HOFFMAN ON PAINE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Moral indignation against the war in Vietnam is so justified that when, a year ago, hundreds of students violated a University rule in their demonstration against Dow, many professors did all they could to put that incident into its context and to prevent excessive punishment. Moreover, the Dow affair had largely resulted from, and was pointing to, the inadequacy of channels in which students and professors together could discuss issues of public policy involving the University. But I do not believe that the sit-in of last Thursday, which led to the cancellation of the Faculty meeting, can be defended.

The debate on ROTC had been long and thorough--by contrast with the discussion of Dow's visit last Fall. It had revealed sharp divisions among students as well as professors. There were respectable moral convictions on all sides, and even among those who, like myself, feel that a University is not the proper place for military preparation there were divergences over the answer to the problem. One does not have to be a moral relativist, pace Professor Putnam, in order to want to weigh arguments and take note of the legitimate concerns even of those whose point of view one rejects. For instance, while I find little justification for the present ROTC program, I recognize the right of students to pursue military preparation as one extra-curricular activity among others: and while I recognize the moral fervor of those who want, because of Vietnam, to expel ROTC altogether, I find the connection between ROTC, America's armed forces and Vietnam far more complex than that between Dow, napalm and Vietnam; and I do find the parallel between moral opposition to Nazism and moral opposition to ROTC, or to America's armed forces, or to American foreign policy (which I have not been known to celebrate) unconvincing, to say the least. Nor do I believe that one can legislate for the future exclusively on the basis of Vietnam.

Precisely because the debate had been thorough and quite open, and because three organizations composed exclusively or largely of student representatives had come out with similar recommendations that did not endorse the SDS position, the sit-in could only be interpreted as an attempt to impose by pressure what was not obtainable by free and rational discussion. This is a form of moral absolutism that amounts to intolerable political tryanny. Majority rule has its flaws, and I have heard ad nauseam the argument that moral issues cannot be settled by majority decisions. But what was at stake was public policy--which entails a judgment on different moral stands and a consideration of multiple values; this cannot be settled by minority rule.

To be sure, University procedures that define public policy are creaky and will change only under pressure. But three points must be made. One, there have been improvements since last year; the intelligent and sophisticate contribution of student representatives in many areas of policy was creating precisely the kind of pressure most likely to convince the Faculty not merely of the need but of the advantages of further and faster movement. Coercive pressure of the kind of represented by the sit-in is most likely to backfire, for there is quite a difference between ordinary pressure, and an actual threat. Two, that Faculty meetings which deal with issues of deep concern to students should be open is a view well worth exploring. But it is not a simple question, and even if it were, to impose the solution by the fait accompli of a sit-in decided by one group of students is not a method acceptable to nay self-respecting Faculty: A rule cannot be changed through its coercive violation. Had the Deans not decided to cancel the meeting, it would have been the Faulty's duty either to do so, Faculty initiative to hold an open meeting could be taken, the sit-in had to end-and the least one can say is that it had not made the success of any such initiative easier; for, if we start to talk about the politics of ultimatums, the sit-in constituted the first one-and it was carried out.

There, archiac or not, the Harvard process of decision had shown itself responsible to student concern over ROTC. It had taken the Dow incident to get Student-Faculty Council established and a new procedure on recruitment adopted. This time, the docket of the Faulty consisted of resolutions which al reflected student opinions or resulted from student-faculty discussions. Supporters of the SDS position had freely argued their case with SFAC, and a similar resolution was before the Faculty. This time, it could not be said that University passivity had forced the students to act; it was the move of some students which prevented the Faculty from acting.

In other words, the minority of students who decided to sit-in order to pressure the Faculty both to adopt one kind of solution on ROTC and to hold open meetings, was precisely not in the situation of, say, the minority of industrial workers who had to organize strikes against companies that had effectively deprived their employees of any mode of redress other than coercion. It is because there existed orderly -- if slow and constricted -- procedures for change, which had demonstrated neither their impotence nor their indifference, that the sit-in is indefensible--not because the target happened to be us, the professors, instead of Dow. That these points should have to be explained to one's students is normal--I have learned enough from them, especially in the realm of moral concern and idealistic commitment, to insist in return, without condescension, that they learn some essional distinctions without which they will not be responsible citizens or even effective radicals. That one should have to teach these distinctions to a philosopher-colleague is more baffling.

Does this mean that the Faculty is blameless? Certainly not. In recent days, the moral self-righteousness of the students who decided to sit in had probably been reenforced by the elusive wording of the CEP resolution, which lent itself to misinterpretation--not only by those who ware anyhow suspicious of any solution less simple than their own. The CEP text, I believe, was too clever by half in its wording; yet it could have been clarified and improved if the Faculty had been able to hold a normal meeting, just as we could have discussed the holding of open meetings if the sit-in had not prejudged the issue. In coming days, it would be tragic if Faculty indignation became a pretext for dodging the two serious issues of ROTC and of the students' role in the process of decision. But if the Faculty returns to those issues, it will be despite the sit-in, not because of it. This is the difference with last year.

There is another difference. A year ago, hundreds of students were involved in the Dow incident; only a little over one hundred persisted in the sit-in. This difference shows, not a decline in moral concern, but the greater complexity of the ROTC issue and the greater effectiveness of University procedures. What worried me most last year was the prospect of me most last year was the prospect of disciplinary retribution meted out in ignorance of a wide moral upsurge. What worries me most today is the state of mind of a group of students who, because some forms of tolerance are at times "re-pressive," make a fetish of intolerance, turn a debatable view of history into a dogma, and convince themselves that their identification with the oppressed and the damned of the earth makes of them an equally oppressed group, entitled there fore to the tactics of despair. We cannot allow them either to believe that they have a monopoly on moral fervor and political ardor, or to think that their aims (many of which I share) justify their antics.

To be sure, one does not cure fanaticism by disciplinary punishment; it is much better to underline the pathetic futility of the sit-in than to bloat its importance by turning bunglers into martyrs, who could then receive at last the sympathy and support of the bulk of the students, and whose sense of being the victims of Faculty and Administration repressiveness would then be vindicated. The escalation of bitter confrontation is in nobody's interest. What happened here was not at all of the same order of magnitude as what was done by others at Berkeley of Columbia. Here, there was coercion, but no violence; violation of a rule, and a kind of obstruction, but no real occupation or damage. I do not think that most of the students involved want to destroy this University: they sincerely belive they're just trying to improve it. But when beliefs spill into unwarranted disruption, a professor's duty is to refuse to condone it, to explain that disruption is the opposite of that reform which is so vehemently demanded, and to expose fanaticism wherever it comes from. That students of today's Western societies should act out "La Chinoise" is understandable; but, ion this instance, that some colleagues should flatter them and egg them on is unforgivable