2. To point out the unmitigated bias in the press, the business and educational "establishments" as a bar to this goal.

3. Give special expression and criticism to conservative elements and methods (both real and imagined) which confuse the sincere, if dull-witted, citizen and legislator whose responsibility is neither clear nor understood.

4. To show that responsible and well known Idaho citizens can and do dissent from the prevailing trend of undefined education in Idaho, and undefined public policy for Idaho.

5. To give legitimate expression to the market economy and show that Idaho is really affected by America's national and foreign policy.

6. To label in a meaningful way those well-meaning (if visionary) liberals and liberal policies in power now in Idaho that threaten common sense policies.

7. To give a little direction to the almost impossible-to-work with conservatives who also mean well, but who get little cooperation in their attempt to be heard.

8. While we expect to lose money (not tax payer's) on this publication we'll "labor" in the hope of someday even paying an Idaho income tax.

9. We expect to "crusade" for a balance in Idaho education especially in the University of Idaho and the College of Idaho but not excluding such other educational entities as our resources and support will permit, thereby focusing responsibility on trustees and regents where it belongs.

10. To deal in ideas and first principles not personalities (except as to identify persons and situations which tend to increase undue government intervention).

11. We intend to show that the political editor of a powerful Idaho newspaper does not have a complete monopoly on sincerity and political wisdom. Also to suggest to him that the far left is in power, not the far right, and anyway he should query some one beside the liberals and the kooks.

12. To try to show cause and effect and that general lack of any positive belief is primarily responsible for our continuing losses in the cold (and hot) war with the socialists at home and abroad. (Idaho soldiers should not be expendable, by the way. )

13. To furnish educational material and information to interested parties.

14. To demonstrate that excessive government is the problem and free enterprise the solution, instead of the other way around.

15. To reprint and dramatize articles from sources and authors which we believe to be reliable and pertinent without regard to "majority" opinion, since right and wrong both come from the popular panacea called majority rule.

16. To assist that handful of trustees. professors and teachers who are also concerned about what Ludwig Von Mises. the famous economist. terms "the anti-capitalistic mentality".

OUR GOVERNOR AND IDAHO EDUCATION

For many years Americans have laughed at the people of India because of their belief in the "Sacred Cow". Maybe it's time we stopped laughing and took a hard look at one of our own "sacred cows" --- Higher Education. Americans seldom do things half-way, and when it comes to higher education we find no exception. "We" believe that a little formal education is good, that more education is better, and a lot is best of all. Our blind faith in the educational system has led us to the ultimate conclusion that everybody ought to go to college and receive the finest that money can buy. And so, every year the cost keeps climbing higher and higher. Eventually "we" can hope to reach the point when everyone will stay in college all their life, and no one will need to work at all.

It's high time we took a long look at what we are doing with all this public money and effort. Anyone who even questions the "establishment", and especially the "educational establishment", is immediately presumed to be either ignorant or against progress. We maintain that our whole educational system has been retrogressive and that Governor Don Samuelson asked exactly the right question when he called for a complete evaluation of our Universities. The need for an audit is not simply to see whether any money is being stolen. This is not the point. We believe that the Universities are spending all the money they say they are spending. The real question is whether or not our students and our society are getting the value which is deserved for the energy and money expended. We agree with our governor that both our students and our society are being shortchanged by the education myth.

College is not the only door to success.

Many of our finest civic and business leaders have never attended a college. Furthermore. many of our most vital and important jobs do not require college, but do require years of on-the-job training. For many people who possess technical talents, the four years spent in a University are a serious waste of valuable time which might have been much more productively spent learning a technical vocation. Make no mistake! Many of our talented young people are actually having their lives ruined by being channeled into a lifetime of white collar mediocrity by our universities. Many of them are actually learning attitudes and habits which are detrimental to them and our society, and they would be much happier and more valuable to our society by learning a highly specialized skill in industry. Of course there are many students who benefit from a university education. There are numerous tasks in our society that require the type of training which is offered our universities, but the idea that everyone ought to go to college is not only a myth but is also a dangerous misunderstanding of the way in which our civilization operates. Attending a university is not the only way to get an education. Even the most elementary reflection will make a person realize that some of the best-informed people we know, never attended a university, and some of the least-informed have a college degree. Education today is an on-going process of the whole society. The person who reads and thinks and works with new ideas will in a very short space of time catch up and pass the man who spends four years in the Ivy Halls and then stops learning. In fact, many people who have college degrees are so self-assured by the fact of their graduation that they no longer feel the need to read or learn, and thus they become the most backward people of all. In our rapidly changing world it is no longer possible to learn a so-called body of knowledge which will last a lifetime. Much of what is taught in our best university courses is obsolete in a short time. But in addition, some of the people who teach in our universities are so out of touch with the world that what they are teaching now is already obsolete. One of the reasons for student riots in this country is because the students in many classes are being forced to learn things which even they recognize as being already false. MAYBE IF YOU HAD TO SIT IN A CLASSROOM FOR AN HOUR EVERY DAY LEARNING WHY FREE ENTERPRISE WON'T WORK, YOU WOULD WANT TO RIOT TOO.

Unlimited money does not necessarily produce better education. Perhaps one of the most serious fallacies in the thinking of people these days is that the mere spending of money will always produce the desired result. Of course. it takes money to do certain jobs, but it also takes a combination of work, creativity and motivation. Anyone who has studied the war on poverty knows that millions were spent which never reached the poor people. Large amounts went into various kinds of "administration", which was not only high-priced but often unrelated to the real problems. The same thing happens in a large university when there is almost no opportunity for the taxpayers to evaluate the program.

As a university becomes more powerful and receives more money, it usually becomes less interested in teaching good classes to its undergraduates. Strangely enough, if the students complain that they are being shortchanged, they are blamed for "student unrest". BUT NOBODY BOTHERS TO INVESTIGATE THE QUALITY OF INSTRUCTION that brought about the "unrest".

It is our conviction that several things need to be done here in Idaho.

1. We need a complete evaluation of our university programs as our Governor has suggested.

2. Tuition at our tax supported institutions of higher education should be raised to a realistic level.

3. The state should establish a student loan fund. so that a student who does not have the money to pay the high tuition could borrow at a low rate of interest and pay it back over a long period of time.

4. The ratio of state money spent for education should be adjusted so that proportionately more will go for primary and secondary education and proportionately less for higher education.

Some of the best colleges in the United States are privately owned and operated. These colleges have been founded by churches, individuals and foundations. Yet the present system of state and federal funding of our universities is actually destroying the private colleges. It is a strange thing indeed that we who believe in the value of the free enterprise system have designed a system of higher education which year by year makes it more difficult for the privately owned and operated system to function.

Raising the tuition at the tax supported universities. coupled with a state loan fund, would make it possible for the Idaho student to attend the school of his choice for example, Ricks College, The College of Idaho, or Northwest Nazarene College, all excellent schools. Under our present system the parent who wants to send his son or daughter to one of these schools must pay high tuition at that school, while still supporting other students who go to the University virtually free of charge.

Another benefit of higher tuition is that it would cause the student to consider more seriously whether or not he should go to the university. MUCH OF THE COST OF RUNNING A UNIVERSITY comes as a result of having to spend a great deal of time with students who are not there to learn. but are there for social or other reasons.

The free market economy has made the United States of America the greatest nation on earth today. Let's apply some of this know-how to education in Idaho.

Our rumor department hears a faint rumble of support for a "chair of free (private) enterprise" at the College of Idaho. (We're heartened but not Going to hold our breath.)

Here is the "open letter" to the Idaho State Board of Regents and the Trustees of C of I, U of I, ISU, NNC and BSC (et al), which was promised in a prior issue of the Idaho Compass. We feel this speech by the president of a small liberal arts college states the problem better than most, and might - just might - create a mild sensation among the thoughtful persons concerned with the future of education in Idaho.

Dr. Howard's unusual remarks on education (below) were not directed with any reference whatsoever to the State of Idaho in particular, but we feel they pertain to the underlying philosophy and orientation of Idaho education in general and higher education in particular.

It is also noted that although Idaho's institutions have not yet had violent student demonstrations, we we might add that neither have we had many professional agitators exploiting the emotionally charged campus bias.

Appreciation is acknowledged for permission of Dr. Howard and NWDA to reprint these remarks. We hasten to add that neither of them take any position for or against The Idaho Compass.

Some "POINTS" of The Compass: (at random)

The Idaho Compass is pleased to present this speech as a public service to those interested citizens of Idaho who may appreciate some 'light' on the education question as well as some 'heat', in hope of a healthy skepticism replacing a kind of apathetic acquiescense. Much as The Idaho Compass may be misinterpreted - we seek understanding, not conformity.

Some alternatives are presented from time to time by The Idaho Compass. For example ... (a) the voucher system which is suggested to replace the compulsory system now legally enforced in Idaho. (b) sale of the Post Office to private enterprise. (c) break the government monopoly in education. However. it is the premise of this particular printing that a problem well-stated is often half-solved (see future issues).

IS THE PRIVATE COLLEGE ON THE WAY OUT?

Many believe that the private colleges have made a valuable contribution to our society, but if the present practice of dumping huge sums of tax money into the government education system continues and the present high level of taxation remains unchanged, the private college will soon be driven out of the education market or will be forced to become part of the government system.

TO EDUCATORS AND SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF IDAHO:

Everyone knows something is wrong on campus, yet few question the course contents.

Many say not everyone should go to college. Some are beginning to ask if any should go.

SUBTLE SUICIDE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE REPRINTED BY PERMISSION

THE SUBTLE SUICIDE OF PRIVATE ENTERPRISE by
Dr. John A. Howard

Last week the Vice President of the United States did an unusual thing. He said aloud what every fair-minded person knows. He observed that most of the television news analysts manifested an obvious hostility in their comments about Mr. Nixon's Viet Nam speech. Mr. Agnew has a way of coming at a matter very directly and he doesn't pussy-foot, even when he knows that his remarks will be unpopular with the news media. Mr. Agnew was dealing with one of the most vitally important phenomena of our country - the manner in which opinions are molded and formed.

If a large enough portion of the opinion-makers say the same thing often enough and there is no effective and powerful counterthrust, eventually people will begin to believe what they have been repeatedly told. I suspect the gathering of 250,000 protestors in Washington, D.C. last weekend was more a testimony to the emotions aroused by influential opinion-makers than it was a reflection of objective and informed judgment about what is at stake in the conflict in Southeast Asia.

If only one side of a public issue is presented, and if it is hammered home daily by committed partisans, eventually the public will accept that view, even if it runs counter to lifelong assumptions and contradicts deeply-held commitments. I want to register with you a concern that the private enterprise system, and the conditions which sustain it, have been the subject of the same kind of persistent, pervasive attack. They have been interpreted with an almost unrelieved hostility, sometimes veiled and sometimes candid, by the opinion-making forces in this country. And this is particularly true of that section of the opinion-making body which is American education. For years and years, much of the academic and intellectual community has been condescending about, suspicious of, or even directly hostile to the private enterprise system.

There has been a widespread assumption among college personnel that whoever makes his living by the profit motive is inherently selfish and unconcerned about the well-being of other people. There has been the supposition that the employer and the stockholder are the enemies of the people because it is in their interest to keep wages as low as possible. There has been the corollary supposition that the only way to deal with the capitalist is to force him to act in an enlightened fashion, the force taking the form of strikes, or more often, government intervention, and regulation. The thought is that capitalism has produced certain good things, but the capitalist, driven only by the profit motive, will not be an adequate citizen unless he is forced to be.

Before I go any further, let me observe that the businessman and the academician are fundamentally and devastatingly isolated from each other. The businessman has only limited contacts with the academic community, mostly with graduating students who have majored usually in science or engineering or business, or with alumni officers and fund-raisers. All of those people are, to be sure, real academic personnel. However, they do not reflect the central nature nor the general philosophical thrust of the academic community.

It is usually the people in the liberal arts who make the big decisions inside the institutions of higher education. That is true of the big universities as well as the small colleges. It is the people in philosophy and history and political science and speech and education and sociology and the languages who generally determine the attitudinal atmosphere of the campus. Furthermore, it is the graduates of these departments who become the next generation of opinion-makers-the poets, the people who write articles for Look, Life, the Atlantic and Time, the people who become the newspaper columnists and the radio and television news analysts. And it is in the liberal arts that the antagonism to private enterprise runs the deepest. Let me offer three illustrations of how deeply rooted that antagonism is.

About five years ago, before the new revolutionary era, the National Education Association published and distributed a pamphlet called, "The Root of Opposition to Federal Aid". It stated that whereas schoolteachers had given lip service support to capitalism, as that system might be contrasted with communism, the real thrust of American teachers over the years has been toward socialism. The best way to stick the rich-and that was the phrase that was used in the pamphlet the best way to stick the rich is to use the federal taxing mechanism.

This was a statement published some years ago by the NEA which is now regarded as the conservative contestant in the national duel with the teachers' union to be the bargaining agent for teachers.

That item dealt with the teachers' attitude. Now let us look at a sample of the dominant administrative mind-set with regard to private enterprise. It was dramatically set forth last summer in a Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. Marjorie Webster Junior College of "the District of Columbia brought suit against the regional accrediting agency which certifies all of the colleges in that area, and against the

Federation of Regional Accrediting Commissions. The Federation is composed of the commissions throughout the country that accredit colleges and secondary schools. The case charged them with monopoly in restraint of trade. It seems that according to their regulations, a college which is a profit-making enterprise is automatically ineligible to be considered for academic accreditation. The mere fact that it makes a 'profit is considered to be antithetical to good education.

The college won the case. Judge John Lewis Smith noted wryly in his decision, "There is nothing inherently evil in making a profit and nothing commendable in operating at a loss." There is a bit of wisdom for you.

Dr. Logan Wilson, president of the prestigious American Council on Education, disagreed. His words: "This would open up higher education for business. It would establish an entirely new principle that is against the inherent nature of higher education."

The court did rule in favor of private enterprise, but I ask you to think of the significance of the ban that was ruled out.

An illustration of long-standing teacher attitudes, and one of long-standing administrative attitudes; now let us consider student attitudes. A survey was conducted several years ago among the students of three major midwestern universities. The poll was taken at institutions not normally considered to be radical centers. Fifty-three percent of the students interviewed favored government ownership of banks, railroads and steel companies; 62% thought a worker should not produce all that he can; 61% thought the profit motive was not necessary for the survival of free enterprise.

These are stories out of the past. They are samples of the anti-private enterprise attitudes which long ago planted the seeds of enthusiasm for governmental rather than private solutions to public problems, which have given rise to the minimum wage, unemployment insurance, the OEO, and all the other machinery of the welfare state.

Now let us return to the gulf between the academic person and the businessman, and examine the other side of that division. The intellectual's distrust of the profit motive and of the profiteer give rise to his enthusiasm for government protection for the working man, and it is usually an emotional rather than a thoughtful enthusiasm. It is interesting to suggest in a group of scholars that the minimum wage is one of the most cruel pieces of social legislation ever enacted, to point out that the person who is disadvantaged - whether by racial prejudice or by lack of education or by being crippled or by being too old or too young - the person who is disadvantaged has only one bit of leverage in the job market. That is a willingness to work for less than the going rate, and once he is hired, to prove he is worthy of higher pay. The only normal path for him to enter the job market is now foreclosed to him by the minimum wage. Because of this law he has become a permanent, public dependent. To raise such a question in a group of intellectuals forces those who are only viscerally anti-business and pro-government to do some thinking.

Having an inclination to turn to government, rather than rely on individual initiative to solve problems, the academic community understandably has warmly embraced the concept of federal aid to education. The flow of federal funds for education has reached the point that many a college and university is now, in fact, wholly dependent upon its annual money from Washington. This dependence is something of an irony, considering the centuries-old tradition of fierce independence on the part of scholars. With the vast array of programs of federal aid for education, there has developed an elaborate interweaving of the interests of government and education and this mutuality has become a major factor in the attitudes and actions and political alliances of the academic community.

All the points I have made so far pre-date the Berkeley era of higher education. The great liberal orthodoxy of education, which included the idea that government is manned by the good guys and business is manned by the bad guys, has been dominant in higher education for 25 years or more. Since Berkeley, there has been built on this foundation a small but growing superstructure of overt and accepted radicalism which poses a whole new scale of threats to private enterprise.

One tenet of the liberal orthodoxy was particularly vulnerable to the growth of violence and revolutionary unrest on campus - the conviction that there are no enemies to the left. A second weak spot was the determination to maintain academic freedom as an absolute. It was believed that there should be no limits whatever on who could be hired as a faculty member, or on what he believed and what he said, and certainly there were to be no restrictions concerning guest speakers. A third tenet of the standard liberal belief was that students, while still students, must somehow be drawn into the battles concerning the great public issues. Activism was a necessary part of studenthood.

In the eagerness to accomplish this latter end, a lot of silly things have been said by people who should know better. John Rockefeller, III, made a speech several years ago praising student revolutionaries. The speech was widely excerpted and highly commended. John Lindsay, in his keynote address to the Association of American Colleges last December in Pittsburgh, observed that the thing that frightened him about the student revolutionaries was that they might get discouraged and give up. People seem to have forgotten that a revolution is the destruction, by force, of the system of government and the replacement of that system by another.

At all events, this enthusiasm for revolution has gotten through to the students. A year ago last spring, I took part in a conference in New York City. One of the speakers was a student officer at one of the universities where there had been very serious trouble. He was asserting that students should have more power in running the university. A man in the audience stood up and said, "Now, wait a minute. Let's call these things by their right names. What you people did a few weeks ago was commit a series of crimes - breaking and entering, vandalism, and so forth." At that point, the student interrupted and asserted that there are no crimes in a revolution, and this is revolution. Right then, the businessmen in the audience began to pay attention.

Actually, it is something of a prestige symbol nowadays to have one or more prominent, committed revolutionaries on the faculty. UCLA has just appointed Angela Davis, an avowed Communist revolutionary, and a sometime visitor to Communist Cuba. Bryn Mawr has named Herbert Aptheker, a chief theorist for the American Communist Party, as a professor to develop and run the program of Black Studies at Bryn Mawr. I had the interesting experience last January of partaking in a three-part debate in Washington, D.C. with a distinguished professor of English at Stanford, Dr. H. Bruce Franklin. Dr. Franklin is an avowed and militant Maoist Marxist. He would replace our social and political institutions with ones modeled after Communist China. Herbert Marcuse, the philosopher mentor of revolutionary students all over the world, is a professor at the University of California at San Diego.

Of course such professors do not convert all the students, or really any large portion of them, but they do provide a nucleus around which gather the radicals. And they may well be involved in planning violent or coercive acts on the campus and in the surrounding community.

The unlimited speaker policies offer a major source of trouble-making for society. The Black Power race-baiters can do untold damage on a campus that has tried for years and years to create racial amity. Listen to the words of Dick Gregory, taken from a speech at a midwest college on May 8, 1968: "We're gonna bring this country to its knees, burn your houses down one by one. You better take the money you're buying us off with and buy big guns to defend yourself." In an interview with the press at the time of that speech, he said he spends 96% of his time speaking at colleges. It is now a status symbol to bring to campus people who are enormously talented in stirring up racial hatred. Such overt hostility is producing some really extraordinary results. On February 9th of this year, the Associated Press reported that Harvard University canceled a course on riot control. The university had announced a course that was designed to help people learn how to respond to civil disorders. However, black militants at Harvard asserted that violence is about the only weapon they can use to get their share in this racist society of ours, and Harvard should not teach a course that helps people to suppress street disorders. The course was withdrawn.

Another powerful radicalizing influence is the student press and the underground press, which is widely read by college students. The Berkeley Barb is one of the more influential underground newspapers. In the issue of October 4, 1968, among other startling articles was something entitled "The Yip-Panther Pact". It was a joint statement signed by officers of the Yippies and the Black Panthers, announcing a plan to disrupt the national election so completely that the election would be declared null and void. In a tirade of four-letter words, the members of those two groups were told how to disrupt polling places and interfere with the voting process.

I would like to mention one publication to which each of your companies should subscribe. Perhaps you have heard of it, Leviathan. I have the original issue, and a current issue. This is apparently a prosperous publication, and is devoted to the destruction of the private enterprise system. I want to read one paragraph from the first issue, from the two-page editorial describing the mission of this newspaper.

"Confrontation, then, has been our principal teacher and we learned from it. There is indeed a Leviathan, the corporate system that dominates and controls to its own ends almost every person, every custom and every institution in our society, to say nothing of those of other societies. We found out from our own experience, though, that this monster is not invulnerable and we ourselves in the growing Movement are developing the strength to destroy it."

In addition to the radical press, certain radical organizations have a considerable influence on campus. If you have not read an issue of The Black Panther, you should. Here is the November 1st issue. An article by Eldridge Cleaver, Minister of Information of the Black Panthers, tells of his visit to North Korea and praises the efforts of the North Koreans for "their fight against imperialism headed by U. S. imperialism". Another article in the same issue is entitled, "Socialism serving the people". A quotation from it: "The Black Panther Party is bringing the idea, or the concept of socialism from a lower to a higher level with the initiation of the Liberation Schools, Free Breakfast Program, Free Lunch Program, Free Health Clinics, etc. So the Black Panther Party will continue to develop these programs to serve the people and constantly raise the political level of the masses to the point where we, on a collective basis, will be organized and armed and we will face this racist, decadent, oppressive capitalistic system and shout in unison, “ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!!"

The Students for a Democratic Society is another revolutionary force. Almost two years ago the SDS had a workshop at a university in Michigan in order to teach the representatives from the various chapters how to make and use Molotov cocktails. A grizzly business.

The SDS is engaged in terrorist tactics on campuses now. Let me offer an illustration. A professor I know went to a scholars' conference at a mid-western university last spring. As he was walking up the front steps of the student union building where the meeting was to be held, a scruffy character thrust a handbill under his nose. It was an SDS announcement. The professor put it in his pocket, took a few more steps, and another character tried to give him the same handbill. The professor said he already had one, but the SDS man insisted. Finally, the professor pushed by him and went in to register for the conference. As he walked out of the registration room with a friend of his, he was set upon and knocked down by four ruffians, and his coat was torn off and damaged. He was rescued by some security guards. The two professors then went to a Notary Public and signed a statement of 7 what had happened. The other professor said to the victim, "If you take this to court, I will testify; but short of that I don't want my name used because we have a chapter of SDS on our campus and I would be fearful of reprisals against my family."

If your company is not on the SDS mailing list, it should be. This organization planned an infiltration of manufacturing plants over the summer and issued directions to college students concerning application for positions, how to enlist workers in the cause, what to say and what not to say, etc.

Finally, radicalization is advanced by persuading people to engage in acts which will make them outcasts of society. The radical and revolutionary organizations are pushing just as hard as they can to get more people to use marijuana. So far as I know, it is still a felony in most states in this country to buy, sell, distribute or possess marijuana. Convicted of a felony, a person can never vote again, loses all his citizenship privileges, and is probably foreclosed from any major responsibility for the rest of his life.

Once a person engages in an activity in which he regularly breaks the law, he begins to think that laws are not important. Also, he begins to be wary of the police and to regard law enforcement officers as a threat. It is a very effective technique. Obviously, as radical groups expand their membership and their influence, the whole structure of society is threatened. The safety of your family is threatened, and the security of your business.

A special thrust of the radicals pertains to industry in connection with the effort to discredit our country's participation in the Viet Nam conflict. First, consider the impact of the popular activist chant: "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh; Let's Hope the Viet Cong Win!" This endorsement of the Viet Cong pushes the moderate position way over to where the extremist position used to be. The immediate and unilateral withdrawal of all troops, which used to be regarded as extremist, now becomes a moderate position, in contrast to cheering on the enemy. As the Viet N am war has been made out to be a monstrous and foolish mistake, it has provided the radicals with grounds to attack industry, and the catch phrase is 'The Military and Industrial Complex". I want to quote to you from a speech given by Rexford Blazer,Chairman of the Board of Ashland Oil, as he considers this matter:

"Recently we've all heard much about the dangers of the industrial-military complex. The phrase, as we all know, was used by General

Eisenhower in his farewell address to the nation as President in January, 1961. In that address, President Eisenhower recapitulated America's traditional belief in peace and human liberty. He said in part, and I quote: 'Progress toward these noble goals is persistently threatened ... We face a hostile ideology - global in scope, atheistic in character, ruthless in purpose, and insidious in method. Unhappily, the danger it poses promises to be of indefinite duration ... ' Then he mentioned the growth of a permanent military establishment of great size as one of the nation's responses to that menace. He mentioned the creation of an industrial complex to supply that establishment, and also a 'scientific and technological elite' that undertakes the research needs of this establishment. And finally he summarized his description of the state of the nation by saying that we must guard against having these responses overshadow their purpose; that we should not forget our traditional respect for individual liberty, and our democratic processes.

"That seems a lucid and quite relevant reminder that only the nation that guards and defends its freedoms both abroad and at home will continue to possess them. The unwary could not expect, from such a presentation, the interpretations that have since arisen. For in a manner both perverse and sinister, General Eisenhower's farewell address has been turned, so to speak, inside out. The external menace to which he referred has been ignored. The defensive responses he described have been elevated into menaces. And the liberties of which he spoke, the 'democratic processes', are today being openly attacked in the name of dissent."

That bears some thinking. In the academic community this is something that has become a scare term-the military-industrial complex. Here again, as the phrase is used derogatorily over and over, the message eventually sinks into the heads of people.

Another illustration of the point. A former president of SDS, Carl Oglesby, writes in his book Commitment and Change, "The real cause of the war is an imperialist big business that is responsible for the government's cold war policy of containing communism. Imperialism is the national public concomitant of private commercial expansion. Big business makes big government and multi-national business globalizes it."

I have been describing two basic problems that have their origin, at least in part, in the academic community - the growing enthusiasm for socialism as preferable to private enterprise, and the radical thrust to disrupt and destroy an ordered and lawful society. It seems to me that both pose a very real threat to the continuing economic success of your company. You have, therefore, a very direct stake in counteracting these campus threats to whatever extent you can.

First, what can you do in attending to the radical thrust on the campuses? At a recent meeting, President Abram of Brandeis University was challenged on a statement he had made that the students committed to disruption and violence constitute only 3 or 4% of all students. The challenger asked if the radicals were so few, why didn't the vast majority of students take action to stop the disruptions? Dr. Abram replied that the vast majority of students are voting with their feet. They are attending classes and doing the thing they enrolled in college to do. They did not come to college to fight a counter-revolution. It is the responsibility of the college president and the administration to maintain order on the campus. If the president of a college in which you have an interest is failing in this responsibility, it seems to me it is appropriate to raise questions publicly about the failure to prevent major disruptions.

Next, violence is clearly and incontrovertibly antithetical to the work of an intellectual agency. I do not see how a college can justify permitting a chapter of SDS to operate on campus, or a chapter of any other organization publicly committed to the use of violence in achieving its ends. If such organizations are operating on the campuses in which you have an interest, I believe you can properly request the college to justify their continued presence. The chances are that the answer you will get will be phrased in terms of academic freedom.

Here is where clarification is really needed. Many scholars cling to the idea that academic freedom is an absolute. It is not, and cannot be. Let me illustrate. I appeared on one of the late television shows in Chicago several months ago with a number of people, including Mike Klonsky, who was then the head of SDS, and President Hayakawa of San Francisco State. The program "'as billed as a rational discussion of the student protest movement. We began what I think could be called a rational discussion, and Mike Klonsky started shouting "Racist Pig" at Dr. Hayakawa. After he tired of that he made some specific accusations against President Hayakawa, as the administrator of his university; and thereafter Klonsky refused to let Dr. Hayakawa respond to those charges. When the poor man would try to say something Klonsky would interrupt with more name-calling or more charges or a new subject. President Hayakawa was badgered and misused and prevented from defending himself.

This was not a rational discussion of anything. It was a drama in the destruction of the rational process. And it was proof positive that some ground rules are needed if discussion is to have any meaning. A determined and malicious person can turn a serious forum into a circus. In my judgment, an administrator who still asserts that there must be no limits on academic freedom may not be the right person to head an institution of higher learning in the circumstances higher education now faces.

Finally, the problem of radical activities should be measured against the college's statement of its purposes.

The United States Office of Education conducted a three-year study interviewing 7500 professors and administrators at 68 nondenominational universities, both public and private. It asked them what should be and what are the objectives of a university. I want to read what those 7500 professors and administrators rated as the six most desirable objectives of the university.

1. To protect the faculty's right to academic freedom. (Top priority. Now that is interesting. Is not academic freedom a means to education rather than a goal?)

2. To train the students in ~methods of scholarship.

3. To produce the student who has cultivated his intellect to the maximum.

4. To maintain top quality programs.

5. To serve as a center of dissemination of new ideas which will change society.

6. To keep up to date and responsive.

Please note that not one of these objectives is concerned with the character development of the student. This is a significant omission.

So far as I can find out, every society, primitive or advanced, which has developed a system of education has recognized that education must have two objectives - on the one hand, to create knowledge, transmit the knowledge to the students and sharpen the students' intellect, and on the other hand, produce from that educational program graduates who can live affirmatively and creatively in the society which is supporting the education. Somehow since World War II, American education has abandoned the second objective. A dramatic example of this new attitude is found in the address given by Dr. Lewis Mayhew when he became president of the Association of Higher Education. He said, "Colleges are not churches, clinics or even parents. Whether or not a student burns a draft card, participates in a civil rights march, engages in pre-marital sexual activity, becomes pregnant, attends church sleeps all day or drinks all night is not really the concern of an educational institution." This is the prevailing orthodoxy. Education deals with a disembodied mind and tries to hone that mind to be as sharp as possible, but whether the mind is used to build society or destroy it is immaterial. I am sure that individual professors would not support that thesis, but it is the institutional orthodoxy which seems to prevail.

I believe the college has an obligation to make known publicly whether it is trying to educate people in support of the society in which it exists, or against the society, or takes no position in either direction. Certainly students should have this knowledge before they enroll, and the donor should know before he invests his gifts, and the taxpayer should know the purpose of the institutions which receive his taxes. Any effort by one individual to attend to such matters may seem a Herculean labor, but if one person will try responsibly and without rancor it is surprising how many allies will appear, and it may also be a pleasant shock to discover how responsive the college or university will be to legitimate questions publicly posed. It is not an easy task, but important tasks never are easy. Certainly this one is of paramount importance.

To turn to the other end of this problem, how can you as businessmen counteract the anti-business, pro-government bias of the campus and its impact upon the nation's youth? Suppose a competitor should publicly charge that your company is careless in its quality controls or that some of your products are dangerously harmful to the consumer. I would guess that after the first blinding flash of rage, you would assemble your lawyers and public relations people, and you would commit all the time and personnel and money needed to combat this threat to your corporate existence. I want to suggest to you that your economic future is just as truly and profoundly endangered by the constant, erosive criticism of the profit motive and the private enterprise system as it would be by public accusations against the integrity of your officers or the safety of your products. When the welfare state is altogether fulfilled, it will not be just a few OEO stores undercutting the prices of local druggists; medication will be a right and provided at government dispensaries. If the trend to centralism concerns you, then it would seem that some time and some thought and some money and some personnel need to be devoted to reversing that trend.

The first task, a primary necessity, is to understand the nature and the vitality and history of the private enterprise system. It is a sad thing, but there are many businessmen who have been operating in the private enterprise system all their lives who could not hold their own in an argument with a tenth-grade youngster who had been taught the glories of socialism in school. Do you, as businessmen, know, for instance, that over the last century the productivity of the average American working man has increased about 2% a year? His real pay, adjusted for inflation, has increased at about the same rate. Do you know that over the last century, the return on capital, adjusted for inflation, has remained about constant? The American working man's pay has doubled every 35 years, his working hours have been greatly reduced, and his leisure and luxury have vastly increased. Private enterprise has made the American working man the envy of the world, but Americans do not seem to have registered on that fact.

You really do need to inform yourselves about the history of our fantastically successful private enterprise system, and the comparative records of other kinds of economic systems. Once you are armed with the necessary factual information, what then?

You who are manufacturers do not sell your products just by putting them out on a counter somewhere. You develop a sales force and you make sure your salesmen know every virtue there is to know about your products, and then you coordinate their efforts to tell the world just as extensively and enthusiastically as they possibly can. Furthermore, you support their efforts with a substantial advertising budget to tell your story in printed ads and billboards and radio and television and sky-writing.

There are two companies which have for some time been using their corporate advertising to tell the story of private enterprise and they have found that it is very good business to do so. I commend the programs of Warner & Swazey and Coast Federal Savings as worthy of your thoughtful study.

Furthermore, if you gentlemen were in a fight for a market with a competitor you would do everything in your power to change any law which gave your competitor an extraordinary advantage over you.

Anyone who is concerned about the profit squeeze that results from higher and higher taxes which must be assessed to pay for more and more welfare state programs should recognize the unfair battles he has to fight in the political arena. The tax exempt status of the AFL-CIO seems incomprehensible in light of the political activities of that organization. I want to quote to you from the transcript of a speech given recently by Walter Davis, Director of Education for the AFL-CIO. "I think Mr. Humphrey would have been slaughtered had it not been for the work of the AFL-CIO, because the Democratic Party had no organization, had no money, and they were using our national COPE apparatus in order to carry on the campaign." The candidates which the AFL-CIO supports are almost invariably those committed to the greatest increase in unemployment compensation, poverty programs, Medicare, and welfare of every kind. Certainly the members and officers of organized labor have every right to support the programs and candidates of their choice. But tax-free??!

Next, I should think you would want to give strong support to those agencies which are patiently and effectively your allies in this, battle for the economic allegiance of the people. A new organization, called the Campus Studies Institute, is working most effectively in developing literature to counteract campus radicals and distributing it among college students. That organization needs your support. The National Review is a news magazine which is written with such wit and brilliance that even the intellectuals who think otherwise respect it and read it. The National Review is your voice speaking for you. It needs and deserves your ads and your subscriptions, and you need to keep yourself informed of the material it presents. It does not make sense that the revolutionary Leviathan should seem to have no financial problems and the organizations which are eloquently presenting your story for you are short of funds. There are other organizations equally worthy of your regular help: The American Economic Foundation, The Foundation for Economic Education, Junior Achievement, the Intercollegiate Studies Institute, and possibly even a college or two.

Finally,for those of you who may have sizable advertising budgets, I wonder if you have ever given any thought to using the leverage of your account to try to encourage the powerful news media and pictorial weeklies and the networks and television and radio stations to provide some good news about private enterprise in their articles and in their programming. When was the last time you read or heard a statement in the public media enumerating the accomplishments of our economic system or saying something favorable about private enterprise, except in the Reader's Digest? There seems to be a never-ending stream of jibes and innuendos against Madison Avenue, against the businessman and against the profit motive in the family shows and comedy routines, as well as in the news copy of all the media. My guess is that any careful accounting of the texts of the electronic media and the printed media would reveal an almost unrelieved scorn for the businessman and the economic system in which he operates.

Returning to where I began. If a large enough portion of the opinion-makers say the same thing often enough and there is no effective and powerful counterthrust, eventually people begin to believe what they have been repeatedly told. To the extent that business and industrial communities support the public media or the academic institutions which are chipping away or blasting away at private enterprise and the profit motive, this is really a form of economic suicide.

The private enterprise system is the most incredible anti-poverty program,man has ever devised. Given a chance it can solve the world's problems of scarcity, and spread affluence to the four corners of the earth. On the other hand, if instead of trying to spread affluence equally, we wish to spread poverty equally, then we are already headed in the right direction, because socialism will manage it beautifully.

We need to remember that freedom cannot be earned by one generation and bequeathed to those who follow. Freedom must be constantly re-earned by each generation, and that is just as true of the freedom of enterprise as it is the freedom of speech or the freedom of the press. The business community has been coasting on previous freedom. There is a big job to do in revitalizing the freedom of enterprise and restoring it to a place of cherished importance in the minds of the American people. We have a battle on our hands. Let's win it.