A Reply From Huntington

(After the publication of the articles by Epps and Plotke on Huntington's report, the CRIMSON received and printed the following letter.) To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The CRIMSON'S dedication to total impartiality between truth and error is indeed impressive. In your July 14th issue, you ran a reasonably detailed and accurate description [by Garrett Epps] of my AID paper on "Getting Ready For Political Competition in South Vietnam," In your July 24th issue, you ran a marvelously distorted frequently inaccurate, and somewhat murky editorial column about the same paper.

Apparently your columnists do not read what your reporters write, or if they do, they don't believe what they read. In any event, rather than taking the time and the space in this letter to correct Mr. Plotke's inaccuracies of July 24th concerning the contents of the paper. I instead urge your readers to consult your straightforward and lucid news story of July 14th.

Mr. Plotke does, however, make some further statements about the origins of the paper and the rights of social scientists which do require some attention. He implies that the Center for International Affairs was somehow involved in the production of the paper. This is totally inaccurate. I wrote the paper in my personal capacity as a consultant to AID. The paper was not in any way connected with the research program of the CFIA.

Mr. Plotke goes on to say that the presentation of the paper to the government "amounts to secrecy," and in order "to publicly disclose" this "semi-secret paper" at the present time, "it was necessary to steal it." Mr. Plotke attempts to make something appear mysterious, secret, shady, and possibly illicit when it was in fact just the reverse. When I submitted the paper, AID did not stamp a security classification on it and hide it away in a safe. Instead. copies were distributed to the seventy-five academic and governmental members of the SEADAG Council on Vietnamese Studies and Committee on Political Development for discussion at a joint meeting of the two groups. Copies were also made generally available to the 250 members of SEADAG and to anyone else interested in having one. The paper was widely discussed last year in on-government circles concerned with Southeast Asia. I don't know why Mr. Plotke felt it necessary to traffic in stolen goods. He could easily have secured and can still secure a copy of the paper simply by writing to: The Asia Society-SEADAG, 505 Park Avenue, New York, New York 10022. (In view of the interest which the CRIMSON may or may not have stimulated in the paper, I have put a copy on reserve in the library of the Center for International Affairs for perusal by any member of the university who wishes to be let in on all the nefarious "secrets.")

Mr. Plotke concludes his column with some rather ominous statements about the activities of scholars who consult with the government. He says, for instance, that "Huntington can, in his position as Chairman of the Government Department of Harvard University, prepare papers for the use of the U. S. Government in Vietnam" and that "he and his friends employ" research "done by scholars who may in many respects oppose Huntington..." These statements are in form descriptive but in meaning condemnatory. The implication is that these activities should not be engaged in because: either (a) no professor has a right to advise the government; or (b) no Harvard professor who disagrees with Mr. Plotke has a right to advise the government.

Any one of these positions is clearly incompatible with the rights which professors have along with all other citizens to express their views on public policy and to participate in the political process. A professor does not lose this right because he is either a hawk or a dove, does research at the CFIA or elsewhere, or is named Huntington or Genovese. Mr. Plotke's views are a challenge to the basic principles essential to the life of both an academic community and a free society.

Samuel P. Huntington Frank G. Thompson Professor of Gov.