Prof. J.K. Fairbank
E.A.R.C.
Cambridge, Mass.
Dear Prof. Fairbank,
I apologize for the hyper-moralistic tone of my last letter, but, as you may have guessed by now, the issues I talked about have assumed an importance they would never have in a peace-time situation. For someone directly threatened by his government with a term in the military as indentured killer-mercenary or with a probable jail sentence, these issues go far beyond professional ethics. For the sake of clarification and continuation of the "dialogue," I would like to take the offensive more coolly this time, as I have been doing concurrently with Prof. Vogel in California. But this is not an especially meek apology, for the object was, after all, to foment discussion; and as we all know, you yourself are not above "provocative" tactics....
To summarize my feelings briefly, I believe that getting "good results" when taking action is an admirable goal, but that, in some circumstances, there is an absolute moral imperative to take action that may or may not produce "good results." If there has ever been such a time for Americans, it is surely now. Regardless of your immediate political position on Vietnam (short of unqualified support for the containment of Asian Communism by "any means necessary"), you must admit that the results of our actions have been, in practice, inadvertent genocide. Our original goals may have been decent, although support of an oligarchic dictator is hardly praise-worthy, but we long ago should have admitted defeat; indeed, it is increasingly evident that there is no justification for even having wanted to win. Our cause has never been particularly just; it is now a dark stain on the American conscience.
Furthermore, it is important at this point to be blunt and honest about what we mean by "reason" and pragmatism. If your definition of them somehow extends a blanket approval to current status-quo foreign policy, to the "responsibility of power," and to anti-communist assumptions, then we are not talking about the same animal. For me, reason and rationality are useful intellectual tools for uncovering the truth and for thinking effectively. Reason has never been for me an end-all, be-all sort of thing: when rationality and pragmatism gain too iron a hold over my life, then it's usually time to get a little "irrational" and break their grip. In short, I don't worship "reason" any more than I go out and prostrate myself before the MBTA subway because it transports me as efficiently through the Massachusetts underworld as "reason" does through the academic-intellectual jungle. Indeed, they both tend to break down with alarming frequency, and are probably not to be trusted too faithfully.*
Still more important, though, is the conflict here between principle and expediency. At what point does a person find himself compelled to say "no" to an expedient (even "reasonable") measure and declare his ethical-moral position? I cannot prescribe a formula for something like this as a doctor might; rather, I am suggesting that (1) there are often cases when a position simply must be taken, fully aware that the consequences may not be very desirable, and (2) there is no doctor; each individual must decide for himself on the proper course of action; no oracle or soothsayer is around who can give even the minimum of advice. Thus, I find myself forced by objective, observable events to recognize what is an absolutely insoluble contradiction: being practical and reasonable is impossible if I am to retain any shreds of sanity or honesty. Is a time of "saving" cities by destroying them one when a thinking person can sit on the sidelines and be "reasonable"? I would suggest a distinct and, if you will, moral "no." In this instance principle and expediency have become mutually exclusive.
What does this mean in terms of immediate action? It translates very simply: this is the time to draw the line. I propose, therefore, the following:
The various Harvard departments and programs concerned with East Asia, in conjunction with the East Asian Research Center, will announce publicly that henceforth their policies with regard to CIA personnel (analysts and operatives) would be to exclude them altogether from participation in any Harvard Asian programs. As long as the government continues to practice genocide in Vietnam, condone oppression in Taiwan, cause subversion in Thailand and Laos, and minister to immoral objectives in its Asian policies generally, that we would feel constrained by our consciences neither to participate in, nor to allow Harvard facilities to be used for, such purposes. "Toleration" cannot justifiably extend to institutions devoted to the destruction and oppression of Asian peoples.
What, in turn, will this produce in the way of results and consequences? Since I am not trying to avoid difficult questions, I will admit that the results may not be entirely pleasant. Perhaps exclusion of CIA personnel might mean a gradual cutting off of federal funds for the EARC, or the rise of barriers to Harvard faculty desiring to enter government service, or a deficiency in the ability of "analysts" and others to correctly determine foreign policy. I hope I have accurately anticipated your worst fears, for to me, at least, none of these would be particularly distressing in the long run, though perhaps momentarily troublesome. In fact, they would actually be welcome because they would lead to a vitally needed reassessment of many problems. For example, just how desirable is it to be financed primarily by federal and federally-minded (foundation) funds? How does an institution maintain its independence in such a situation? Perhaps alternate sources of money should be located. How bad could it be for the government not to be able to make "efficient" policy decisions? Given a Johnson-Humphrey approach to world affairs, the real need is for intellectual sabotage to the point where making foreign policy is as hopeless as ending the farm surplus problem--and its solution as drastic. Until visionary, or even decent and more humane, people retake the White House and the decision-making nexus, our job is to obstruct the government in every conceivable way -- if we do, in fact, have mankind's best interests at heart, and not merely a chauvinistic longing to keep the brainless bureaucracy running at top speed. This doesn't necessarily require a positive commitment to a specific ideology or program, just the realization of what America has in mind for the rest of the world is probably worth trying to prevent.
Does this seem as though I am saying of our government, "presumed guilty until proven innocent"? If so, fine. The past twenty years leave some room for doubts (in Europe, for example), but the case is overwhelmingly against us. A new start can only be made with the acknowledgement of our own implication in the Cold War and with a powerful commitment to sweep the academic environment clean of reactionary atomic idiocy and nonsensical desires to "make the world safe for (American capitalist) 'democracy'..." Sincerely, (signed) Jon Livingston
*See Bertrand Russell, Human Society in Ethics and Politics, esp. p. viii.