CIA

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The issues involved in the relationship between scholars and government agencies such as the CIA cannot be disposed of by Professor Jeffrey Herf's bizarre and diversionary arguments (Crimson, April 24).

He is right to raise the issue of the openness of sources used by scholars. But he is wrong to believe that "selective access to documents" is primarily the curse of writers who study "dictatorships and closed societies." How many biographers, or students of controversial political episodes in free societies, have had "selective access" to unpublished diplomatic documents, private diaries and correspondence? What is essential is that they indicate openly what sources they have used.

No less essential, however, is their duty to disclose the sources of their funding. Professor Herf alludes to suspicions concerning Middle Eastern Studies. It is the fear that scholars in this field will be subtly influenced by money from Middle Eastern sources that fuels these suspicions, just as it is a fear that CIA funding may have an effect on what a scholar says or doesn't say (whether or not he uses open sources), which explains the uneasiness so many scholars feel about such funding.

To quote Professor Herf, "I can see little reason why any young person with integrity would want to become a scholar," unless he or she is willing to reveal his or her sources of funding and sponsorship, and to indicate whether the sponsor has been granted a right of pre-publication review. A scholar, especially when he is also a teacher, has a commitment to openness and honesty in his relation with readers and students. Concealment deprives them of an important element in evaluating research; selective concealment is a form of deception. Teaching and scholarship require trust; trust, in turn, requires openness.

Does this mean that scholars are thus prevented from being patriots and from taking part in the fight against "communist states and international terrorism"? Obviously not. They can engage in a consulting relation with the CIA or other government agencies--as long as it is not clandestine. They can even, if they chose to do so, accept CIA funding for their academic work--as long as it is disclosed. Pre-publication censorship, however, raises issues Professor Herf brushes under the rug: how does he know that the "pre-publication clause" is only "designed to ensure that no classified material is revealed?" Professor Joseph Nye recently reported (Boston Globe, Nov. 24, 1985) that the scope of the clause can be much broader. (Moreover, given Professor Herf's phobia of unopen sources, how come he doesn't object to the mere use of classified materials?) Would Professor Herf think it is all right, say, for a scholar to give to the family of a deceased public official or writer the right to censor a biography it has helped fund?

Above all, I find it difficult to accept Professor Herf's equation of "left-wing scholars" working for the Office of Strategic Services in the 1940s, with academics who offer assistance to the CIA now. The Marcuses, Moores, Brintons and Hughes of the 1940s were drafted, and fighting a war. Contrary to what Professor Herf seems to believe, we are still in peace-time. "The American academic elite" is under no obligation "to offer help" to the government. It can, I repeat, do so if it wants to--as long as in doing so it does not violate its academic obligations. Otherwise, academics in this country will fall to the level to which many so-called scholars have fallen in totalitarian regimes. But one of the many dangers that neo-conservative ideologues overlook, in their crusade against the "evil empire," is the tendency to have our ends justify any means, and thus the erasing of the differences between the ethical standards a liberal society must maintain, and those of its enemies. Stanley Hoffmann   Chairman Center for European Studies