COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00002 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	.require "let.pub" source
C00008 ENDMK
C⊗;
.require "let.pub" source
∂CSL ∞
To the Editor of the Stanford Daily:

	The November 16 article "DoD funds Comp Sci" correctly
states that the Computer Science Department receives a substantial
part of its research funding from the Department of Defense and
reports that CS graduate student
Jerry Plotnick finds this "intellectually dishonest".  Plotnick is
reported as saying "The University has pandered to DoD in order
to grow, to take advantage of government sponsorship".

	No argument is offered in the article that it is wrong for
University faculty and students to take part in research with military
applications or supported by DoD.  Nor is any argument offered that
the faculty and students of Computer Science generally think it is
wrong.

	It seems to me that such use of "pandered" and "intellectually
dishonest" is intellectually dishonest, or conceivably just
careless.  It suggests, without saying
so explicitly, that any correct thinking person
regards the activities of DoD as undesirable and opposes
improving U.S. military technology.  As a tactic, this is particularly
effective in a general student newspaper.
Students come to Stanford eager to take part in the student
community and readily conform to its opinions, especially
tacit opinions.  Suggesting that
no-one would do research supported by DoD except for dishonest
motives prevents students fearful of seeming peculiar to their
fellow students from expressing contrary ideas.

	It has always
seemed to me that the main force for conformity among students
is student opinion.  This was true in the 50s when student political
opinion was aligned with the government, and it has been true
since the 1960s when such opinions oppose the govenrment.  Students
who take seriously the idea that a university is a place for
challenging received ideas should be aware that it is also necessary
to question the general opinion of students.

	Returning to DoD support of computer science research, I
believe that attitudes differ.  Some won't accept it.  Some avoid it
if they can, but accept it when they can't get other support.  Some
believe that basic research is important, and that it is so difficult
to predict the applications of particular research that arguments
about it are necessarily inconclusive.  Still others, including myself,
hope that the Defense Department will eventually get good value for its money,
even though the applications of specific basic research won't be
known.

	Of these attitudes, the only ones who might be called "intellectually
dishonest" are those who profess strong opposition to DoD applications
here at Stanford, but advertise such applications when talking
to potential sponsors.  I don't know of any such people, but they
may exist.

.skip to column 1
	To sharpen the issues and provide food for thought, let me
take advantage of
the co-incidence that while I was writing this letter, I received
a phone call inviting me to give a general
paper on artificial intelligence at the "Army conference
on applications of artificial intelligence to battlefield information
management".  This is the first time in twenty years at Stanford
that I have received such an invitation, and I've never been to
such a conference.  I intend to accept, and I hope
my talk will be useful.

.sgn