TO THE MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF OVERSEERS:

GENTLEMEN - I have the honor to present to you a report for the academic year 1968-69.

Although the last twelve months brought numerous important constructive achievements, 1968-69 at Harvard must, it seems to me, be described in a summary view as a dismal year. And I am afraid it will also appear in time to have been very costly.

Our troubles of last year were widely reported, but it was never easy for the alumni to see them in perspective. There is nothing unique about a university beset with internal difficulties in these times. Virtually all of them are- in this country and abroad. But this reflection did not make our troubles any less painful.

From present perspective the distressing events of 1968-69 appear to have represented a culmination (if not a final resolution) of a sequence of misbegotten attitudes and events which began to evolve several years back. Two years ago I called attention to the existence among us of a small group of would-be revolutionaries. I said then- and I believe now- that they live in a world of fantasy if they think the United States is fertile soil for the kind of violent internal upheaval they have in mind. But I failed to do justice to the widespread and varied malaise in both student and faculty populations which then supported and has continued to provide a favorable environment for them. In my view, this malaise in academic communities is not something peculiar to them, but in large measure reflects a deep and wide disquietude- born of legitimate concern, disappointment, uncertainty, frustration, anxiety, and to a degree also fear- at present characteristic of society as a whole.

The chain of events which I now recall may be said to have begun with the effort of the revolutionaries in 1966. Introducing a new style and a new intensity in campus political activities to obstruct the free movement of Robert McNamara, then Secretary of Defense, when he paid a visit here as a guest of the Institute of Politities. Such treatment of any individual would have been abhorrent; accorded to a member of the President's Cabinet it was nothing less than shocking which, conceivably, it was intended to be. The Administrative Board of the College was puzzled as to what to do with the offenders in this case, for the tactics of force then introduced in political protest had not previously been employed or even contemplated here- at least not in the memory of those who now have the University in trust.

As you know the responsibility for student discipline, assigned to the separate faculties of the University generations ago, had for a very long time been exercised by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences by two Administrative Boards, one for the College, another for the Graduate School. But in this instance the Administrative Board for the College, uncertain in a novel situation, referred the issue back to the Faculty. The members of the Board were especially concerned not to take any action which could possibly be interpreted as an attempt to interfere with the free expression of political views. In the settlement, though no punishment was dispensed, there appeared to be widespread agreement, as the then Dean of the College proposed, that a line should be drawn to make it perfectly clear that in no future demonstration, for whatever purpose, could tactics inhibiting the free movement of any individual be accepted in our community.

Next came "the Dow incident" which I also discussed in my report two years ago. Again, coercive tactics were deliberately employed. Again the claim was made that so great was the grievance that such tactics were warranted. And again a cry for amnesty was raised. Though a considerable number of the faculty, moved by the alleged motive, were again willing to overlook the reprehensible act, and so opposed any punishment, this time some of the participants were admonished and others were put on probation. Once more every effort was taken to make it clear that the issue was not, as asserted in this case, the war in Vietnam, but rather the coercive tactics employed by some of the demonstrators, tactics which it was assumed all of us but the few revolutionaries bad by this time agreed had no place in a university community.

In December a year ago came the occupation of Paine Hall in advance of a scheduled meeting of the Faculty of Aras and Sciences, professedly over the issue of the ROTC then under consideration, but surely also in some degree as another test of strength and a bid for attention in an effort to win cohorts for their cause. This time a more disturbing development followed, for when the Administrative Board of the College by a split vote recommended requiring withdrawal from the College for five students on probation for participation in the Dow incident, the Faculty, taking back the power previously granted to the Board, voted to overturn their decision in favor of continued probation and suspension of the requirement to with draw. They did, however, accept the Board's recommendation of probation for 52 other students.

There followed the turbulent dramatic events of last April. Despite statements to the contrary in the press and in various other reports, neither the responsible administrative officers of the University nor the Fellows were taken by surprise by these developments. They had seen them coming for a long time, had in fact come to think of them almost as inevitable because of the dog-like persistence of some few determined young rebels. What was perplexing was the failure of the community at large accurately to have assessed the rebels' intent. The occupation of University Hall last April was brought about by a small number of the revolutionaries against the wishes of the majority of their followers. In the event, however, their ranks were greatly swollen by many young people who were genuinely and seriously concerned about the professed issues advanced.

The revolutionaries who have stirred up these disturbances have always been candid. They have said repeatedly that their aim is to advance "The Movement" and that where this end is served, anything goes. Specific causes are adopted at one time or another primarily because of the potential they offer for attention and popular support.

What we have been trying to say all along in answer to their repeated attacks, however, is that anything does not go here. For example, not the right to interfere with the free move movement of other people, nor the use of force, coercion and threats to try to have one's way. Reason and civility, persuasion and respect for differences of opinion- these hard-won conditions for civilized discourse still have their honored place among us. And must have. And will have. It is not surprising if the revolutionaries do not agree, but unfortunately, as an indication of the difficulty of our present situation, I must report that not all faculty even yet concur in this resolve.

The occupiers of University Hall last April, having entered the building and forced the rightful occupants out, announced they had not come to negotiate but were prepared only to hear their demands had been granted. The calling in the police to clear the building the next morning was my responsibility. As I have said many times, this seemed and seems to me to have been the least bad of the alternatives then available. But the community obviously- and I think, understandably- experienced deep shock over this event, and for many the issue instantly became, not the provocation, not another violation of a fundamental and agreed-upon principle of university life, but the police; and for some- I cannot say how many- so it remains.

Rather than to entrust the responsibility for discipline in this matter to the Administrative Boards in which they had shown lack of confidence, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences took the exceptional step in the emergency of electing a special committee of its own (augmented by student members) to deal with the students charged in this occupation of University Hall. A few cases where Corporation appointees were involved were handled later under procedures worked out by the President and Fellows in discharge of their statutory responsibility.

This Committee of Fifteen recommended a variety of sanctions including a number of separations. These recommendations were heard and supported by the Faculty near the end of the term. But more important, I think, this Faculty formally adopted in June, by an over whelming majority, an Interim Statement on Rights and Responsibilities, drafted by the Committee of Fifteen, which was intended to redefine and make unmistakably clear where the line between permissible and impermissible behavior must be drawn here. There was widespread agreement that such a line was required especially in a time when many people feel so deeply about various issues, and are so ardent and so confident about the rightness of their cause that thy disdain democratic procedures and act as if a sense of right strongly held not only excuses, but even makes virtuous the suppression of the rights of others and the contemptuous treatment of contrary views. So far have some in our time departed from the University's basic liberal conviction.