3. There are too many of them. "We always got along okay with just a few people draining off our dollars in Mass Hall before; why have we suddenly become General Motors?"

4. The shrinking $ for academic pursuits are somehow the Administration's fault. After all that's the only reason they're here anyway--to free us for our research.

All of these points are closely related, but there are subtle differences in each case. Beyond these, there are external factors which help reinforce and focalize these concerns.

1. The unsettled, changing nature of the society. Everyone is po'ed at everyone else and everything. While the scholars would tend to take a longer view and be less concerned than say the workers, they are not immune.

2. For Harvard University as a whole, and professors in particular, there exists what we used to call "the nobody loves me's." I am sure the faculty would call it "anti-intellectualism." We can see it in such areas of society as disenchanted students, angry congressmen, disappointed parents, Gallup polls, etc. The professor sees it in shrinking grants, criticism from know-nothing politicians, nasty radicals who are rude about the rules of scholarship, etc. I have always found that the other side of a giant, arrogant ego is a painful desire to be petted and stroked. Where else would that apply more? (Except perhaps on Capitol Hill, but there they have to get used to having a shoe clerk tell them what dumb jerks they are every two years.)

3. Money. Again, they are no more immune than the rest of the country. I am sure faculty wives are just as vociferous about the weekly trip to Sage's as the ladies are in Southie, if somewhat more genteel. Beyond this there are such vital matters as pensions, grants, foundation support, taxes, and the cost of sending children to school.

* * *

If all, or part, of this has any validity, then we should take special pains to analyze our program continually to see if it is proceeding toward easing these problems and concerns. This suggests some of the following:

For Derek:

1. That he continue to take particular concern over the faculty and analyze his activities and schedule in relation to it.

2. That we emphasize communication of his scholarly messages and concerns over the more businesslike communications.

3. That we identify faculty opinion leaders and seek their opinion and counsel on a regular basis, and before releasing our more important messages.

4. That Derek take it on himself to be the spokesman outside for scholarly concerns, such as our idea on graduate education and research.

5. That Derek make conscious use of Henry Rossovsky [sic] and others of the faculty when presenting various ideas, particularly the more controversial ones. I know he does this already with the various committees etc., but we should probably consider the communication aspects of each one individually.

For the V.P.'s: