Following is the complete text of a report by Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences A. Michael Spence on Harvard's Center for Middle Eastern Studies. The report, dated December 30 and released January 2, concerns two contracts between the Center's director, Professor Nadav Safran, and the Central Intelligence Agency. Accompanying the report were copies of the two contracts.

(Note: The title of Safran's recently published book is stated incompletely in Spence's report. The complete title is "Saudi Arabia: The Ceaseless Quest for Security.")

I am writing to report on the conclusions I have reached as a result of a thorough review of two contracts between the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and Professor Nadav Safran, the Director of the Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES or Center). The purposes of this review were the following: (1) to determine if Harvard University and Faculty of Arts and Sciences guidelines and policies with respect to research and closely-related activities were followed: and (2) to determine whether these same policies are adequate to protect academic freedom and the integrity of the research process at Harvard.

The review was initiated after a CIA contract with Professor Safran for a conference entitled "Islam and Politics in the Contemporary Muslim World" was brought to the University's attention in early October 1985. Shortly thereafter, the press reported a second CIA contract to support research that resulted in a book by Professor Safran entitled "Saudi Arabia: The Quest for Security." The book was recently published by the Harvard University Press.

As background to this statement, I have attached the following items:

1. My previous statement explaining my decision to allow the conference on Islam and Politics to take place, and the conditions that were set forth and agreed to for proceeding with the conference.

2. Copies of both the research and the conference contracts.

The free and open exchange of information and ideas is essential to an academic community. University policy statements have addressed the importance of freedom to publish without external restriction, the independence and objectivity of scholarship, and the freedom of scholars to disclose their external sources of research support. Although the pursuit of knowledge by individuals should not be constrained by an academic community, neither should limitations on free and open exchanges among scholars be accepted. For these reasons, Harvard has adopted certain policies governing the sponsorship and conduct of research.

Before I turn to the specifics of the contract in question, I want to describe the essential elements of the three policy statements that are relevant.

The first is the "Report of the Committee on Relationships Between the Harvard Community and United States Intelligence Agencies" (Intelligence Agency Guidelines). The guidelines contained in the report were announced by President Derek Bok on May 20, 1977. The guidelines reflect the position of the Ad Hoc Committee and the President, with which I fully agree, that Harvard as an institution should not prohibit the acceptance of research support from the CIA or any other agency, so long as the terms and conditions associated with the funds conform with institutional research policies and the existence of the agreement is made public. With regard to personal contracts between individual faculty and intelligence agencies, the guidelines state: "Individual members of the Harvard community may enter into direct or indirect consulting arrangements for the CIA to provide research or analytical services. The individual should report in writing the existence of such an arrangement to the Dean of his or her Faculty, who should then inform the President of the University." One reason for this rule is stated in the preamble to the guidelines: "Individual actions, when one is a member of the academic community, can affect adversely the institution and other members of the community."

The second policy statement is the "Faculty of Arts and Sciences Statement of Policy on Conflicts of Interest" (Conflict of Interest Policy). This policy was developed by a committee of the Faculty and was voted by the Faculty on November 10, 1981 and by the President and Fellows of Harvard College on March 1, 1982. The policy acknowledges that the individual rights of faculty must be carefully weighed against the fact that a faculty appointment is "fulltime in the most inclusive sense." The policy emphasizes the importance of disclosure and consultation with designated officials of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences when there is a question about the propriety of a potential individual contract. In the category of activities that faculty should discuss are "...projects and purposes that are deemed inappropriate for the University to sponsor (e.g. consulting on a proprietary basis or on government matters requiring secrecy)...."

The third statement is the "Report of the Committee on Criteria for the Acceptance of Sponsored Research in the Faculty of Arts and Sciences" (Sponsored Research Policy), which was voted by the Faculty on December 1, 1970. This policy establishes the characteristics of acceptable institutional research agreements and has long been applied to related projects such as conferences. The elements of this policy that are relevant to the current controversy are that the source of sponsorship must be such that it can be publicly disclosed, that faculty must "have the full right to publish any results obtained by them, subject only to established safeguards for the protection of privacy or confidentiality of personal data," and that institutional financial and administrative interests should be fairly considered and protected.

There is one general issue that deserves comment before I address the cases at hand. The above statements deal in some cases with grants to and contracts with the institution, and in other cases, with grants to and contracts with individual faculty. The boundary line between agreements that are purely individual and those that involve the institution is not clear-cut, but it is important that the distinction be made. Factors bearing on the distinction include the extent of the use or involvement of Harvard's facilities, staff, students, and name. When the existence and extent of involvement of the institution is unclear, case by case determinations must be made by deans or their designees. The disclosure and consultation elements of the above statements allow for these kinds of individual determinations. I would also note that the Intelligence Agency Guidelines, unlike the other two policy statements, were not adopted by a formal vote of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. They do, however, reflect the results of careful consideration by a University committee, (including consultation with a number of faculty members and others), have proved useful in providing guidance over the years, and have the strong sanction of the President of the University.

I. The Conference on Islam and Politics

A conference on Islam and Politics was planned by the CMES last spring. At the time of the initial plan, the source of funding was not settled. The Executive Committee of the CMES discussed the possibility of CIA funding at its meeting of April 26, 1985. The Committee urged the Director to seek other sources, but concluded that if CIA funding was accepted, the source of support should be disclosed to all potential participants. Professor Safran did endeavor to attract other sources of support but was unable to do so. Funding for the conference was ultimately secured on August 2, 1985 in the form of an individual contract between Professor Safran and the CIA for $40,700, later modified to $45,700. Those who had been invited to participate in the conference were not informed of the fact of CIA support. Although the conference was originally planned for September, more time was needed to organize it and the date was reset for October 15-16.