Harvard Press Was Told Of Book's CIA Backing

The director of the Harvard University Press, which published a book by Nadav Safran without mention of its CIA sponsorship, said last week that the publishing house was at fault for not calling attention to the CIA funding.

"Obviously, the Press's procedures as revealed in this case were not sufficient," Arthur J. Rosenthal said in a statement released by his office.

Rosenthal said he has taken steps to ensure that all sources of funding for works published by the Press be disclosed in the future.

Different Story

Rosenthal's statement followed the revelation that Safran informed the Press of his CIA funding in November 1984, prior to the publication of the book.

That revelation changed the picture that originally emerged from the Press. It now appears that the publisher was either negligent or complicit in Safran's effort to conceal his CIA funding.

Three months ago, when Crimson reports first disclosed that Safran's research had been supported in part by a $107,430 CIA grant, Rosenthal said the University Press had been unaware of the CIA connection. Some officials said the Press might not have published Safran's book if the grant were known.

CIA support for research is a sensitive issue in academia, where a high premium is placed on unbiased inquiry. Secret funding and funding that restricts scholarly freedom are generally frowned upon.

In a preface to the 524-page book, "Saudi Arabia: The Ceaseless Quest for Security," Safran acknowledges research support from the Rockefeller Foundation and the Rand Corporation but makes no mention of the CIA grant.

Safran's book became a source of embarrassment for the Press in October when it was revealed that Safran had accepted CIA money on the condition that he conceal the agency's support.

Safran's contract with the CIA also required him to submit his writings to the agency for approval and possible censorship.

Safran, who is Albertson Professor of Middle Eastern Studies, will step down from his post as director of Harvard's Center for Middle Eastern Studies (CMES) in June as a result of the controversy surrounding his CIA ties. (See accompanying stories).

In his report on the investigation that led to Safran's resignation, A. Michael Spence, dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, says that Safran submitted his book to the CIA for pre-publication review as stipulated, but that "no changes were requested or made."

Spence also found that "Professor Safran did inform his acquisitions editor at the Harvard University Press of the CIA support in a letter dated November 6, 1984."

The University Press offered no explanation for the book's failure to acknowledge CIA sponsorship.

University Press officials refused to elaborate on the director's statement, which said in part, "At a minimum, the public has a right to know of any CIA funding connected with a book. The publisher and the author owe this to the public."

The Press earlier identified Safran's editor as Aida Donald, but would not now say whether Donald was the acquisitions editor referred to in the dean's report.

Donald has not returned telephone calls to her office over the past three months.

Despite Safran's letter, members of the Press's Board of Syndics said in October that they were not told of Safran's CIA funding before they approved his book for publication.

The Board of Syndics, a panel of Harvard professors acting as advisers to the Press, reviews manuscripts proposed for publication. The board's endorsement is a prerequisite for publication.

CIA Link Not Known

"When the book was approved, no one at the Press knew that the book had CIA funding. Had that information been available when the Board of syndics considered this book, the whole matter would have received very serious discussion and consideration," Professor of Law Lance M. Liebman, a member of the Board of Syndics, said in October.

Brian Murphy, associate director of operations for the Press and its chief financial officer, concurred at the time.

"We would not want to go ahead and blithely publish a work if there were some highly specialized interests behind it," Murphy said. "I would think we would have wanted to be thoroughly informed."

Safran's book received strong recommendations from outside experts consulted by the Press. It was printed with the Belknap label, a mark of special distinction.

Several officials said they could not recall a previous instance in which the press published a book that had received CIA funding.

In the mid-1970s, a Congressional investigation revealed that the CIA had secretly funded hundreds of books in the United States and abroad in an attempt to counter Soviet propaganda efforts.

Concern about relationships between government intelligence agencies and scholars prompted the University to issue a set of guidelines on the subject in 1977. The guidelines permit professors to do work for the CIA and other intelligence agencies, but require them to report all such arrangements to the University administration.

Other Harvard regulations prohibit scholars from accepting grants for research here when the terms of those grants compromise academic freedom. Rules explicitly prohibit arrangements that cannot be disck losed or that restrict the publication of research results.

Conflicting Opinions

University Press officials offered conflicting opinions as to whether the University's restrictions on sponsored research apply to works published by the Press. Editors at the press and members of the Board of Syndics said that sources of funding are not ordinarily scrutinized.

Rosenthal's statement promising full disclosure appears to resolve any confusion surrounding the Press's policy, however.

Acknowledging a breakdown of the publishing house's own procedures, one top official said Safran continues to share responsibility in the incident.

David Professor of Business Administration Kenneth R. Andrews, chairman of the board of directors of the Press, said last week Safran was at fault for entering the CIA contract.

"That should have been unacceptable to him. It would be preposterous to assume that a scholar should be supervised in this respect," Andrews said. "What is so egregious about it is that in the whole tradition of scholarship you do not conceal facts that can create distrust by people who find them out.