REMARKS ON C.I.A.'S POLICY

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP99-01448R000301250006-2
• Release Decision: RIFPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 1
• Document Creation Date: December 22, 2016
• Document Release Date: August 14, 2012
• Sequence Number: 6
• Publication Date: February 14, 1986
• Content Type: OPEN SOURCE

Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP99-01448R000301250006-2
luu;
ON PAGE 14 February 1986
Remarks on C.I.A's Policy
? Special to TOG Now York Thuds
CAMBRIDGE, Mass., Feb. 13? Following are excerpts from the text of a
speech by Robert M. Gates, the Central Intelligence Agency's deputy director
for Intelligence, prepared for delivery tonight at Harvard University's John F.
Kennedy School of Government:
Recent events here have again
sparked broad discussion of both the
prepriety and wisdom of university
scalars cooperating in any way with
Anierican intelligence. On Dec. 3 of
last year The Boston Globe stated,
"The scholar who works for a govern-
ment intelligence agency ceases to be
an independent spirit, a true
scholar. These are strong words. In
my view they are absolutely wrong.
My remarks tonight center on two
simple propositions:
First, preserving the liberty of this
nation is fundamental to and prereq-
uisite for the preservation of aca-
demic freedom; the university com-
munity cannot prosper and protect
freedom of inquiry oblivious to the
fortunes of the nation. Second, in de-
fending the nation and our liberties,
the Federal Government needs to
have recourse to the best minds in the
country, including those in the aca-
demic community. Tensions inevita-
bly accompany the relationship be-
tween defense, intelligence and aca-
deme, but mutual need and benefit re-
quire reconciliation or elimination of
such tensions.
Cordiality of the 1950's
Relations between the scholarly
community and the C.I.A. were cor-
dial throughout the 1950's. Faculty or
students rarely questioned the na-
tion's need for the agency and its ac-
tivities. These halcyon days were
soon to change. There was some criti-
cism on campuses over C.I.A.'s in-
volvement in the Bay of Pigs expedi-
tion in 1961. But the real deterioration
in relations between C.I.A. and aca-
deme paralleled the wrenching divi-
sions in the country over the Vietnam
War. The decline in C.I.A.-academia
ties accelerated with the disclosure in
"Ramparts" magazine that C.I.A.
had been funding the foreign activi-
ties of the National Student Associa-
tion for a number of years.
Sensational allegations of wrongdo-
ing by C.I.A. became more frequent
in the media in the early 1970's, cul-
minating in the establishment of the
Rockefeller Commission and subse-
quently both the Church Committee
in the Senate and the Pike Committee
in the House of Representatives.
The agency's relations with the
academic world have improved in re-
cent years for a variety of reasons, in-
cluding developments abroad and
recognition in the academic com-
munity that C.I.A.; together with the
Departments of State and Defense,
has been an important and useful sup-
porter of area and 'regional studies
and foreign language studies in the
Unitr + States.
dc
? There is, however, one constant in ;
the history of this relationship and in !
its future as well: our need for your
help, and the opportunity you have to
contribute to a better informed poll-
cymaking process by cooperating
with us.
We have again looked at otir rules
and polices as a result of the contro-
versy here at Harvard, and this too
has produced some modifications.
For example, the Directorate of Intel-
ligence now explicitly tells any organ-
ization or individual organizing a con-
ference on our behalf that the partici-
pants in the conference should be in-
formed in advance of our sponsoring
role. Quite frankly, because we or-
ganize the overwhelming majority of
our conferences ourselves, this had
not arisen before.
We also have looked again at the
question of whether our funding of re-
search that is subsequently used in a
publication by a scholar should be
openly acknowledged. There are sev-
eral good reasons that argue against
such an approach, including the pos-
siblity of difficulty with a foreign gov-
ernment by virtue of acknowledged
C.I.A. interest in its internal affairs;
the possibility that acknowledged
C.I.A. interest in a specific subject
could affect the situation itself; anck,
finally, concern that readers might
assume the scholar's conclusions
were, in fact, C.I.A.'s.
'At Least Some Change'
We re-examined this issue with con-
siderable care. There are certain cir-
ctunstarices under which disclosure
of our funding of research may be re-
quired, and we of course comply. Be-
-yond this, we have decided that our
interest in maintaining the coopera-
tion of this country's scholars and al-
laying misunderstandings and suspi-
cions that have grown out of our
earlier appraoch warrant at least
some change in our policy.
Accordingly, C.I.A. will henceforth
permit acknowledgment of our fund-
ing of research that is later independ-
ently published by a scholar unless
(1) The scholar requests privacy or
(2) we determine that formal, public
association of C.I.A. with a specific
topic or subject would prove damag-
ing to the United States. Any acknowl-
edgment of C.I.A. funding would be
accompanied by a statement to the ef-
fect that the views expressed are
those of the author and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of C.I.A. or of
the U.S. Government.
Consultation and cooperation with
C.I.A. on the problems this nation
faces abroad do not threaten aca-
demic freedom.
Declassified and Approved For Release 2012/08/14: CIA-RDP99-01448R000301250006-2