University of Virginia Library

Graebner Doubts Value Of Strike

Q: Do you believe the nation is
tending toward isolationism?

A: I cannot identify criticism of the
war in Vietnam with isolationism.
Even the war's most bitter critics
believe that the United States has
many interests abroad. One could
scarcely call Walter Lippman an
isolationist. Indeed, many of the
critics of today are men who were
far ahead of Roosevelt in
demanding involvement in the war
against Germany. This suggests the
real issue. It is one of interests and
priorities. The United States has
vital interests abroad, but they are
not universal. To withdraw troops
from Vietnam is not synonymous
with bringing all American soldiers
back to American shores. Some
should remain abroad - certainly in
Europe and perhaps off the coasts
of Asia. Isolationism would not
serve the country or the world, but
I do not believe that it is a danger.
The American people have certainly
learned something from their
experience.

Q: Do you think the Vietnam war
has caused a mis-structuring of
priorities as far as foreign policy
goes?

A: Except for Germany, no nation
has ever demanded so much of the
United States for so long as has
Vietnam. Certainly this war has
been a drain and tends to weaken
United States influence elsewhere.
But not much. One can exaggerate
the disadvantages that come to our
world position because of Vietnam.
We have the power to maintain our
security on various fronts. No
nation is getting away with
anything. It seems to me that the
events and pressures exerted in any
region of the world emanate from
conditions indigenous to that
region. Vietnam should never have
become such a stupendous
problem, dividing the American
people so badly and injuring the
sensibilities of so much of the
world. It has injured our economy
and raised questions regarding
domestic priorities. It has
disillusioned countless students.
This disturbs me and should disturb
all. But whatever the costs of the
war, Vietnam has not, in my
estimation, damaged American

interests elsewhere. What concerns
Europe is United States policy
there, not United States policy in
the Far East. For that matter,
Europeans have seldom agreed with
United States policies toward
China.

Q: What did you think of the
events of last May at the
University?

Norman A. Graebner

A: I was not in Charlottesville last
May; I was in England. Many
people have tried to explain to me
what happened. In such a crisis the
mood is the important thing.
Having missed that, I suspect that I
really know very little of those
events.

Q: Students are planning another
strike for this spring. How effective
do you think this type of activism
is in changing the foreign policy of
this country?

A: Past experience would suggest
that it is not very effective. Foreign
policies, once established, seem to
have a life of their own. They
become terrible hard to change. So
much rhetoric is required to sell
expensive foreign policies to the
Congress and the public. Later that
rhetoric becomes a barrier to
change. Much of that rhetoric is
concerned with the ends of policy,
not with the means. If the nation
could agree on its goals, the debate
on the strategy to achieve them
would be limited indeed. Now
countless students challenge the
goals of policy and because they
question the ends they find the
means abhorrent. The polls suggest
that the public as well as the
Congress are turning against the
war. Something is changing the
country's outlook. I suspect the
efforts of the Congress and the
media, the personal efforts of
individuals, students included, and
the record of frustration itself have
made the difference.

Q: What do you think of President
Nixon's statement that the Vietnam
war is the war to end all wars?

A: This has been said of the
Vietnam war for the past five years.
It has also been said of every war
that the United States has fought in
this century.

Q: Do you feel that the Nixon
Administration distrusts the
Russians, and, if so, how does this
distrust affect relationships
between the two countries?

A: Distrust of the Soviets has been
a major characteristic of United
States foreign policy since the end
of the war in 1945. I believe the
question is not so much whether
the Nixon administration is at odds
with the Kremlin, but on what
issues and to what degree. I see no
substantial agreement with the
Russians. The American-Russian
rivalry is natural. Two large nations,
newly arrived at positions of world
leadership, will be rivals. This does
not mean that they are out to kill
one another, but it does mean that
they will compete for economic
advantage, prestige, and
international acceptance. We are
accustomed to a world role for
Britain and France. Their presence
anywhere does not concern us. Yet
it seems that the German did not
have that recognition before 1914
and it was a cause of jealousy and
tension. Today the Russians are
striving for a global presence and
global recognition as a great power.
Such things come hard. A large
Soviet delegation in New Delhi
somehow does not seem to belong.
On such matters our attitude must
change. When I was in Tehran last
March, a large Russian delegation
came to that city on a state visit.
They made an excellent impression,
well-dressed and jovial. I was happy
to see that acceptance. Russia's
navy causes consternation in some
circles. Perhaps it might, especially
when it ventures forth out of the
Black Sea. But we don't own the
world or the sea lanes. The Soviets
will be venturing out increasingly
with the passage of time to build a
worldwide presence. It is essential
that the United States learn to
accept this as one of the new facts
of life, not to fear or resist it. To do
so would be disastrous. It cannot be
prevented short of another general
war after which the problem would
rise again Russia is a great power
and must be recognized as such.

Q: In what areas do you feel the
Nixon administration has failed to
keep the United States in its top
position as world leader?

A: I see no loss of position. There
has been some reduction in military
expenditures, but not enough to
matter. Nor has the Nixon Doctrine
diminished the nation's security or
its basic interests. Vietnam has not
helped, but at most it has caused a
loss of prestige. Even on Vietnam
the present administration as
begun the process of withdrawal
which the previous administration
failed to do. So I believe the
current tendencies are in the right
direction. Still as long as the
government refuses to redefine the
nation's challenges, it plays only
with the incidentals and never quite
gets to the heart of the basic
ingredients for change. The
suppositions which underwrite the
need for a lower profile abroad
have not really led to new policies.
This accounts for the continued
criticism of the Nixon leadership on
matters of foreign policy. Can the
country avoid more Vietnamese if it
does not redefine the Asian danger?

Q: My last question relates to the
University of Virginia. I want to
bring out your views of the
University. My specific question is
this. What in general do you like or
dislike about the University? The
students? The administration?

A: My convictions about the
University are very positive. First of
all, it is not too large. Still the
growth of the past three years has
brought a degree of crowding.
Parking is a serious problem.
University expansion is always very

expensive. How does one keep up
on all fronts? Libraries are a special
problem — much more difficult to
obtain than buildings. But I need
not tell you that the University is
something special in American
education and so regarded by
people everywhere who know
something about it. The setting is
ideal, and the original grounds
which center on the Lawn comprise
one of the great historical
monuments in the country. It gives
a sense of history and beauty which
is unique. I hope we can always
keep it that way.

University of Virginia students
are quite ideal. I have had a good
rapport with students in every
university in which I have taught,
but never better than here. My
classes at this university are now
the largest I have ever had — even
larger than those at the University
of Illinois. The work I receive from
students is, on the whole, very
good. Some of it is superb. My
grades tend to run relatively high
despite my efforts to keep them
realistic. The students seem to do
the reading. Moreover, I work hard
in the classroom and my efforts, I
believe, tend to place a floor under
the student gains. At any rate, they
do well, are very kind and
cooperative, and make life very
pleasant for me.

We have a great faculty. Really
great. Our national ratings are not
bad, but those ratings do not, in my
judgment, do the University justice.
There is too much inertia in these
ratings. In building a reputation a
university is always working against
the past. Especially is this true in
the expansion of graduate
programs. Changes are not always
known to those involved in the
creation of ratings. The University
of Virginia cannot match many of
the large and prestigious universities
in filling key positions with its
graduates, especially in academic
life. Those who are polled reflect
their experience, and too often that
experience does not include the
University of Virginia. So the
tendency for information about a
university to travel rather slowly,
added to the force of inertia, will
usually keep a university that is on
the rise in a lower position than it is
apt to merit. I regard the faculty,
the quality of the work, the
graduate program, the
undergraduate student body at this
university about as good as one will
find anywhere. I cannot make any
clear distinctions, especially since
universities often have a personality
and character of their own. One
responds to them in a personal way.
This is the reason why is it hard to
say that one is better than another.
At any rate, I place the University
of Virginia in a high category. Our
students do very well in national
competition — in Holdes and
Marshall scholarships, in Fulbright
awards, in Woodrow Wilson
scholarships. Note the record on
the last Foreign Service
examination when some ninety
percent of our students passed.
That's a fantastic record. So much
is going on here.

I have never had any quarrel
with the University's
administration. I recognize the
enormous difficulties in running a
university these days. The
countering pressures must, at times,
make the tasks almost impossible.
A university administration such as
ours merits and needs a great deal
of encouragement and a wide range
of tolerance. So there is no aspect
of this university that troubles me
greatly.

I have some concern for our
environment, largely because it is
potentially so lovely. I refer not
only to the University but to the
entire community. We have
planning commissions and all that,
but if there is any genius behind the