a Leary/Alpert Scrapbook

Pusey's Statement

Richard Alpert's appointment as Assistant Professor of Clinical Psychology and of Educational was to have terminated June 30, 1963. However, to honor a verbal promise made to him by Mr. Keppel before his resignation as Dean, on January 7 this year the Harvard Corporation voted Dr. Alpert an extension of his appointment in the School of Education for an additional year. At its most recent meeting it voted to terminate both the present and the prospective appointments effective immediately.

This action was taken (1) because it has recently been determined that in the spring of 1962 Dr. Alpert violated an agreement which he had entered into in November, 1961, not to involve undergraduates in his work with drugs (It was an additional part of this agreement that no students would be used before they had been cleared for such activity by a member of the medical staff of the University Health Services); and (2) because subsequently, in November, 1962, he assured an officer of administration of the University that he had not given drugs to any undergraduate.

An Editorial

It would be unfortunate if the firing of Richard Alpert led to the suppression of legitimate research into the effects of hallucinogenic compounds. Such drugs as mescaline, psilocybin, and LSD may be of real value in scientific studies of the mind and in the treatment of mental disorders. But it would have been equally unfortunate if Dr. Alpert had been allowed to continue his activities under the aegis of a University that he has misinformed about his purposes.

His claim to be disinterested scientific researcher is itself debatable; from the very first, he and his associate Timothy F. Leary, have been as much propagandists for the drug experience as investigators of it. They are so convinced of the benefits of these drugs that they had dispensed with many normal research procedures: for example, they have conducted some of their experiments in highly informal settings. They have been tax about screening potential recipients of the drugs; indeed, they have urged many who have expressed a casual interest in the drugs to try them for themselves. Far from exercising the caution that characterizes the public statements of most scientists. Leary and Alpert, in their papers and speeches, have been given to making the kind of pronouncement about their work that one associates with quacks. The shoddiness of their work as scientists is the result less of incompetence than of a conscious rejection of scientific ways of looking at things. Leary and Alpert fancy themselves prophets of a psychic revoluton designed to free Western man from the limitations of consciousness as we know it. They are contemptuous of all organized systems of action--of what they call the "roles" and "games" of society. They prefer mystical ecstasy to the fulfillment available through work, politics, religion, and creative art. Yet like true revolutionaries they will play these games to further their own ends. And even more like revolutionaries, they have not hesitated to break the rules of these games when it has suited their ends. They have not been professors at Harvard--they have been playing "the professor game," and their cynicism has led them to disregard University regulations and standards of good faith. They have violated the one condition Harvard placed upon their work: that they not use undergraduates as subjects for drug experiments.

In general, they have feigned adherence to the "the science game" only to give a veneer of responsibility to practices antipathetic to the ethics of a university. These practices are not random lapses; they stem from a philosophy that denies the intellectual and moral premises on which a university is based. Universities are built on traditions of open-mindedness, intellectual discipline, and precision of thought and expression. Leary and Alpert show no devotion to these things.

In tacit recognition of the incompatibility of their work with a university environment, they have established a private organization--the International Foundation for Internal Freedom. Leary has already left the University to devote his full energies to the group, and Alpert had also planned to spend much of his time with the Foundation during his year at the School of Education.

Dr. Alpert's dismissal should not be construed as an abridgement of academic freedom. The University has supported his researches and has been more than reasonable in the precautions it has asked him to take. In dismissing him, it reacted to willful repudiation of these safeguards. But surely the University has not taken this exceptional step in response to meer misdemeanors. In firing Richard Alpert, Harvard has dissociated itself not only from flagrant dishonesty but also from behavior that is spreading infection throughout the academic community. The Harvard Crimson, 5128163