Page 2


interests of the technological and corporate community, concluding that “realistic solutions to the problems . . may increasingly require a negotiating process of accommodation in detail, a tolerance of asymmetry and discrimination and differentiation impossible to achieve in a legalistic, public, adversary process.” In other words, the “realism” of science and technology dictates that we tolerate inequality in our society. He echoed Harvard government professor Samuel P. Huntington, an author of the 1975 Trilateral Commission study, The Crisis of Democracy. Huntington wrote: “The arenas where democratic procedures are appropriate are, in short, limited. . . . In many situations, the claims of expertise, seniority, experience and special talents may override the claim of democracy as a way of constituting authority [Dicksen and Noble].” This is the crisis we face. The residents of this state may be witnessing the beginning of a process in which they will end up funding a system that relegates their children to less than adequate colleges and then to less than adequate jobs, that will institutionalize the equation of corporate profit with community welfare, that will subsume all university education to utilitarian ends, that will create a cult of expertise, and that will ultimately mean their own disenfranchisement. It does not have to be that way, but if the decisions in the process begun by the Select Committee on Higher Education are left to that committee, and its advisors and experts, then we will be well on our way to making this democracy a technocracy and a sham. Austin John Kenneth Galbraith spoke in Austin on December 5 at a University of Texas conference on “Forty Years of the Nuclear Age. ” He was interviewed the following day by the Observer editors. In his keynote address at the UT conference he said that the notions that nuclear arms add to our national security and that either socialism or capitalism could survive a nuclear war are “the extraordinary errors of our time. ” He said the most difficult challenge in stopping the nuclear arms race is to come to grips with the powerful economic interests that are averse to effective arms control. Galbraith said he could not remember a time when the power of the military establishment was as formidable as it is today. In so doing, he irked conservatives in the audience, one of whom rose afterwards to take issue with his use of the, term “nuclear theologians” to describe arms control experts. “How would you like to be called an economics theologian?” he was asked. The unflappable Galbraith responded that nothing would make him happier. You were getting the wackiest questions last night after your speech. That man, that first man, is head of the, uh .. . Accuracy in Academia? Yeah, Accuracy in Academia. And I didn’t know it. Otherwise, I would have complimented him on the grounds that there is nothing that liberals need so much today as the kind of publicity that that organization can give. And it’s my only regret that I’m not teaching and couldn’t invite them to my classroom. I wanted to ask a question about something that you were talking about in your speech yesterday the fourth factor you were talking about in halting the arms race, the power of the militaryindustrial complex. The question that occurred to me . . . do you have any hope of, over the next few years, some power developing that can significantly counteract the power of the military establishment? I’m not wildly optimistic. Because this is a singularly well-protected power. It has money, organization, control influence or control. of inforniation. But, I’m not totally without optimism because once one begins talking about a source of power like that, then one, in some degree, invades its power. As [we] saw last night in the reaction of one or two of the people that was one of the things they were most uneasy about hearing. But this is one of the reasons I challenge my fellow liberals who sort of approach that power through the big corporations, where I would like to see it approached as a power in itself. To some extent the Pentagon hides behind the liberal conviction that its all out in the corporate world. So you’re suggesting opposing the power of the Pentagon through political and electoral means? Absolutely. And I wouldn’t be wholly pessimistic about this. I live in the center of a group of congressional districts where the power of the militaryindustrial complex is as great as it is anywhere outside of the Silicon Valley. And yet we have the Congressmen who are the strongest critics of the Pentagon. And to some extent they draw their power from people who are the particular concern of the people who work for those companies and are alert to the enormous dangers that are involved. I don’t know if you’re aware of it, but there’s a large influx of money into this university through the Star Wars program. And I’m concerned about what that will do not only to the direction this university takes, but what it does to the society of Texas, the culture .. . I think there is an extremely shrewd quality, shrewd aspect, to that whole operation which has not been sufficiently discussed: that the Star Wars, particularly in the early research phase, moves in to what, from the point of view of both the Reagan administration and the militaryindustrial complex, is its most critical community. And so the logic of pouring a good deal of money into that community to quiet criticism is a very strong one. I would hope that it wouldn’t work, that there would be enough people in the university world who would be aware of this and moved to respond to it. And I also don’t really think that Ronald Reagan, Caspar Weinberger, et al. were quite as smart, quite as shrewd, as the idea implies. I think there’s a large accidental quality about this. In American politics it is always unwise to attribute undue subtlety. I’m just afraid that they’re creating their own constituency .. . But the notion that this might be a way of creating a large influential constituency in the university and research world has a certain element of plausibility. As I say, I think it is more likely that this administration came to it by accident rather than by any deep intellectual process. I don’t want to accuse Ronald Reagan and Caspar Weinberger of a subtlety of mind that they have not exhibited on any other matters. Have you actually debated With other academics within. the _community Theologian of Liberal Economics THE TEXAS OBSERVER 11