Thus programs affecting faculty, graduate students, undergraduates, and black students were all being carefully examined when the year began. In addition in November a new Standing Committee on Research Policy was organized. Later in the year, at the Faculty's request, several committees were appointed to study the feasibility of the proposed merger with Radcliffe, one of the most important issues now confronting this Faculty and the Governing Boards. I suspect a considerable portion of next year's report will be concerned with this subject.

Finally I must mention the appointment of a committee "to reexamine and report on the structure, procedures, and decision-making processes of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, including ways in which students might participate in reaching decisions." This committee was requested by the Faculty in January in the wake of the Paine Hall incident after the previously mentioned faculty reversal of a decision by its Administrative Board. By this time it had become apparent to many that the Faculty had grown too large to function effectively under its old rules. There was also the question of how students under this Faculty could participate in decision-making. The so-called Fainsod Committee was then appointed, but the disturbances of the spring prevented it from completing its work until the fall of 1969. An account of the treatment accorded its recommendations by the Faculty, not yet concluded, will also have to be part of a later report. But clearly the clearly the Faculty of Arts and Sciences was busy about important matters during the past year before the shattering distractions of April set in.

Then in the highly charged atmosphere of the aftermath of early April, the Faculty called for the establishment of a committee "to investigate the causes of the crisis; to assume full responsibility for disciplining the students in the forcible occupation of University Hall; and to consult with representatives of the other faculties of the University and with student representatives in order to recommend changes in the governance of the University." This so-called Committee of Fifteen was composed of ten faculty members who, as mentioned earlier, were elected by the Faculty (breaking with traditional policy by which all committees had previously been appointed) and five student members, three from the College and one each from Radcliffe and the Graduate School. For the remainder of the spring the attention of the College was largely focused on the work of this Committee. Its reports have been made public and need not be reviewed here. In my view its most significant accomplishments during months of carnest and protracted labor were the carrying cut of its responsibility for students discipline and its success in a turbulent time in securing overwhelming Faculty approval at the end of the 1968-69 academic year of its Interim Statement on Rights and Responsibilities and in designing temporary machinery for handling during 1969-70 cases of student discipline arising from infractions of the statement's provisions.

A WORD must be added concerning this Faculty's action on ROTC, an issue prominent on this and other campuses throughout the year. Questions about the appropriateness of ROTC programs in academic communities had been raised in many places in the preceding year as an almost inevitable part of the growing criticism of all military activity, which obviously resulted principally from the spreading and deepening hostility, especially marked on college campuses, to our participation in the war in Vietnam.

The pres and cons of the issue were widely discussed here in the autumn of 1968 Variant proposals concerning it were brought before the Faculty of Arts and Sciences in early December, but decision was postponed until a special meeting scheduled for Paine Hall on December 12- the meeting which was never held. When the Faculty returned to this matter in February there were four different plans before the meeting. The Faculty supported the proposal of the Student Faculty Advisory Council to withhold academic credit for courses offered by the military departments, to withdraw their listings from that Faculty's catalogue, and to request the Corporation to discontinue providing space for ROTC and to terminate the legally required academic appointments customarily given the military officers who served here (however only with our approval). The intent of this vote was not to abolish ROTC but to reduce it to extracurricular status. Negotiations were proceeding, in what would probably have proved a futile endeavor to reach a new agreement with the military within these limitations, when the matter heated up again. A letter which I sent to Dean Ford expressing the Corporation's view on this issue, which differed at important points from that of the Faculty, contributed to this effect. Then on April 17, the Faculty passed resolutions demanding that the University terminate any existing contract which provided the military services with any "special privilege or facilities" and that "the University enter into no new contract or informal arrangement concerning ROTC inconsistent with this principle." Subsequently, during the course of the past summer, all three services notified us they were withdrawing their units from Harvard- the Navy and the Air Force in June 1971, timed to match existing contracts, the Army at the conclusion of the 1969-70 academic year.

It is difficult for me to explain thefierceness and the sense of haste which the Faculty of Arts and Sciences showed in dealing with this issue. Certainly they had been on solid ground in raising questions about courses given in their name over which they did not have complete control and academic appointments made to their ranks by other than regular channels. So far as these were the issues, they deserved and received full support. My letter had tried to make this clear. But the validity of other aspects of their criticism, which seemed to be presented almost in a spirit of ecrasezl'infame, was less clear. And the small concern shown for the views of the students who were enrolled or might want to be enrolled in the ROTC units seemed to me shocking. As a matter of fact, it was only in June, almost as an afterthought, that the Faculty finally voted to authorize negotiations looking toward termination of the units not immediately, but as of June 30, 1971, in order to give most of those already enrolled opportunity to complete the program. It was also curious that in its debates on the subject the Faculty of Arts and Sciences paid scant attention to the fact that a considerable number of the men in the units were enrolled in the Business and Law Schools. But the issue is now closed, and the friendly association of many years between Harvard and the military services through which we assisted in providing for them many leaders of high competence will next year come to an end, a casualty of these troubled times.

As I said at the outset, it was a dismal year, and will prove a costly one. If there is anything demonstrably false in our recent experience, it is that tactics of violence can be productive of good, that "they get results." Yes, but what results!- in hours wasted and opportunities missed, in the increase in internal political activity at the expense of learning and scholarship, in the erosion of confidence and trust and respect, in the promotion of distrust and hostility, the injury done friendship, and the defeat of reason and love. Nor am I impressed by the statements of those young who maintained it was only in participating in disruptions- for them high adventure-that for the first time they really lived. If such are the requirements for meaningful existence we have indeed come to a sorry pass.

The losses to scholarship and to education from incessant political actively in times of mass hysteria are serious losses which must be reckoned. The circulation of books in our libraries plummeted last April and May. There is also the not inconsiderable loss the University suffers in the interruption of other aspects of its work and the sidetracking of important concerns when practically the whole of its administrative effort must be devoted to preventive measures. And the monetary losses are not inconsiderable. The University Hall affair cost Harvard approximately the equivalent of the annual salaries of two professors or the scholarship stipends of ten or more students. Even more serious are the extra costs required for the additional administrative officers and services needed to cope with the new destructive forces. These are some of the obvious internal costs, and there are others. These exercises in disruption with the attendant unease, confusion and bitterness they spread entail a serious threat to the academic profession. Doubts are already being raised in the minds of many of the most able and sensitive professors across the country, whose concern is for scholarship and teaching, about the desirability, wherever an opportunity for escape exists, of remaining in teaching positions befouled by political activity and contention. And no one knows how many of the ablest young will be turned away from the profession if campuses continue to be battlegrounds. More immediately serious, however, is the loss of confidence in universities on the part of the various publics which nurture and sustain them. This is now widespread and growing as is quite clear from recent actions of the Congress reflecting public opinion and reactions elsewhere. Here plans toward which we have been working for years have been forced aside, delayed if not terminated, good and promising plans I am confident any fair, rational and concerned appraisal would surely say.

It is perplexing to me why any people who live in universities and profess to care for them, however deep their concern about the shortcomings and injustices of contemporary society, should turn on them as the enemy, reviling them as if they were the creators and sustainers of what they call an obscene industrial military complex and an abhorrent way of life. It would be nice to think we had such power, or that by ourselves or in cooperation with other universities we had the wisdom and the strength instantly to correct all of society's ills, whereas what we have is only limited power to study them and in time produce men and women trained and determined to work to set them right.

Harvard has never appeared wicked to me and does not now- nor uninformed, nor callous nor indifferent. She continues to live in many minds and is as sensitive, knowledgeable and concerned, and as groping as they are. What we need in these difficult years is not the millenarianism of self-important revolutionaries, nor preoccupation with the limited objectives of any group of self-seekers, but a general community resolve to eschew rhetoric and recrimination, and to return to the University's age-old patience and courage to keep at its task. I hope we shall soon regain this stance.

It was a dismal year; but we must turn now to look ahead. As you know a committee made up of faculty and student, representatives from all departments of the University with representatives from among the alumni group and the two Governing Boards is now at work examining the present organization of the University to see where improvements can be made in order to protect it against recurrences of the kind of difficulties we experienced last year, or stated more positively, to see how the University's organization might be improved to facilitate its work. This committee, after broad consultation within the University, will report its findings to you, and you in your turn, as the alumni's elected representatives, will be expected to make recommendations for the consideration of the President and Fellows. It has been argued that this is not a propitious time for such a study. It may be that the disturbing events of the past year still weigh too prominently in all our thinking: and it may be that we are still too involved in similar continuing problems to be able to make wise and dispassionate provision for the long range future. But, wisely or not, we are started, and it seems to me we have no alternative but to move ahead.

I do not wish to prejudice the work of the study committee. I hope and trust that good for the long-range future of Harvard will come from its efforts. It surely will if- but only if- its work wins widespread support from our whole community, from all the schools and departments of the University, from the various groups of students and faculty in each, from administrative officers and governing boards. And also from the many groups of alumni whose experience of Harvard and whose affection and loyalty for her extend through graduating classes of more than seventy years. What is wanted in this effort of course is not simply opinion but informed and concerned opinion and also trust and goodwill and professional competence in weighing appropriate administrative organization. Surely the Harvard community should be able to meet these desiderata.

Meanwhile may I say I do not see the source of our recent and present difficulties in outmoded organizational structures, though our difficulties may well have been compounded because the reasons for and ways of operating these structures were too little understood within the community. It would be strange if this were not so, for we are a very large community and the people who make it up are constantly changing. Several thousand depart each spring. The replacements, gathered from all over the world, from many cultures and fabulously varied backgrounds, come newly into the community each fall. Something like three-quarters of the present members of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences have been members of this community for less than ten years. The student body of course changes almost entirely every quadrennium. They too, by design, are an enormously heterogeneous group from widely different backgrounds, with vastly different needs and aspirations. It is not surprising that misunderstandings occur among us and that it has become increasingly difficult to establish and maintain a unifying sense of common purpose. But it is to be hoped that new arrangements or adjustments in old ones can now be found which will at least moderate this problem.

I WOULD be remiss in discharging the obligations of my office if I did not before closing, direct attention to the financial conditions and needs of the University. Over the past twenty years the annual cost of operating the University rose from $28 million to $176 million. During the sixties the increase averaged approximately $12 million a year. While numerous important new programs were introduced, much of the increase represented response to inflation. Fortunately, as expenses rose, during this period, income kept pace. Endowment, tuition, and gift income grew steadily. Even more marked were the substantial annual increases in the large funds which came to the University, chiefly for research from various agencies of the Federal Government.

Last year for the first time in many years the support we received from the Federal Government showed no increase (in fact it declined by $200,000). Also last year, for the first time in many years, the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, whose expenses constitute roughly a third of the University total, operated at a deficit. Its prospects for 1969-70 are no better, and for fiscal 1970-71 dimmer still. Though the combined operations of the whole University last year showed a small credit balance, the separate central University account was also seriously in the red, and the general financial situations of the Schools of Education, Divinity and Design are dangerously weak.