One other facet of this situation is what James Thompson convincingly described, in his Atlantic article, as the "effectiveness trap." This is surely one of the most apparent failings of academics when it comes to dealing with the federal government. Virtually everyone is paralyzed by the desire to retain influence and effectiveness; and for many this activity becomes a consuming need, far more important than sorting out rights and wrongs. No one is willing to commit himself morally because that might short-circuit his links with the power center in Washington. It is difficult to decide whether these people are prevented from taking dissident stands by the lures of government funds and being "where it's at," or whether they don't have the minimum moral outrage to even want to dissent. In any event the result is the same: they are silent when silence has a rather damning, not neutral, quality to it.

At a time when some of us are on verge of virtually putting our lives on the line in order to halt the crimes our government is committing in our names, the response of faculty members in the profession most intimately tied to the war is revealing indeed. They have, of course, expressed their vague, somewhat inarticulate discontent with what is going on "over there." Yet, there is an unmistakable hint of Business As Usual. Throw the CIA out of Harvard? Don't be immature or rash--let's work this out rationally; after all, we want results, now, don't we....

I cannot presume to decide for anyone but myself what ought or ought not morally be done; for even in the heyday of t.v. and mass culture, conscience still remains an individual activity to the extent that it still intrudes uncomfortably on our consciousness. I simply know that I am incapable of rationalizing away the horror of Vietnam or the related, concrete immediacy of the CIA on our doorstep, and I will have a straight answer 20 years hence when I am asked, "Where were you when...?" I am also beginning to understand what the neutrality of scholarship really means in human terms; its euphemistic clarity is like that of a mountain stream: crystalline and shallow at the same time.   Sincerely,   (signed)   Jon Livingston

*See Bertrand Russell's Human Society in Ethics and Politics, p. viii, for a thorough discussion of this point.

12. Vogel to Livingston: "Moral purity" trap.   202 Junipero Serra Boulevard   Stanford, California 94305   August 21, 1968

Mr. Jon Livingston

14 Sumner Road

Cambridge, Mass. 02138

Dear Jon:

One virtue of disputation is that it clarifies the issues and the points of disagreement.

One issue on which we disagree is the capacity of academics, especially Asian scholars, to influence governmental policy. I believe you underestimate the contempt which most working governmental officials have for the opinions of academic specialists who are not working within the government on current events. I really do not see anything any of us academics could have done that would have made much difference on our Vietnam policy even if we had seen the absurdity of the policy and the course it would take with the foresight we now have in hindsight. Did Roger Hillsman or Jim Thomson or even Arthur Schlesinger's resignation from the government help bring about a change? To be sure, there is an "effectiveness trap," but I think one might say there is a "moral purity" trap too, for the person who remains morally pure accomplishes little except to salve his own conscience.

I think you even miss the role CIA analysts have played in Vietnam. From what I gather from friends in Washington, the CIA analysts come closer than anyone else to getting our government to see the absurdity of the Vietnam policy. Would these men have contributed more to themselves, to policy, to the government if they had left government service?

I agree that scholars' efforts to change government policy from within the government (I would rather say the "periphery" than "within" for they are not given major roles in ordinary decision) has been a failure. But so has the efforts of scholars from without.

You are, of course, right that faculty have often been spineless and that they have not sacrificed themselves to help students escape from military service. But how many students have sacrificed themselves for faculty when faculty faced various kinds of problems (smears in McCarthy days, etc.)? To be sure, everyone is willing to fight harder for things that most concern him than people who face less immediate difficulty. I do think, however, that many of us would be willing to exert ourselves more if we were persuaded we could really help. My point about CIA officials at Harvard is not "don't be immature" or "don't be rash," but that this is attacking the wrong guys and not doing any good in what most of us feel is the main task: getting our governmental policy changed. Not that I have the answer, but I don't think this is it.  Sincerely,  (signed)  Ezra F. Vogel

13. Livingston to Fairbank: A CIA proposal.  14 Summer Road  Cambridge, Mass.  20 August 1968