A copy of the following letter was sent to The Crimson. The original was sent to Albertson Professor of Government Nadav Safran.

Dear Professor Safran:

You are quoted in this morning's New York Times [October 14] as saying that some scholars have withdrawn from the Islam and Politics conference for "personal reasons." I hope that I made clear to you in our conversations on Saturday that my own reasons were matters of principle. If I expressed myself more in sorrow than in anger, it was because of my long standing respect for you as a scholar and a person. Although you will not remember it. I first met you 23 years ago at a meeting to protest another operation of the Central Intelligence Agency, the invasion of Cuba known as "the Bay of Pigs."

I am aware that there is a distinction to be made between the above board activities of the CIA in gathering and analysing information to aid government in the rational formulation of policy, on the one hand, and its so-called clandestine operations. I am also aware, of course, that the CIA is no more than an agency of the United States government. I admit that I have accepted government funds in the form of Fulbright and National Endowment for the Humanities grants. If I have been inconsistent, it is because it is difficult to draw lines in these matters. Nonetheless I must attempt to do so: the principle of the autonomy of academic inquiry is, I believe, seriously compromised by entangling it with the gathering of intelligence. You knew very well the quotation from Pirke Avoth warning scholars to seek no intimacy with ruling power. For myself, that is still a guiding principle.

I am not familiar with the circumstances of the CIA funding of this conference, but it is unfortunate that I was not informed of it until two days ago. As it happens I had received Professor Malik's paper only the day before and had not yet read it or prepared my comments, so I cannot complain of having been put to extensive labor. I would like to think that my comments would have come out pretty much the same. But it is the case that a CIA connection of any sort can severely compromise one's scholarly reputation, certainly in India or Pakistan. I would add that the involvement of the United States government in propping up the regime of General Zia ul-Maq only makes it more necessary to be clear about the independence of scholars. Too often an academic cover has been used to promote CIA operations to the detriment of all scholars.

About 50 years ago my grandfather was travelling in upstate New York. Somebody asked him if he wanted to go to a local picnic--what he thought he heard was "clam bake." When he got there, there were a lot of people in white sheets and they were burning a cross. He ran from that place as fast as he could. I am afraid I feel the same way about the conference. Sincerely Yours,   David Lelyveld