never found. The CIA released
^ set of the documents to me a month
later. (The lapse between the release of
the documents and publication of articles
wane searell fees until I could establish a wait for complete releases ??by both
dl ict affiliation with Tufts. But the CIA agencies-which has still not occurred.)
wwma satisfied when I informed it that I The documents released by the two
wa Mantled at Tufts; subsequent ex- . agencies were pertinent in two ways to my
altsagdn of correspondence made it original interest in allegations of Fletcher
eiaarw (tat the CIA expected me to be a involvement in the Vietnam War effort.
ivwraity organization, such as the
tae.
I wall oat a member of the Observer
atoll or d any other campus organization
and didn't like the idea of getting my re-
ripest entangled in one. Search fees,
fie can be substantial; when Angus
Mack aerie, a free-lance writer, requested
Oxmments from the CIA concerning its at-
UmPts t. d isrupt alternative and leftist
emus doing the Vietnam War era, the
f3A estW sled that the search would cost
care $5,980 and asked for a $30,000
41101110aiL I decided to waive some of my on.
dlWwdwaoe as a researcher and writer in
earea tar a wavier of search fees, and
The FBI documents confirmed bow in.
grained the allegations were in the Tufts
community. A confidential source at
Tufts erroneously reported to the FBI that
Fletcher Dean Ed Gullion received
anonymous letters concerning the training
of American spies for operation in
Southeast Asia. The letters actually ac-
cused students of spying at Fletcher, ac-
cording to the FBI documents.
The CIA documents, meanwhile, reveal
nothing about Fletcher and Vietnam.
There is no mention of Viet am, in.
dochina, or southeast Asia.
The CIA withheld 30 documents, in.
cluding three from the Directorate of
Logistics, which is reponsible for outside mass meetings to exercise
counsultants. These three documents are crowd control will not act as recording
dated 1953 and 1956-when American in. secretaries for the FBI.
volvement in Indochina began to Most importantly, the released docu-
Snowball-but there is no way to tell what ments demonstrate the value of the
they are about. Freedom of Information Act. This law aI.
More important then the withheld docu. lows Americans to act as watch-dogs of
ments is the fact that the CIA refuses to their own government and evaluate how
confirm or deny the existence of any more well it functions.
documents on Tufts than the 30 it admitted We now know that the FBI and CIA
withholding and the 53 it released. We acted improperly at Tufts-the FBI by
may never know the truth about alleged monitoring legitimate political activity,
U.S.-Fletcher cooperation during the and the CIA by monitoring any domestic
Vietnem War.
ofi
The documents have not laid my
curiosity to rest. Instead, the circum-
stances surrounding their release have
heightened my unconfirmable suspicions.
I can't help remembering the testimony
submitted to the Government Information
and Individual Rights Subcommittee, to
which I served as staff liaison for Congress-
man Drinan. William Corson, in his
statement to accompany his appearance
before the Subcommittee on May 29, 1980,
wrote, "One can measure the sensitivity
or potential embarassment of an FOI re-
quest to the CIA by the amount of delay it
engenders. Admittedly, a backlog of
FOIA requests does exist at the CIA;
however, this does not explain fully why
sortie requests are acknowledged more
rapidly than others. Here, I am not talk-
ing about the response i.e., the actual
reproduction and sending of requested in-
formation but rather the notice saying 'we
have your request and it is being studied-
acted upon etc.' In several instances
which involved three to four month delays
before receiving any reply, it was clear to
me that the request had set off alarm bells
and whistles among those in the Agency
who were caught between the rock of pure to the risk of disclosure than the
keeping dubious 'secrets' and the threat to the integrity of Americans and
hardplace of the FOI Act." Corson served their institutions, and as long as that is the
in operational and staff intelligeiceposf. case, the agencies must be subject to
lions during his 26 years as a Marine, and Public scrutiny and accountability.
has written books about military in- After having used the FOIA and having
telligence including Armies of witnessed many hearings before the
Ignorance: The Rise of the American Government Information Subcommittee, I
Intelligence Empire. am familiar with the Freedom of Informa-
If the documents reveal nothing about
U.S.-Fletcher cooperation in formulating
war policy, they do point to the need to
clarify the conditions under which future
cooperation will take place, not only with
the CIA, but with all outside institutions.
- A witch-hunt for the CIA's campus con-
tacts is not in order.
Efforts should instead be directed at en-
suring that all academics' outside in.
terests and activities be free from poten-
tial interference with their academic
responsibilities. One way to do sois to re-
quire disclosure of those interest and ac-
tivities, so that, for example, students
and col-
leagues can
evaluate a prof-
lessor's work in
proper perspec.
tive. It's time for
truth-in-teaching
guidelines.
The FBI docu-
ments point to the
need to clarify the
relationship
between the Tufts
Police Depart-
ment and other
law enforcement
agencies. The
Tufts community
Should be able to
know that TUPD
officers invited to
p
tieal activity at all. The infractions, of
course, are minor compared with the out-
rages Perpetrated elsewhere by these two
agencies. Perhaps with continued ex-
posure even such minor infractions will
diminish.
But exposure must continue, and that
means the Freedom of information Act
must survive. Moves to restrict its provi-
sions and to entirely exempt the CIA and
FBI began in the Carter Administration
and have received Increasing support in
Congress and the White House since the
Republicans won control,
The Government Information Subcom-
mittee and its Senate counterpart would
do well to recall the words of the Senate
Select Committee to Study Governmental
Operations with Respect to intelligence
Activities, chaired by former Senator
Frank Church (D-Ida.). The final report
of April 4, 1976 stated, "The committee
is disturbed both by the present practice
(intelligence agencies) operationally us-
ing American academies and by the
awareness that the restraints on ex-
panding this practice are primarily those
of sensitivity to the risks of disclosure and
not an appreciation of damages to the in-
tegrity of individuals and institutions."
Intelligence agencies are still more Sen.
lion Act- its serious flaws, Its alleged
flaws (the CIA, for example, complains
that requests for documents relating to
Colleges and universities are too broad),
and its possibly overriding strengths, in.
cluding that of alerting Americans to
abuses and potential abuses by the govern.
ment directed at them.
FOIA critics and I agree on at least one
thing: We'd rather not have to read in the
newspaper that the FBI contravened the
Constitution by spying on Martin Luther
King or that the CIA violated its charter
and squandered its resources by training
its surveillance satellites on anti-war
demonstrations. But there, some of the
critics and I part company. They would
rather you didn't read about the abuses,
and I'd prefer that there be no abuses to
read about.
FACING FINALS
FEARLESSLY
Workshop on taking tests at Tufts,
"Facing Finals Fearlessly." Dr.
Andrew Gause, Health Services;
Jesper Rosenmeier, American
Studies; Lillian Broderick, Academic
Resource Center, and Karen Blum J
'82
4-5 p.m. Lane hall
vow lady a.~r Observer
Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
 Sanitized Copy Approved for Release 2010/07/22 : CIA-RDP90-00806R000201060033-6
FBI monitored bombings, political activity
Continued fir
om
1
S
page
-
Informants have been targeted to furnish
to FBI any information pertinent to
heating individuals responsible for setting
fire." The FBI followed the investigation,
which local authorities handled.
Although no information was developed
Yoking the bombing with students, records
pertaining to it were marked. "STAG."
which stands for "student agitation." The
FBI apparently considered the bombing
Politically inspired because STAG was a
program to collect intelligence on what
the FBI once described as "anti-
Government demonstrations and protest
rallies."
One document noted that Gullion had
Served as Counselor of Legations to
Cslgon. The Fletcher School was fre-
quently accused by critics of assisting the
American war effort in Vietnam.
ROTC car bomb attempt
On May 11, 1972, a Ford station wagon
award by the Naval Reserve Office Train-
ing Corps (NROTC) was the target of a
bomb attempt as it was parked near Sweet
Hall. A two-quart glass milk bottle con-
faming a layer of gasoline floating on a li-
quid mixture of polystyrene and a volatile
petroleum hydrocarbon was discovered
near the car's gas cap. A 12-foot fuse had
Ruled before reaching a cherry bomb fix-
ed in the bottle's mouth. An orange
soaked in gasoline had been ignited
beneath the car and had caused minor
smoke damage.
The FBI ran comprehensive tests on the
bomb and included resulting graphs and
Charts in the released documents. It could
ask find a record of an identically con-
structed bomb and was unable to develop
any suspects. A confidential source,
whose name was deleted by the FBI, "ad-
vised that there had been no great
animosity on the part of either students or
htvlty toward the NROTC program at
711fts and he does not believe that this at-
twepted bombing was a result of student
dfsiontent over the ROTC program on
campus," according to an FBI memo.
One source in the documents
'Speculated that the incident seemed to
osUcide with anti-Navy sentiment, which
bad evolved among college age people in
apposition to the NIXON adminstration's
dKillion to mine the harbor of North Viet-
nam." The three pages withheld by the
P I entirely, under the protection of con-
Itdstial sources exemption, related to the
lamb attempt.
One document on the bombing attempt
CaMtrrns that the Tufts Police Depart-
teat passed information to the FBI.
There is no indication who else, if anyone,
an.. off campus,provided information con-
ttasUally.
Spying at Fletcher?
la December 1971, Gullion received a
titter through campus mail reading:
"Dear Mr. Gullion: Are you aware that
Wk. (name deleted by FBI under personal
putwty exemptions) a student at Fletcher
IN Using your school as a base for spying?
"7Ae Thai Govt. is sending out another
wanan in January who is even more
dnt;eoous. She is expected to be living at
Fletcher, so beware.
(Name deleted by FBI) has cleverly
4W Its govt to recall him, but intact (sic)
tMa is Just a guise so that no one suspects
Mat. There are several people who are be.
be paid by foreign Gouts to get informa.
% gained some of them happen to beat your
arid. Among the ones you should watch
the two letters were typed on the same
typewriter, and identified its manufac-
turer. A search of the FBI's Anonymous
Letter File produced no leads, the docu.
ments reveal.
The only deletion made in the entire
FOIA release under the exemption
protecting national security or foreign
policy information occurred on a memo
discussing the fingerprint examinations of
the letters, An appeal of the decision to
delete this information was filed with the
FBI in June 1981 on the basis that protec.
tion of national security or foreign policy
information is seemingly an inapporpriate
justification for obliterating part of a
document discussing fingerprints, The ap-
peal is pending. The FBI is allowed to
delete information compiled for law en-
forcement or investigatory purposes, but
chose not to use this exemption.
The FBI's extensive investigation did
not develop further information on the let-
ters' author. But the FBI did open an in-
itial investigation on the subjects of the
letter, as is routine in such cases. "The
names of all the students listed in the
anonymous letters were checked through
Boston indicies (sic) with negative
results," noted one document.
The Tufts Weekly
The undeleted parts of one document,
titled "NEW LEFT ACTIVITY-TUFTS
UNIVERSITY" and dated July 1, 1968,
consist entirely of paraphrases of and
atone are try ljultion and read In part pos.
slbly a 'cover' for some of the arson squad." Deletions were made by
FBI under subsection (b) (7) (c) of the FOIA protecting the personal
privacy of non-government Personnel.
quotations from The Tufts Weekly. One target of extensive FBI surveillance and
largely deleted section of the document disruption beginning in 1938 and intensify-
described the organization and estimated ing in the 18605 and early 1970s. SWP has
the membership of the Tufts chapter of received 10.000 pages of FBI documents
Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). about it through the FOIA and legal
Another section, the Subtitle of which proceedings. SWP's suit against the
was deleted, describes a May 3, 1858 federal government for $40 million in
editorial in The Weekly criticizing the damages, an injuction against further
selection of Thomas Glynn as " Mr. harassment, and recognitions as a
Tufts." Glynn was reported to be a legitimate political party is expected to be
member of the SDS coordinating commit- decided at the end of the year.
tee and "has cited his career goal as being Other SOS activity
an outside agitator," according to the The FBI released one document labeled,
FBI's quotation of The Weekly. "NEW LEFT MOVEMENT INTERNAL
The document's third section, subtitled, SECURITY -MISCELLANEOUS." It
"Summary of (amour Activit"? --- .-,-? . .. _
SStl'this one delivered by the U.S. Office its protest ' a to and rt. 1971 following the firing of a
of on- campusCIA black secretary, which was "attributed...
Postal Service, postmarked Jan. 4-that recruiting that occurred on Nov. 7 and 8, to'Raciet' personnel policy at Tufts." The
tend, Dear Mr. Gullion: (Name deleted 1967, eight months before the document document reports that the Tufts chapter of
b FBI) is using the Fletcher School as a was written. SDS took control of Ballou Hall and that
llseefor spying and mixed up in this racket There is a more detailed account in the "injuries were suffered by both police and
several foreign students. There is a plan same document of the anti-war protest on demonstrators."
Mtssab the school you better watch out." May 10. 1968 during the annual Naval and The document reports without many
fietiien made notes on the second letter Air Force ROTC Review at the Tufts Oval. details on activities of SDS and other lef-
sttgpeRing that it might be an attempt to James Hart. a graduate student in tist organizations at MIT and in the Boston
eeedase the investigation of the March philosophy, demanded that then Tufts area.
On bombing. The FBI determined that President Burton Hallowell, who was sit- The two-page document was not
M iirtea ri.teh.r. bane.,
~~.. timely CO hio can to
eamtl Six, let target tale 1. lp.,t1 . Soiw w LMt a? oral