symbol. We forget very conveniently that that was our national policy then and that basically my concern is seeing the schizophrenia of the Government which on the one hand is now the largest exporter by twofold of arms in the Free World and where they have the department-I think it should be labeled "offense," many times, not "defense"-in conducting a Peace Academy, because I think it will be in conflict with itself. This is my basic problem that I have here, just as I had a basic problem many years ago with the setting up of a diplomatic academy where I felt the people would not be taught the same freedom of the sort as they would in a private university.

The objective is excellent, and I think it should be applauded. I thank you very much.

Senator HATFIELD. Thank you very much.

Senator Pell. Would you care to join us at the podium? We would be delighted.

Senator HATFIELD. I would like to, but I have another committee I have to go to.

Senator PELL. All right. Thank you very much.

Now the Honorable Harlan Cleveland is here.

I would like to say welcome to an old friend and a fellow Bostonian, and I am delighted to see you here.

STATEMENT OF HARLAN CLEVELAND, DIRECTOR OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS, ASPEN INSTITUTE OF HUMANISTIC STUDIES

Mr. CLEVELAND. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I am afraid I do not have a prepared mimeographed testimony because

Senator PELL. I think it would be more stimulating if you just spoke briefly and then moved into a discussion rather than if you just read from a text.

Mr. CLEVELAND. I have been a little unclear about the status of the legislation before you, but I have been interested for many years and am today in the development of the Government's interest and support for the training of Americans in what I have come to call coping with interdependence.

I would like to suggest that you might want to consider for the record two pieces of paper which I will leave with the staff; one I have left with the staff. One is the final report of the National Commission on Coping with Interdependence, chaired by Robert O. Anderson, which just self-destructed recently, and with a final report, a relatively short one, that primarily emphasizes the fact as they said:

Wherever we have looked at the capacity to cope with interdependence-in the business community, the labor movement, the non-profit field, the communications media, the educational system, and government-the main obstacles to coping seem to arise from the pervasive assumption that the line between "domestic" and "international" is still a useful and relevant tool in making institutional policy.

Senator PELL. Is this any relation to the group who are pushing the Declaration of Interdependence in Philadelphia?

I know I signed that, and I find that those of us who signed it are being attacked as being traitors, left-wing, et cetera, et cetera, et

cetera.

We are interdependent in this world today, and I was just curious if this

Mr. CLEVELAND. This particular enterprise was not part of that, although the banker who is the head of that World Affairs Council was a member of this Commission, Frederick Heldron.

I believe myself that one of the most constructive things that is being done in connection with the Bicentennial this year is the creative effort of a group in Philadelphia to call attention to the fact that the name of the game in the future is interdependence and that the celebration of our Declaration of Independence, as I am sure you know, Mr. Chairman, also happens to be the sesquimillenium or the decline and fall of the Roman Empire in 476 A.D. We had better take that into account in all of our new activities, and the new activities will increasingly feature, I believe, a blurring of the lines between what is domestic and what is foreign, and the people who are trained to work on these matters will increasingly have to work both sides of the increasingly nonexistent fence between the two.

I think we are heading into, in the next decade or so, what is not too grandiose to call the century's third try at world order, the League of Nations having failed, the United Nations being unable in its present condition to cope with most of the issues that are bugging us these days. The reconciliation of free institutions with full employment and fuller lives inside the industrial democracies, which each of the industrial democracies is treating as if it were a national problem, but in fact it is a global epidemic, with dealing fairly with what I have been calling the global fairness revolution, the problem of poverty, not just the distribution of wealth among countries but primarily the distribution of wealth within countries, within the poorer countries, which is where the real problem is; action on international scale on the emerging-to bring to light and to make institutions out of the emerging environmental ethic, which increasingly has to do with issues such as the weather and its modification, that are international in character and threatening in their potential, and meanwhile, in the keeping of the peace in a world where astonishingly the largest weapons cannot be the most usable weapons and create the most stable stalemate.

In all of these issues, if you take them together, I think it is precisely the kind of education we need to give ourselves and our students these days is the capacity to take them altogether, to look at the situation as a whole, I think we see another spate of international-the development of international institutions, each of which is indissolubly linked with internal issues in our own society. We cannot have a world food system without thinking of U.S. agricultural policy, for example. I think we have to see this as a great spate of new institution building comparable to the period between 1943 and 1950, whose legacy we are essentially using as the world system in economics and in security matters. The problem is, are we ready for such a period, and I think the answer clearly is that we are not ready for such a period, and one of the main things to do about it is to prepare the kinds of people that can think in the interdisciplinary and integgrative ways that are necessary for tackling these problems.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, for 5 years I managed a university system, the University of Hawaii, and I noticed that there were

many interdisciplinary courses, most of which were team-taught by professors, each of whom taught his own discipline. It was the students who were supposed to be interdisciplinary.

Senator PELL. I don't think there is any skepticism about what the witnesses are saying. However, the specific problem is, do you consider that this is a fit role for Government. I believe the Soviet Union, if I am correct, has a Peace Academy. Yet they are not necessarily the most peaceful people.

Can you see people under the instruction of the Federal Government really boring in with the right objectivity into these sensitive areas?

I do not, and this is my reservation about the bill.

Mr. CLEVELAND. Well, my own instinct is for a combination of strategies, of which the development of a Government sponsored institution or institutions can well be one. I would like to submit some negative comments about the particular provisions of this bill in a minute. But on your point, Mr. Chairman, I rather like the concept that Senator Hatfield just expressed, a combination of strategies in which we use the best of what is done in the private, but now in this country mostly public, higher education and give that the kind of support that is needed, and I gather yesterday the House passed the Citizen Education Amendment to NDEA title 6. I must say, I hope that the Senate will agree with that, because I think that there is a-that, too, is a part of coping with interdependence.

But on the matter of a Government institution, I believe with the relationship between the Government and higher education, and I have seen a good deal of it in my life, I must say that it seems to me that by and large in the area of science and technology, in the area. of marine studies, increasingly now in the area of environmental studies, that it has been possible to develop baffles between the direct political domination, on the one hand, and the kind of academic freedom that is necessary for independent thought and the learning of independent thinking by students, on the other. The National Science Foundation has not taken over the science establishment in the country, and the National Endowment for the Arts and the Humanities have proved to be, I think, very constructive approaches, and I think we need a

Senator PELL. That is the point. I wouldn't want such a crucial area to be affected by government influence.

Now in this case, I think you are getting into much more sensitive areas, and that is why I would have some skepticism.

What would be your thought to providing, just as you mention the NDEA program, where foreign languages are being studied and special assistance is given for science studies, that special assistance might go to students who are studying the causes of peace, revolution, and what you will, and approaching it that way rather than setting up a Government academy.

Mr. CLEVELAND. I think only a part of the problem is the absence of sufficient subsidy or bribery for students to get into this kind of work. A part of the problem is that we haven't even developed the conceptual base for the period that is just right ahead of us, and too much of what is done in even the regular university programs and public and private think tanks is, sort of, in this respect, behind the

times, and I think it is important that the Government take some interest not only in making it possible, financially, for students to take advantage of programs in this field, but to make sure that the programs are worth taking advantage of. It is a little like the revenue-sharing with the States and localities and very little talk about helping the States and localities develop the manpower to use those funds effectively. The Intergovernmental Personnel Act, and so on, finally did something about that.

Now what is contemplated here, I take it, is a combination of some grant making kind of capability for research and the development of programs that would be widely shared within the academic community, and the development of a graduate program which_would have kind of a yardstick function. Now, on that program, I thoroughly agree with you that it is important that it be isolated from a political pressure and from the views of whoever happens to be Secretary of State and President and members of the Foreign Relations Committee and so on at the time. For this reason it did not seem to me that it would be useful to have as less publicized an arrangement as I believe the present draft of the bill would have. I think this would almost guarantee that the Academy, with a capital A, might never become an academy with a small A.

I have some views on this which I believe were available to the staff. Specifically, if you really do not want all of those Government members and especially you do not want the President on the board of trustees, the best arrangement, I think, would be to have all nongovernment people, or at least people who are there because of their personal qualifications for being trustees and not related to the job they happen to hold in the Government. The arrangements for appointing the chancellor, I think, are not appropriate for this kind of an institution. The bill has him being appointed by the President with the advice and consent of the Senate. I think a chancellor in that position would have the views that you just expressed of making sure that that was alright with all of those sponsors.

But the most important task of the board of trustees of an educational institution is to appoint the chief executive. Maybe that is because I was once a chief executive. But I think that power should be in the hands of the trustees and that the chancellor should be to that extent, at least, insulated from the direct feeling that he has to be responsive to every change of mood in Federal Government policy, because obviously this thing is not going to be very helpful both chancellor and the faculty, on the one hand, and the students, on the other, are somewhat out ahead of the Government in thinking through the problems which go behind the tactics of diplomacy and policy today.

I do think it is a good idea, as is provided in the bill, for the chancellor to have a term of office rather than being removable any day he makes a speech that somebody disagrees with.

The other thing I would say about the present draft is that the bill specifies far too many things. I do not think the number of students should require congressional action if you are going to have 501 or 502 students instead of 499. Similarly, the percentages of the entering class who may be foreigners, I think it is a good idea to have a

class that has some foreigners in it when you are studying interdependence. I think all of this sort of thing ought to be much more fluid.

I believe that the appointment of students by the President, taken over, I suppose by analogy with the military academies, since this is a nonmilitary academy, I think that provision would be inappropriate.

In short, Mr. Chairman, I think the bill should be written more like the Constitution of the United States, with a lot of flexibility for development, and not like the constitution of the State of New York. I believe it is true that if you want a new ski-lift in the Adirondacks you have to get a constitutional amendment.

So I think there is a good deal of work as far as the bill is concerned. And in addition, Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that it is important that the kind of flexibility, that Senator Hatfield spoke of, be developed in consultation with the higher education community, because if the higher education community believes this to be competition rather than assistance to their mission, it obviously is not going to fly in any case.

So those are my very informal views.

Senator PELL. Just to ask you in brief, because there are so many witnesses to come, what would be your reaction to the thought of having the same assistance given to private institutions or to individual students?

Mr. CLEVELAND. Well, my own feeling here is that the most important bottleneck is not the inability of students to afford this kind of training, because there are many sources already for that kind of thing, and that is relatively easy to develop, and so it is noncontroversial. The real bottleneck is the sluggish rate at which the American higher education system, public and private, has reacted and is reacting to the enormous changes in the nature of our relationship with the world, and the fact that the programs do not yet exist that in most cases are appropriate to subsidize students to take. So I think something has to be done in that field that is comparable to what was done after Sputnik for science and technology and exotic languages. and that is comparable with what has been done through the space program, for the science parts of academia.

Senator HARTKE. Perhaps the heart of the problem that the chairman has, and the distinction which I would like to see drawn, is that what you are saying in substance is that right at Indiana University, for example, we have an excellent studies program in that field. That is out there. It is the other step that you are talking about here that we are trying to cure. After all, this is not a policymaking instrument. This is to train individuals, but specifically to train them in an area which at the moment there is not that kind of dynamic to keep the country moving in a direction which we are going to move rather rapidly.

A general, when he was questioned about his early developing of relations between France and Russia, General DeGaul, was asked why he was making such a move with Russia. His answer to President Johnson at that time was: