CAMBRIDGE PROJECT

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The lengthy article in the Sept. 26 CRIMSON on the Cambridge Project struck me in many ways as good. engaged reporting. The Harvardian reference to MIT as the "house whore" of the Defense Department struck me as undue protestation, however, and not totally accurate. We have freely sheltered. even nourished a number of polite and not so respectful crities of DOD. including Jerome Weisner, Richard Goodwin, W. W. Kaufman and Noam Chomsky.

My own views were somewhat incompletely and at one point inaccurately reported. I asserted that DOD supports over half of current American foreign areas (not all behavioral), research. The sponsorship is not unimportant, moreover, because it tends to develop greater in-house capabilities for achieving DOD aims, perpetuates a loathsome Congressional discrimination against social-scientist-controlled funding sources, and puts many researchers. especially those interested in foreign areas, in a "conflict of interest" situation. On the other hand. I agreed with the views of Professor Deutsch, noted in the article, that reality assessments using expensive, "hard" techniques may help reduce Pentagon tension-related. idealogically based distortion tendencies, which have sometimes helped cause disastrous wars of miscalculation. And I have been trying, with the expectation of at best modest success, to get students in my courses to use Cambridge Project monies to develop and use social science resources relevant to the achieving of humane, yet profound social, political, and economic revolution.