Students and the Institute

Officials of the Kennedy Institute have shown a disappointing tendency in recent weeks to have lost some of their original excitement for their own undergraduate programs. The enthusiasm, and apparently the plans, for an undergraduate debating union styled after Oxford's seemingly are gone. There have been complaints that some of the undergraduate seminars are sparsely attended and unexciting; in any case, the Institute's major concern now is working its Fellows into the faculty study group program. And there is a feeling that more of the time and energy of the Institute's small staff should go into coordinating the study groups. The Faculty study program, says director Richard E. Neustadt, "is probably the most important thing we're doing."

That feeling has unfortunately been strengthened by the misfortune of the honorary associates program. The associates' visits have been the most publicized and least productive phase of the Institute's activities for undergraduates. The associates, according to the original conception, were supposed to let professors rub shoulders with policy-makers and to enthuse students with the prospect of politics. Neither aim has been well served. The visits of McNamara and Goldberg turned into bitter and exhausting confrontations with dissenting students, and the undergraduate meetings with other associates often turned out to be dull, especially for the associates. Many in the Institute have come to feel that future visitors should spend more time with faculty members and less with undergraduates.

The Institute clearly made a massive mistake in inviting top-level officials who could not feel free to speak frankly. It fell victim to the malady that it is -- or should be -- trying to cure. The gap between academia and government is not simply a problem of professors not appreciating the limitations of realpolitik; it is in part the widespread feeling among students that the government, led by Johnson and preoccupied with Vietnam, cannot be trusted to act wisely or honestly. The C.I.A.'s overactivity here and abroad, and the Administration's double-talk on international crises from the Dominican Republic to Vietnam, have been distressing to the point of alienation.

In inviting two leading spokesmen for policies that have engendered the most bitterness, the Institute seemed fascinated with the men who make decisions and the mechanics of decision-making, and oblivious to concern with the substance of policies.

The dismay with the government will, perhaps, be difficult to dispel. Yet the Institute, with free rein to invite just about anyone in government and to set up just about any kind of program it wants, is in a unique position to try. One effort perhaps should be to invite as honorary associates young and imaginative newcomers to the federal and state governments -- officials like Senator Mark O. Hatfield, or Mitchell Sviridoff of New York City's anti-poverty program -- who can give students an idea of the possibilities and excitement of politics and public service. The Institute could also ask former government offifficals to visit Harvard to give students some insight into past policy disputes and decisions. Two excellent choices would be former Deputy Mayor of New York Robert Price and former Deputy Secretary of Defense Roswell Gilpatric.

The associates, this year's as well as next's, should be available to undergraduates for the longest periods and in the most informal seetings possible. It might even be feasible for the Institute, in cooperation with the Masters, to set up a program modeled on Yale's Chubb Fellows, with associates spending most of their time with students.

Undergraduate alienation from the government is likely to increase as Johnson continues as President and Vietnam remains a preoccupation. Is it not a short-range problem. The Institute cannot change the mood, but it clearly must recognize that the feeling is there. Student dissatisfaction with some of the Institute's programs is no reason for abandoning plans for undergraduates. Rather it is an indication that new and imaginative programs are necessary and will become more so.