strategy, apparently on the theory that protest activities defy effective definition and that, by spelling out punishment,it might paint itself into a corner. The deans are relying on the powerof precedent. An informal Gospel has grown up about the Dow demonstration, and the quick formation of the student faculty committee is part of it. Book Oneof the Gospel says that the incident, despite its inconveniences, was “healthy” for the university—that it laid bare many of the students’ deep frustrations and opened the way for a better understanding of the war’s impact on the university. Book Two says that the reason Harvard was so successful in resolving the problem without splintering the community was the smallness of its full-time professional administration and the easiness of faculty-student dialogue. Book Three contends that, even in a disorderly demonstration, Harvard men acted with restraint: after all, they did let Leavitt go, they always permitted the deans free access to Leavitt’s room, and never once during the protest was anyone, regardless of viewpoint, shouted down by the demonstrators. There is more than a skeleton of truth to each of these claims. It is also true that they have given rise to some feeling of self-satisfaction and complacency: Fortune has tested her, and Harvard, as always, has survived. As long as the war continues, that feeling will probably be misplaced. Most Harvard students have come to oppose the war for fundamentally different reasons: moral (“Why are we burning babies in Vietnam?”); political (We’re drastically overextended, trying to achieve impossible goals at the cost of destroying America drastically”); and personal (“General Hershey, why don’t you leave me alone?”). These differences War movement deny a certain the anti- coherence, draft-resistant movement, small to begin with, is still small, but getting larger. Students’ respect for established authority diminishes because the established means and institutions seem totally unresponsive to their anger. They come to believe that, as Barrington Moore, Jr., a lecturer on sociology, noted: “No system of law and order has been politi- cally neutral in practice. At the present moment in the United States, law and order protect those who conduct, support, and profit from a war that more and more of us regard as atrociously cruel and strategically stupid.” For students, this apparent rigidity is especially frustrating, because their political time horizon is measured indays and decades. months, not years and This does not mean that a whole generation of Harvard students is being irreparably “alienated.” The Dow demonstration posed the problem of putting opposition to Vietnam policy above allegiance to the established institutions and procedures which created that policy; an overwhelming number of students still believe that Lyndon Johnson’s government is legitimate, even if they think it is stupid, wicked, and wrong. The balance is tipping, however, and no doubt will continue to tip. The irony is that, when more and and more people at Harvard are coming to view the war with greater and greater horror, protest against the war is focusing on, or at, the university. This is a measure of the accelerating anger of many students, and the seeming ineffectiveness of out- side demonstration. The weekend before the Harvard Dow protest, many Harvard students had journeyed to Washington for the march against the Pentagon. It was, for some, a profoundly disilusioning, frightening experience; it contributed to the anger and frustration that produced the Dow sit-in 4 days later. Some students and faculty believe the antiwar outrage has given rise to a romantic vision of politics and reality— a fuzzy fantasy that leads to the attacking of the university, however indirectly, for the war. Even some of the earliest critics of American involvement have raised this point. One apparent reaction—to the frustration and the sometime student feeling that the university is side-stepping the war issue—has been the formation of several informal student-faculty ventures to channel their protest together. The history of the antiwar protest, at Harvard at least, is that it is unpredictable. The frenzy of the Dow demonstration and its aftermath have both frightened many students—very few really want to get kicked out—and re- lieved the tension. This disappoints some radicals who insist the war is so bad that one cannot cease to be demon- strably angry. But the war continues. Each incoming Harvard class enters with a more developed antiwar con- sciousness than its predecessor. Someday the unpredictability of passion may return to Harvard, and, if it does, the next “intolerable” demonstration may not have a “healthy” ending. —RopsertT J. SAMUELSON Un-American Activities: Court Rule Aids Stamler in Contempt Case even at a place like Harvard. Those faculty members and students who first opposed the war on essentially moral grounds have been—-and continue to be—the most vocal, the most angry critics of the conflict. But as the frustration of fruitless protest builds, as the war moves unfalteringly forward, and as the threat of the draft lurks closer for many, the reasons for oppos- ing the war blur: moral arguments are made by those whose first opposition was political, More and more students borrow the “radical” perspective, because the “radicals” have been proved consistently 1294 “right” by events. The Two and a half years after Jeremiah Stamler, a distinguished medical researcher in Chicago, was subpoenaed by the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), a three-man U.S. District Court has ruled, as the result of action initiated by Stamler and two others, that HUAC must defend its constitutionality. The significance of the action, Stamler’s legal counsel noted,is that “the validity of the Committee’s enabling act and procedures will be tried.” Stamler was one of 16 persons sub- poenaed by HUAC in May 1965 to testify during its hearings on Communist activities in the Chicago area (Science, 23 July 1965). The District Court ruling follows two civil suits filed against the committee and a crim- inal indictment charging Stamler and two other defendants with contempt of Congress. What is significant in the Stamler case is that he, an employee of the city of Chicago, chose, along with Mrs. SCIENCE, WOL. 158