Jonathan Moore, one of the first ten Fellows of the Kennedy School's Institute of Politics, resigned his position early this year to become foreign policy adviser to Governor George Romney of Michigan. From 1964 to 1966; Moore had served as special assistant to William Bundy, the assistant secretary of State for Far Eastern Affairs.

Moore made the following statement about the Fellows Program to the Harvard Club of Eastern Michigan, May 18.

The Fellows program is just as experimental as the rest of the Institute's endeavor. Intensively experimental, with all the characteristics thereof: disorganization, gaps, trial-and-error on the one hand; innovation, excitement, freedom on the other. And we don't yet know the results. The returns aren't in; the experiment continues.

When the Institute picked its first group of ten Fellows, it was placing bets on individuals, on their value to the political life of the society as a whole. It was making an investment not so much in research or publication or teaching but more in a given man's future worth and leadership. This is as it should be, in my opinion.

Of course the direct result of the individual's academic effort during the period of his Fellowship is important on its own merits. I believe, for instance, that the setting up of a formal program of Institute studies, which would be directed at fresh examination of given public policy questions -- combining the perspective of the political scholar with that of the political practitioner, getting Faculty members and Fellows together in harness to analyze the toughest problems facing our political system and coming up with mutual recommendations on how better to solve them -- will be an important factor in getting the Institute surely established.

This, in turn -- along with the simple passage of time -- will evoke more acceptance and less skepticism from the rest of the Harvard Academic community, which must, after all, ask what these bright-eyed, bushy-tailed bureaucrats are really doing here that benefits the goals of scholarship. There's plenty they can do -- the academic community needs both political science and politics, expertise in both theory and application, to effectively teach or research in the political realm, or to contribute to higher standards of public service. But all this may take some time to prove out.

A Kennedy Fellow is appointed directly by the President and Fellows of Harvard College, and this allows him to work in any of the various schools or Departments which make up the University. He may range as far as his own program dictates. The idea is to emphasize individuality and diversity in the choice of the Fellows by the Institute and in the choice of programs by the Fellows. The freedom is there: here are the resources, you choose.

My colleagues this year -- almost all of whom have come from within the government -- are following various projects while Fellows of the Institute. Two books are being written, one on Congress and one on civil rights. Scholarly articles have been prepared on international law, arms control, and the origins of the cold war. Independent courses of study are being pursued.

In addition to our own programs, we are expected to be responsive to various requests from within the Harvard community to speak about our own areas of direct experience. This may be before undergraduate clubs and special graduate groups, at seminars and panel discussions, and so forth. Most of us have taught a noncredit, extracurricular seminar for undergraduates, on such subjects as "The Racial Dilemma," "Candidate Strategy and Decision-Making," and "Working Group on Poverty in Boston." This opportunity, I think, has been invaluable to us: an experience in teaching and an exposure to learning. We do not masquerade as Faculty members, but we do believe that our practical, operational experience in government and politics gives us something to contribute to the educational process.

In hearing about the Kennedy Institute, as it is frequently called, one encounters the term "in-and-outers." One of the prime purposes of the Institute is the encouragement, the care-and-feeding, of these creatures.

An "in-and-outer" refers to a person who over the span of his career will spend time both in government--in law or academia, for instance--perhaps in several cycles. This kind of mobility of people happens for a variety of reasons and serves various purposes. But the Institute of Politics is the only educational institution I know of which was established with the explicit goal of serving the interests and needs of these people who want to work in more than one realm, for more than one institution, who desire engagement in public service and the "political life" across vocational demarcation lines.

Men who serve in government and outside of it, who move back and forth, do so, it seems to me, for two basic reasons. One, to maintain independence. If you have worked in more than one locus successfully, if you have more than one professional home, so to speak, you are not solely dependent on your current job to survive. You don't depend unwhole-somely on that one boss, on that next efficiency report, or on defending the status quo of that one department or agency. You can quit tomorrow if you want or need to, with a place to go, without being deterred by worry about where your next paycheck or your next opportunity is going to come from. This mobility, this additional career option, then, protects your integrity, allows you to keep your cussedness, alleviates the necessity of compromising on an issue of principle. You are more independent.

Secondly, we need generalists who are competent to inter-relate the functions and the interests of one component of our society with another, who understand how to calculate the common, overlapping interest. Someone must comprehend and be capable of acting on knowledge about where the various pieces of the picture fit together, how they best integrate into the whole coordinated effort. The man who develops an inter-disciplinary, inter-community experience can better perform this function. Ideas must cross-fertilize across arbitrary groupings, and ultimately to communicate those ideas effectively you need to movement, not just words and pieces of paper. When people live in isolation they are in danger of becoming distorted by their own interests, their approach to life may be narrow, prejudiced. People who are exposed to others, to different ways of life than their own, are going to generally behave better in terms of their fellow man. The "in-and-outer," then, should have a unique capability to combat parochialism and to integrate diverse effort.

Both these basic goals -- independence and a multi-dimensional competency --contribute, in turn, to a certain freedom of spirit and intellect which is philosophically necessary for anyone who wants to wear away the wall of life, as Camus said, or to give his body for the public service, as Theodore Roosevelt said.

Grindstone