Until I reached Jay Burke's article in the CRIMSON'S Special Issue on the Center for International Affairs last week, I was increasingly disappointed. There are lots of good questions to be raised about the Center, but even in four full pages Richard Hyland managed to avoid discussing most of them. If one wants to reach the conclusion that "One of the chief motivations for blowing up a building is the sheer malignity of, for example, the CFIA," one doesn't bother with such logical niceties.

By the time I finished trying to separate fact, innuendo, and fantasy, I decided it wasn't worth the effort. As with the November Action Committee tour of the Center, the questioner doesn't really want an answer.

Burke's piece on "Money and the Social Scientist" is quite a different story. He presents a well reasoned version of the current radical critique of social science, illustrated by references to the CFIA, but concerned with much broader questions. He ends with a plea for:

"A thoughtful, reasoned dialogue between practicing social scientists and radicals who challenge their assumptions. . . the solutions probably would not include either closing down research institutes like the Center or ignoring political criticism from students."

This seems an eminently reasonable request. To respond to it, several faculty members have agreed to join in discussing some of the central issues. These extend much beyond the CFIA and involve potential conflicts in the role of the social scientist as teacher, researcher, advisor, and social critic.

Burke's list of radical doubts about American social science has been expanded by my colleagues Samuel Bowles and Arthur MacEwan (The CRIMSON, October 27). Such criticism is typically posed in terms of suspicions as to the extent that traditional views and institutions may inhibit discussion and research directed toward social change.

To pursue these questions, it is necessary to examine how real institutions-academic departments, research centers, donors of research funds- actually operate. It is one thing to propose a general criticism of the uses of social science in the United States, but quite another to verify this diagnosis for a particular entity like the Center for International Affairs. While constructive criticism of the Center is likely to reveal considerable room for improvement, it may not lie in the directions indicated.

The Radical Critique of Social Science

In general, the radical critique runs something as follows:

The (American) social scientist is a product of (American) society and he tends to accept its values. This tendency is strengthened when he has to rely on government funds to support his research and when he advises the government on matters of policy.

This bias is likely to have unfortunate effects on both teaching and research. In particular, it leads to overemphasis on studies that tend to support existing policies and institutions and to the neglect of research on radical forms of social change.

Even basic theoretical constructs in economics and government- such as equilibrium and stability- reflect a concern with maintaining the existing social order and tend to exclude the analysis of drastic change.

The system tends to be self perpetuating because scholarship, academic appointments and research proposals are all judged by the people in it.

This is a plausible set of hypotheses and it should not be beyond the wit of social scientists to test some of them. While it is reasonable to start the debate in rather abstract terms, it is necessary to examine the performance of real people and institutions in order to resolve it.

The liberal answer to this line of criticism is equally abstract. It relies on an open competition among ideas and protection of the freedom of people to express them. The university should be insulated from political criteria in the selection of its members and in their choice of topics for research. The scholar should be judged only when he is appointed to the University; thereafter, there should be a minimum of control over his teaching and research.

Like the principles of Laissez Faire Economics, these sound unexceptionable in theory, but here too it is fair to ask how they work out in practice.