25 JUNE AAUP ANNUAL MEETING AND THE OFFER OF MR. BALDWIN TO BE HELPFUL AT SAME (ATTACHED)

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP79M00467A001100010014-4
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: K
• Document Page Count: 54
• Document Creation Date: December 16, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 3, 2005
• Sequence Number: 14
• Publication Date: June 7, 1976
• Content Type: MF

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