MANY of the Asian scholars at the Vietnam Caucus meeting in Philadelphia March 23 may never have seen such heated political discussion before--certainly not among students of Asian affairs, usually noted for their moderation and restraint. For the first time, a large portion of American students of the Far East took a stand against the Vietnam war.

Even the organizers of the Caucus were surprised (and elated) to find such strong and vocal opposition to U.S. policies in Asia among the 400 scholars at the meeting. The Caucus represented one third of the 1200 gathered in Philadelphia for the twentieth annual convention of the Association of Asian Studies. The Caucus, however, was held completely outside the auspices of the AAS. It was chaired by John K. Fairbank, Francis Lee Higginson Professor of History and unofficial dean of Asian Studies in this country.

The idea for the Caucus came out of student-initiated meetings among faculty and students in Asian Studies at Harvard. The Harvard group contacted 60 other Asian Studies centers in the U.S. and Canada, and drew to the Caucus a group evenly divided between students and faculty. Representatives from twelve such centers formed a credentials committee to select resolutions they would present to the Caucus for a vote. They also wrote a questionnaire to poll attitudes about the purpose and conduct of the war in Vietnam. The committee picked four resolutions to be presented from among nine submitted.

At the outset of the meeting, Fairbank skillfully frustrated an effort by some participants to shut down the Caucus. The dissident elements made repeated charges that the Caucus was "illegitimate" and "conspiratorial." Fairbank calmly refuted the charges, and when the argument erupted into violent exchanges, he sobered the audience by stating simply: "Gentlemen, shut up."

THE results of the poll indicated that 80 per cent of the 400 people in the audience did not agree that "Vietnam is a test case for 'Wars of National Liberation,'" 87 per cent denied that "the war helps to contain Chinese influence," and 86 per cent disagreed with the statement that "the war helps prevent the spread of communism into other areas of Asia." Fifty per cent of the audience indicated support for "an immediate U.S. withdrawal" from Vietnam, and 88 per cent voted for "gradual and unilateral U.S. troop withdrawal under the umbrella of negotiations." To the question "does escalation of the war increase prospects of war with China?" 85 per cent answered "yes," and 83 per cent said they would "support those individuals who decide to refuse cooperation with the Selective Service System because they consider the war in Vietnam unjust and immoral."

In preferential votes on the four resolutions, the Caucus again voiced strong opposition to the war. The most popular one called on Asian scholars to: "disassociate ourselves from a policy which amounts to little more than the annihilation of the Vietnamese people"; to demand that the U.S. "unilaterally withdraw its military forces from Vietnam under the umbrella of negotiations"; and to "support those who refuse induction into the United States armed forces."

The least popular resolution was sponsored by Fairbank and Professor I. Milton Sachs of Brandeis. Their position, the most "hawkish" of the four, called upon the U.S. to "de-emphasize bombing and reliance on firepower in general, and to greatly and rapidly increase our support of political and social programs through military 'clear and hold' operations rather than 'search and destroy' missions."

SACHS made an impassioned speech in favor of his resolution, and later echoed even more passionately his earlier charges of "conspiracy." He protested the "ungentlemanly" hissing from the audience, and to emphasize his disapproval, stormed out of the meeting. Fairbank commented, "it seems that Milton got a bit wrought up."

Others besides Sachs spoke heatedly on both sides of the discussion. Dartmouth professor Jonathan Mirsky, endorsing the resolution calling for immediate withdrawal said: "We must screw up our courage as Asian scholars to face ourselves. In the '50's older colleagues suffered. Now it's youth. We cannot fail them. They are showing us the way back."

A Chinese professor from the University of Pennsylvania explained emotionally why he was afraid of communism. Another scholar, Dr. Huynh K. Khanh, who left South Vietnam in 1955, said that the Thieu-Ky regime is "nothing." He said he would like to see his country "taken out of this senseless ideological struggle." "You don't have to be a Communist," he added, "to see destruction and human suffering."

To make sure the Caucus members did not go home to inactivity, the organizers called a meeting for the next morning to discuss what they considered to be the most important result of the Caucus--the formation of a committee to keep this new voice alive. Representatives from about 25 institutions met to form a Cambridge-based Committee of Concerned Asian Scholars, chaired by Professor John R. Watt, who teaches Chinese history at MIT. The Committee will publish a news-letter, draw up a statement commenting on the Tuxedo Park Statement (a "moderate" position paper by 14 prominent scholars), disseminate information to Congress, and generally "start publicizing the growing concern over Asian affairs and make ourselves known as consultants on current Assian issues."

AT A MEETING of the new Committee, Professor Watt said of the Philadelphia Caucus: 'This is the first time that Asian scholars have gotten together to express their political views in a meeting instead of in private. We should have had such a meeting four years ago. We've had one now." The other activists agree with him. One of them said: "In the past it's been the Milton Sachses and those who signed the Tuxedo Statement who have spoken for Asian scholars. We're changing all that. We're showing that we can get 'wrought up' too, but in a new direction."