THE UNIVERSITY OFCHICAGO 9 RECORDAN OFFICIAL PUBLICATION ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY OF FACULTIES VOLUME II, NUMBER 2REPORT OF THE COMMITTEE TOREVIEW THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEENTHE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO ANDTHE INSTITUTE FOR DEFENSEANALYSESThe following report of the Goldsmith Committeewas presented to the Council on February 13, 1968,with a recommendation from the Committee of theCouncil of the University Senate that 1) the reportbe published; and 2) the Council endorse the actionrecommended in the report at its next meeting onMarch 12, 1968.This report is the response of the undersignedfaculty Committee appointed by President GeorgeW. Beadle in October 1967 "to review the relationship between the University and the Institute forDefense Analyses (IDA) and to recommend to thePresident what the University's relationship oughtto be." The conclusions and recommendations herein have been based upon testimony from and discussions with several present or former participantsin IDA programs, the current Executive Vice-President and two members of SDS, and from a study ofunclassified reports and documents on the organization, goals and activities of IDA.The Institute for Defense Analyses is a nonprofit membership corporation formed in 1956 toprepare studies and analyses on matters of national security for the United States government.IDA was founded by five universities: The California Institute of Technology, Case Institute ofTechnology, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University and Tulane University.A grant of $500,000 from the Ford Foundationrepresented the first working capital of IDA. In1959 the member universities were increased by theaddition of Columbia University, The PennsylvaniaState University and the University of Michigan.In 1961 The University of Chicago became a member, and in 1962 Princeton University and The University of Illinois. The present membership oftwelve universities was completed in 1964 by theaddition of The University of California. IDA isoperated by a Board of Trustees, generally thePresident or other senior representative of each CONTENTS / February 16, 19681 The Goldsmith Reportsponsoring university, a number of public trustees(currently six) and IDA's President and ExecutiveVice-President. The Trustees are elected annuallyby the members. The President of IDA is GeneralMaxwell D. Taylor, USA (Ret.), and the ExecutiveVice-President is Gordon J. F. MacDonald, currently on a two-year leave of absence from UCLA,where he is Professor of Geophysics. IDA's totalresearch budget (1967) is in excess of $14 million,financed almost entirely by the federal government,primarily by the Office of the Secretary of Defense.The staff now numbers over 600, with about 325"professionals," covering most areas in the physicaland social sciences. The permanent professionalstaff is augmented by specialists from universitiesand other research institutions, either as on-callconsultants or as staff members with one-year ortwo-year appointments.The corporate charter provides that it is IDA'sobjective "to promote the national security, thepublic welfare, and the advancement of scientificlearning by making analyses, evaluations and reports on matters of interest to the United StatesGovernment, with primary orientation toward matters of national security." Furthermore, it is statedthat "IDA's basic purpose is to perform a publicservice by bringing to bear upon important national problems the services and skills of outstanding scholars. Its primary orientation has been andcontinues to be toward the needs of the office ofthe Secretary of Defense and the Joint Chiefs ofStaff." Although the staff formulates recommendations, IDA does not make policy nor does it apparently represent any school of policy.The first University of Chicago Trustee wasWarren C. Johnson, who after his retirement wassucceeded by the present Trustee, A. Adrian Albert,Dean of the Division of the Physical Sciences. Fourfaculty members of the University are or have beenconsultants to JASON, one of the divisions of IDA,although two have resigned from IDA, and one iscurrently inactive. None of these men has carried out1research or any other activity related to IDA on thiscampus. Many members of the faculty, if awareof IDA's existence at all, were unaware of theUniversity's corporate association with it until theissue of the University's participation in IDA wasraised by a group of students. The members of thisCommittee were generally unaware of the formalassociation.The Committee has addressed itself to the natureof the corporate association with IDA and to itseffect on the objectives and policy of the University. The matter of the involvement of the University as a corporate entity in matters not directly related to the University's appropriate role is apparentin this case, and the nature of the IDA association isnot unrelated to considerations expressed in the report of the Kalven Committee, a report on the University's role in political and social action. It couldbe argued that the only reason for association withIDA in a real sense would be because of a feeling of corporate responsibility for the national welfare. President Goheen of Princeton, in a statementrelative to IDA, has stated that "The fundamentalobligations of the University include not only theprotection and exercise of academic freedom butalso concern for the welfare and security of thesociety which permits academic freedom to flourishand flower." This is an admirable view, and, asexpressed in the Kalven Report, particularly appropriate at a time of crisis. Without attempting todefine just how stressful the times should be beforeinvolvement in essentially political matters shouldbecome a significant activity, one might ask howsuch corporate involvement is implemented, at whatlevel does it begin, and where does it end?It is quite apparent to the Committee that thereis no real interaction between The University ofChicago and IDA. The Committee knows of no reporting activity to the University on the part ofour Trustee, nor do any of the faculty or staff ofthe University advise him on specific decisions orcourses of action with respect to IDA. Thus theTrustee acts as an individual, and there is no evidence that he is a real agent of the University.This is also the situation of the faculty memberswho have acted as consultants to IDA; they haveacted as individuals and on their own time. It canbe argued that the University neither gains fromnor contributes in any true sense to IDA. The Uni-versity-IDA relationship appears to us to be ananomaly, and our membership might best be described as a legal fiction. The extent to which thisis a consequence of the classified nature of muchof IDA's work is not altogether clear, but in thisconnection we feel that the nature of the work done by IDA is irrelevant. Why then should this (or anyother) university play the role it does in IDA'sorganizational scheme?The arguments that have come to our attentionin support of the existing University-IDA relationship are variations and extensions of the followingviews :1. IDA's effectiveness is a result of its universitybacking and of its status as an independent agencyoutside of the government.2. IDA's strength in quality of personnel is a result of this association.3. A continuing review of IDA and its goals isguaranteed under University sponsorship.It has also been stated (Goheen, October 31, 1967)that by its independent existence "IDA removesfrom the universities themselves what might otherwise be strong pressures to engage in types of classified and applied research that might indeed pollute the air of intellectual freedom and opennesswhich we cherish for our universities." Others havepointed out that the universities are needed to continually question not only what IDA does, but tocontinue to question the very need of IDA, nowand in the future. Furthermore, it has been statedthat if this questioning attitude were lost, IDAcould well end up as a captive (and second-rate)organization. It is claimed that the university Boardmembers participate in a more important way thanthe public Board members, for they represent universities and look at what IDA does in terms ofhow it reflects on the university. It has even beensaid that the university Trustees help keep IDAlike a university. The university Trustees may notonly disagree with views held by IDA officers, butthey lend the strength necessary to enable some ofthe officers or other IDA people themselves tomaintain independent and divergent views.The Committee questions the validity of theseviews with respect to this University's relationshipwith IDA. We realize that the individual Trustee'srole is largely a function of what his universitymay care to make it; in our case, it does not seemto be one in which The University of Chicago istruly represented. It is also difficult for us to picture the University playing either a guiding or arestraining role in a situation where the Universitydoesn't have any real knowledge of what IDA isdoing. A skeptic might say that some of the arguments by IDA protagonists amount to pleading forthe support of and for blind faith in an organizationof unknown virtue.We do not feel that any of the arguments putforth in favor of the continuance of a formal Uni-2versity of Chicagb-IDA relationship are convincingat this point in time. IDA is obviously an activelyfunctioning organization, and important as the university backing may have been in its evolutionarystages, we do not feel that the formal associationof universities is any longer necessary. We do notsubscribe to the argument that individual Trustees,from this or other universities, would be any lesseffective if they acted solely as individuals. In particular, we see no real need for a continuing association of this University, and recommend that stepsbe initiated to terminate the corporate associationas soon as feasible.This recommendation is not intended to reflecton the freedom of individual faculty members toparticipate in IDA, or in fact to lend their abilitiesto any agency concerned with national problems, beit civil or military. Furthermore, the recommendation for dissociation from IDA is made without prejudging other affiliations. It should be apparent,however, that affiliation with other organizationsshould be mutually beneficial and produce directinteractions that broaden the University's functionof research and teaching.The Committee would like to commend the students who have brought this matter to the attentionof the University. We feel it worth re-emphasizing,however, that in making our recommendation, wemake no moral judgment on the work of IDA, al though its antagonists have condemned IDA atleast in part on the basis of its military (andtherefore assumedly anti-humanistic) concerns.This Committee is not concerned with IDA'sstance, be it that of hawk, dove or dodo, nor withthe desires of some individuals to bolster our government, nor with an opposition group who wishto withdraw support of any kind largely because ofa currently unpopular war.In recommending that our corporate associationbe terminated, we realize that a problem extendingbeyond our own University may be created. Ourinitial association with IDA was the result of actions by responsible people in this, as well as other,universities, and if dissociation is to take place, itmust certainly be done in a fashion that takes fullaccount of our current responsibility to IDA as wellas to the other universities. If our recommendationis followed, it may be desirable for our Administration to initiate discussion with the administrativeheads of the other eleven universities, realizing thatthis activity may take some time. It may also beworth pointing out to IDA itself that it consider achange in its corporate structure.Julian R. Goldsmith, ChairmanGwin J. KolbJohn H. LawHans J. MorgenthauJohn A. Simpson3IioEC>0woo0oerJ0OoONm ± c Z%IP -O 5" •9§zP O 0o - </> ftr-r— O J 15 Z o a22 m f