As a participant in three peace
marches on Washington and as one
of the draftsmen of the faculty
statement on the Moratorium, I
wish to explain why I do not plan
to cancel my classes, October 15,
by prior announcement.
Contractual obligations aside,
there are compelling moral and
political reasons why the Moratorium
should be a walk-out rather
than a lock-out. I understand the
depth of commitment which impels
some faculty members to cancel
unilaterally; indeed, my first impulse
was to do precisely that. On
reflection, however, it appears that
such action will compromise the
moral force of the Moratorium. The
larger the number of students who
absent themselves voluntarily, the
more impressive the protest. Our
purpose is to change the course of
American foreign policy any procedure
that stimulates counter productivity
should be eschewed.
Professors who do not believe in
the cause should be asked not to
discriminate against students who
fail to attend class that day, but
more than that we cannot demand.
I share the concern of many of
my colleagues over the politicization
of American universities, a
process which includes, of course,
the use of university facilities for
classified research. Only on issues
of immediate and transcendent
moral importance is a university
community warranted in acting
politically. Many of the activities of
universities during World War II foll
into this category; so, in my
judgment, does the movement for
withdrawal of our troops from
Vietnam. Most of the other issues
of our times, though often infused
with moral content, lack both the
immediacy and transcendence of
Vietnam.
As of today well over 33,000
Americans have been killed in
Vietnam; by the end of this week
150 more will be dead. Far worse, a
million or more Vietnamese, every
one of whom possessed the same
human qualities we Americans
posses, have died in a war they
neither understood nor wanted.
Almost as bad, the villages of their
survivors have been destroyed and
their culture has been subverted.
Meanwhile, as our statement asserts,
the "moral reserves" upon
which the resolution of our own
domestic problems depends continue
to be vitiated. At the same
time the President's persistence in
holding to the Kennedy-Johnson
rationale for our involvement
augers a continued American presence
on the land mass of Asia and
threatens to spread the war to Laos
and Thailand — this in the face of
his pledge that there will be "no
more Vietnams."
Manifestly, when a moral issue
of this magnitude is at stake, we are
obligated to act on a higher rule
than that which normally governs
our daily routine. For these reasons
I hope that the students will
support the Moratorium and that
the faculty will cooperate in ways
consistent with the subtle realities
of the situation.
William H. Harbaugh
Professor of History
