The Mail FACING UP TO WAR CRIMES

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In their letter of April 24 the members of the Government Department defend in an indignant fashion the threatened member of their department. They do not react to the charge of war crimes rationally; they simply react. However, inside the protective circle, one can see another shadowy figure, unnamed in the letter, the figure of Henry Kissinger. One can be sure that when the prodigal son returns from Washington, similar arguments will be advanced to ward off any "slander" of Kissinger, such as the charge of war crimes.

One can disagree with those who seek to condemn a member of the University by slogan and denunciation and still assert that the question of war crimes is an important one. Indeed, whether the Government Department Faculty realizes it or not, war crimes have become a topic of quite polite and scholarly discussion. In the most recent issue of the New Republic, Professor Richard Falk, certainly no "vigilante," urges the impeachment of President Nixon for three types of war crimes, including crimes against humanity (genocide). It may offend the members of the Government Department that some of their colleagues might be accused of war crimes; however. the question will not disappear in the face of out-raged manifestoes. As Professor Moise has recently observed, perhaps it is time to abandon the atmosphere of a gentlemen's club which pervades the Faculty, time to take the gloves off, even at the cost of personal friendship.

The Gourvevitch-Roberts letter (also 24 April) at least attempts to confront the question of political responsibility. However the solution that the authors suggest, that of radically separating political action outside the University and action within the University, is unsatisfactory. Under this scheme, the academic policymaker would return to the University. When the "public authorities" sought to investigate his actions while a policymaker, one can be sure that the Government Department would once again issue a statement, condemning the investigation as a violation of academic freedom. The academic mandarin would escape all responsibility, as he has in the past. The Gourvevitch-Roberts approach permits one professor to be censured or dismissed for shouting down speakers in Sanders Theatre, while the Government Department goes out of its way to welcome back another professor after he has completed the destruction of Indochina. The justice of such an outcome escapes me.

The question of war crimes and political responsibility need not involve the right of anyone in the University to teach, write, or speak on any topic he wishes. Members of the University should be free to urge a particular course of action on the government, the right of every citizen. Rather than academic freedom in the strict sense, the question is whether a person's political actions while holding a policymaking position in the government affect his fitness to hold an academic post. One can defend the right of a war criminal to speak without rewarding him with a tenured position. Does "gross misconduct" under the Statutes of the University extend only to University matters? Can the University simply wash its hands of, or in the case of Kissinger, openly condone crimes against humanity, if such crimes are proven? Certainly the University range of faculty appointments must be as wide as possible, but it would seem that an institution dedicated to the tattered and threatened values of humanity and civilized conduct must set some limits. Perhaps the perpetuation of war crimes, once again properly investigated and proven, is one of those limits. These are the questions which must be faced. To simply leave the question to the political authorities is an easy way out for the University, but a cowardly one.