HOWEVER, our troubles with the use of force and attempts to gain concessions by coercive tactics did not come to an end last year. We have had a series of incidents during the first semester of the 1969-70 academic year. Very few if any students were involved in the attack made by the Weatherman faction of SDS on the Center for International Affairs in the early fall. But students have several times since committed offenses against the principles stated in the Interim Statement of Rights and Responsibilities. For the 1969-70 academic year a successor Committee an Rights and Responsibilities to last year's Committee of Fifteen has been authorized, in part by your vote giving the necessary statutory permission, to hear and decide cases calling for discipline of students by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences under the Interim Statement. In their first challenge the members of this committee have acted with courage and dispatch on cases brought to their attention by the Dean of the College. However infringements are not confined to undergraduates, and it remains to be seen how other faculties will perform in this regard. At issue all along have been actions and deeds, not thoughts or opinions. But, in my view, tactics of force will finally cease here only when they are outlawed by widespread popular revulsion against them. I hope and pray this day will come soon. Meanwhile we have yet to try, as other universities have done or are now doing, to find for the longer range an expeditious way to handle discipline in cases of this kind, perhaps by some dispassionate university-wide machinery, or at least with better coordination among the efforts of the separate faculties. That is matter for a later report.

In the interim the difficult problem of the deliberate violation of the prohibition against coercive tactics has recently been given a new twist by the employment of such means by groups of black students and others for ends with which we all deeply sympathize. Harvard has now acquired a fairly considerable black population. This year there are more than 600 black students enrolled in the various schools of the University. There are more than 40 black faculty and other officers and more than 550 black employee's. Harvard's concern to provide increased educational opportunity for black students is no recent development, though the process, slow in developing, has been hastened by the national temper. Each faculty is now making a heightened effort to recruit both more black students and more black employees. Almost all of them have allocated large funds for these purposes (in most cases more funds than they really can afford) and have appointed specially chosen administrative officers to facilitate the search.

It is obvious that blacks at Harvard are far from a homogeneous population and ver they tend now to coalesce as they increasingly see in their blackness a distinctive value and force. This seems to me both regrettable and sad for various reasons, but not least because, in specific matters now under consideration, the aims they profess through their Organization for Black Unity, and the aims we seek- to increase impressively educational and employment opportunity for all minority groups including blacks- are virtually identical. They and we- if we must be separated- should at least be working together and not in suspicion or at cross purposes in this important and urgent matter. This we sincerely want to do; there is so much hard work to be done. But thus far cooperation has not proved easy. I do not know how the issue is to be resolved. We shall go on trying to achieve the widened opportunity for blacks we are seeking. We are now making numerous efforts toward this end, hoping for real substantive improvement. The one thing we must avoid in these efforts, it seems to me, is to get "hung up" on disagreements concerning percentages. What is required is a greatly increased opportunity for minorities which will be fair.

Meanwhile it is not too much to say that Harvard itself is now under going a kind of revolution- perhaps several kinds! There are revolutions in tempo and pace, but also of substance. The speed of change, observable in marked degree during the pastyear in the Law and Medical Schools, is sufficiently impressive that did time allow I should like to give a detailed account of dramatic changes in these and possibly other areas. But the speed of change is perhaps less important than a major adjustment now going on in the University to a fundamental alteration in the intellectual climate of our time. Let me try to suggest what this is.

Despite our long involvement in professional education it can be said that rational analysis and reserved judgment, the scholar's concerns, used to be our predominant, if not our almost exclusive preoccupation. Such qualities of mind ought always to be nurtured here. But now everywhere one turns within the University among faculty as well as students, one senses a widening impatience with narrow scholasticism, that kind of scholarship which exists for its own sake. There grows among us, instead, a deeply-held conviction that it is not sufficient to pursue knowledge for itself, but that somehow knowledge must be put to work for moral, social, and political ends. What is wanted is an education which will recognize this and help to make it possible.

Perhaps the most vivid single example at Harvard of this force now at work here and everywhere in higher education is a new program developed last year in the Kennedy School of Government. The faculty of this School is made up of scholars from a number of fields many of whom have at one time or another been involved in the practical work of government. In thinking about their function in recent years they appear to have come to the conclusion first, that we now have neither the men in public life, nor the knowledge required to solve the many frightfully complicated problems of race, poverty, pollution, decay of cities, inadequate medical care, educational deficiency, law enforcement and all the rest that enfeeble and oppress our society: and second, that the nation lacks a program of education likely to produce the men required to formulate and administer government policies to cope with such problems.

The School's new program in Public Policy has been designed to try to produce such men. At the same time it aims to help meet the hunger many young people now feel who are not averse to the rigorous preparation necessary to equip themselves for a constructive contribution toward improvement in our national life. The new program is to be staffed and administered in collaboration with other faculties, initially the professional faculties of business, law and medicine, and the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Two degrees will be offered, the master's and, with the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, the doctor's: and courses of study leading to joint degrees with other faculties will be encouraged. This attempt at a wholly new and timely approach to education for public service is the kind of program, drawing on many parts of the University, which could be attempted only in such a varied academic community as ours. It is founded in the recognition that, if intelligent public policy is to be formulated, we must now have at the highest levels of government men who combine specialized knowledge in some professional or academic discipline with mastery of the sophisticated new methods recently developed for policy analysis- men who will also bring to their work a new professional ability as well as desire to relate knowledge to moral and political purposes. This last is the chief point of all. What is needed are professionals who can convert specialized knowledge into effective programs- that is, put to work the knowledge won by the social sciences, and liberal and humane learning. A quotation from Dean Price's description will suggest both the rationale and aims of the new program:

No other national government has anything like the American proportion of Ph.D.'s in its administrative service. But this success has been accomplished mainly in the specialized fields- in agriculture, through the land-grant colleges; and in the scientific professions generally, through the schools of engineering medicine, public health, forestry, and so on. In addition, the law schools continued to turn out men who rose to the top echelons of government through their ability to do policy staff work in fields (now declining in number and importance) where a man is not too greatly handicapped by ignorance of the modern techniques of policy analysis.

If we are to find ways to educate men who will go into higher reaches of government service, we must not only provide them with the right kind of intellectual abilities, but must also consider the structure of careers in American society. We must add to the kind of specialized knowledge that is provided to members of a learned profession the kind of knowledge by which its specially is integrated, together with others, into a national policy. If the government service is dominated by the specialized professions, it is likely to be very good at dealing with the less important problems, and incapable of identifying the big ones. And as long as the upper reaches of the government service are not monopolized by a career system, but filled in part by men who move back and forth between government and private life, we must offer our graduates the opportunity to combine public service education with preparation for some career that can be used as an alternative.

The intent of the new program in public policy is to produce scholars, lawyer, physicians, business executives and others who will be able to work in and out of government, pursuing private careers and public service- scholars at one time, activists at another as so many young people want now to be- who because of their ability, interest and training will be ready to bring to the public service the peculiar blend of specialized knowledge and broad political awareness which, together with administrative competency, are now manifestly needed in government if effective public policy is to be formulated and administered.

CHANGE, reappraisal, and development were in evidence everywhere in the university last year as they are this- most of it clearly constructive. In the Faculty of Arts and Sciences a number of efforts at review and improvement initiated earlier continued to move forward despite the repeated disruptive events which virtually monopolized this Faculty's attention after the middle of the year.

The Report of the Committee on Recruitment and Retention of Faculty (the so-called "Dunlop Committee") completed the preceding spring and mentioned in my report last year was considered by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in November 1968, and its proposals adopted. The Committee, having considered carefully all circumstances affecting faculty employment, made a number of recommendations designed to make more attractive a teaching post here. It was especially concerned for the well-being of young faculty. This was the first such comprehensive review in this area in many years.

Another committee had been appointed in the previous year under the chairmanship of Professor Robert Lee Wolff to consider what changes time and new developments had made desirable in the practices of the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences. This committee recommended a reduction of approximately 20 per cent (from 3000 to 2400 students) in the size of the Graduate School, to be effected over the next five years. The committee felt that the number of graduate students had become too large for the faculty adequately to instruct, that the need for large numbers to provide college and university teachers had become less pressing, and that the quality of our whole effort in this area could be improved by such reduction. There were also a number of recommendations (most of them addressed to the departments) designed to improve the lot of the graduate student. Particular attention was given to the perplexing problems of financial aid. This report was finally considered and approved in principle last May.

Still another committee had been appointed in an earlier year under the chairmanship of Professor Henry Rosovsky to plan a program in African and Afro-American Studies. Its report, produced after long and careful study, was widely noticed and acclaimed. The Faculty reviewed and approved it last February. Among other things it recommended that concentration in Afro-American Studies, a new and as yet not fully defined field, be combined with partial concentration in another established subject, that the program in Afro-American Studies he administered for the time being by a standing committee rather than by a department, and that African Studies be the concern of a different committee. At the time the various provisions of this report won wide approval, seeming to almost everyone to be both fair and wise. A number of them were altered later by faculty action. Nevertheless, a program was established and, with a variety of course offerings and a faculty of nearly a dozen (most of them on term or visiting appointments), led by Professor Ewart Guinier, it is now off to a promising beginning.

Still another committee of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, a Committee on the Role of the Faculty in the Houses, was at work last year under the chairmanship of Professor George Homans, studying the undergraduate Houses to see how far they are realizing the high educational aims for which they were designed, and more especially, what can be done to strengthen and enliven faculty participation in them.