Dear Colleague:

In recent months there has been considerable speculation in the press about the "political differences" between you and other members of the Harvard community, and about the implications of such differences for your future relationship to the University. The preoccupation with these questions is unfortunate, in our view, since it reduces fundamental concerns about national policy to the level of stories of "human interest" and academic intrigue.

We find the notion that a university or one of its units might "punish" a member because of political differences to be completely reprehensible. We are happy, therefore, that the Department of Government and various members of the Harvard community have laid to rest any speculation that your colleagues have such political punishment in store for you. At the same time, we fell that, just as it is improper to purge a colleague because we disagree with him, it is equally improper to mute fundamental disagreements because of personal friendship and respect.

We believe that, as fellow members of the Harvard community, we can speak clearly and openly to you about the issues that divided us and that we have both the right and obligation to communicate to you our views about national policies in which you are playing a central role. We hope that these deeply held views of some of your colleagues will engage your serious attention and concern.

Our position on the war in Indochina can be state very simply and succinctly. Whatever may have been the original motivations for U.S. involvement there and the complex processes that culminated in the present state of affairs, we are convinced that the conduct of the war and its continuation in what ever form are profoundly immoral and violate basic human and national values, The evidence is overwhelming that U.S. military and political operations have had enormously destructive consequences, totally unrelieved by any expectation that these operations will improve the conditions of the Indochinese population or protect the interests of the United States. The war is destroying the peasant populations of Indochina: U.S. actions are killing Indochinese-both "friends" and "enemies" -in the thousands, exposing the subcontinent to massive saturation bombings, uprooting its population, defoliating its countryside, and undermining its social structure. It is clear that the massacre at Song My were not merely isolated aberrations, but characteristic -if extreme-manifestations of the military policies that the U.S. is pursuing in Vietnam. As far as our own country is concerned, the war is not only costing thousands of lives, but destroying the moral basis of our society.

When a nation is caught in a moral morass of such proportions, the only appropriate action is to repudiate and reverse the policies that have led us into it. W must end the war, doing all we can to achieve a settlement that will avoid further bloodshed and allow the peoples of Indochina to rebuild their shattered societies. It is clear, and has becomes increasingly so, that the policy of Vietnamization will not end the war, nor even American involvement in it. By substituting air power for ground troops, it may reduce American casualties and thus, perhaps, make the war more acceptable to some segments of the American public. It is not, however, a policy conducive to achieving a peaceful settlement of the conflict in Indochina. The recent expansion of the war into Cambodia and Laos has made the implications of Vietnamization more and more apparent. Even if these actions were to achieve certain short. range military objectives, these are in the service of a policy that is itself unsound and immoral. Vietnamization and its concomitant political and military actions represent a continuation of the killing, the decimation, and the subjugation of the people of Indochina, with active American support and participation. We shudder at the evil that our government is committing in our names.

We do not regard you as an immoral man. Yet you are one of the key architects and administrators of an immoral policy. Starting with the most decent and humane intentions, a man can become caught up in and locked into a set of policies that negate everything he is trying to achieve. We are convinced that this is what has happened to you. We implore you to give serious consideration to the fact that some of your colleagues, sharing your own values and commitments, are so profoundly repelled by the policy you seem to be upholding. We hope that you will renounced this policy; that you will use your influence to move the Administration to a policy of genuine peace in Southeast Asia; and, if you are unsuccessful in promoting a reversal in policy, that you will dissociate yourself from the current administration and its destruction of Indochina.