COMMENT ⊗   VALID 00006 PAGES
C REC  PAGE   DESCRIPTION
C00001 00001
C00002 00002	su-etc
C00014 00003	Questions for Iris Brest
C00015 00004	Mosher says that everything is covered.
C00016 00005	In 1934, Einstein's property was expropriated by the Nazis he was
C00021 00006	Questions for Thomas Grey:
C00022 ENDMK
C⊗;
su-etc
Mosher case.
	I presently intend, at about the beginning of Fall Quarter,
a time suggested to maximize publicity, to release a statement of which
the following is a draft.
Until that time, I would welcome additional considerations
in favor or against my proposed action or suggested improvements
in the statement.  I especially welcome company.

Statement on Mosher case

	After a long time, I have decided to join the Stephen Mosher
Defense Committee out of opinion that Stanford University has not
acted fairly in this case.  I hope other Stanford faculty, students
and staff will join this effort for the reasons that follow.

	While doubtful about the action of the Anthropology Department
and the University in confirming it, I didn't see my way clearly
to taking a position because of the mystery charges.  After President
Kennedy's statement confirming the Mosher's expulsion on the basis of the
public record, I was deterred by the length of the documentation.  This
isn't a good excuse, perhaps, but better late than never.

	First, as to the mystery charges.  My present opinion is that
mystery charges have no more place in an academic proceeding than
they have in a judicial proceeding.  When the Government is unable
to prosecute a spy without revealing secret information, they have
to give up the prosecution.  It should be the same with a University.

	Second, the Anthropology Department really did rely on the
mystery charges in its action.  This is according to a statement
by its Chairman included in the documentation.  Thus the new charges
have been brought in order to support the previously taken action.
This looks like persecution.

	Some of the public charges lack any merit, some have little merit,
and still others would warrant only lesser penalties than expulsion.
I don't know whether the word ``expulsion'' used by the Anthropology
Department has a definite meaning in University proceedings, but I
note that President Kennedy's statement is headlined ``termination'',
which has weaker connotations.

	An example of a charge with no merit whatsoever is the one that
Mosher changed the subject of his dissertation without consultation.  Lots
of students change the subjects of their dissertations, and the
consultation is usually entirely informal.  At most it would require the
filing of a new form and a negotiation with his adviser to determine
whether the new subject is acceptable.  The charge seems particularly
dubious, because one would expect that a graduate student in anthropology
with an unprecedented opportunity to spend a year studying a Chinese village
would very likely change the subject of his dissertation.  What did they
suppose he was there for?

	The charges concerning Mosher's bringing the van into China, his
giving the van to the commune and the approvals of his trip to Chungking
have little if any merit.  He was in an unprecedented situation, in a
country with very informal procedures where the left hand often doesn't
even want to know what the right hand is doing.  He had to act as he
thought best.  In my opinion, pushing the system as far as he could make
it go was probably justified under the circumstances.  He was tactful
enough so that they let him stay his year.

	As to taking the trip that he thought was legal and post facto
turned out not to be, the same thing just happened to the New York Times
Bureau chief in Peking.  I wonder if President Kennedy will write a
letter to the New York Times proposing that John Burns be terminated
or maybe even expelled.

	In fact the Anthropology Department could have got rid of Mosher
without fuss by having his adviser withdraw and his being unable to find
another or by finding his dissertation topic unacceptable.  Of course,
it is common practice to allow a student with a legitimate topic
but no adviser competent in the area to find an adviser in another
department or even in another university.

	In answering Mosher's claim that the University did not follow
its judicial procedures, President Kennedy advanced the idea that
this isn't a disciplinary proceeding but merely an academic proceeding,
and no quasi-judicial procedures are required.  Certainly many
students are terminated for lack of progress without it being
a judicial matter.  However, when the basis of the termination
is misconduct and the word ``expulsion'' has been used, proper
quasi-judicial procedure is appropriate.

	What about the charge that the proceedings are politically
motivated?  There is unlikely to be a clear answer to that one.
My experience at Stanford, including two years as a member of the
Academic Senate, has convinced me that university professors are
very skillful at finding other reasons for doing what they want
to do in cases where a ``naive'' observer would conclude that they
were violating someone's academic freedom.  Indeed, the
Chairman of the Anthropology Department was one of the signers
of a statement proposing action against the Hoover Institution
that looked like a violation of academic freedom to me.  Others
didn't see it that way and found other criteria to justify
restricting the Hoover Institution in ways that seemed unlike those
applied to other institutions connected to Stanford.  To me, it
looked like an intellectual gerrymander.  My opinion, which I see
no way of verifying or refuting, is that political criteria, including the
obsequiousness to the Chinese communists, common in the American
intellectual community and especially at Stanford, played at least
a subjective role.

	In the informal discussion of the Mosher case at Stanford,
unsupported rumors that Mosher was ``a sleazy character''
played an important role in inhibiting people from supporting
him.  I was told that graduate students in anthropology played
a big role in this rumor-mongering, and I think they should be
ashamed of it.  However, I suppose that they are just as susceptible
as anyone else to mass hysteria.

	However, suppose Mosher is indeed not a nice guy.  It is a
long established principle in civil rights matters that an injustice
cannot be justified by establishing that the victim isn't a nice
guy and probably deserves everything he gets.  Stanford students and
faculty who think they have some reason to believe that Mosher isn't a nice
guy still have the obligation to oppose his being expelled for
insufficient reasons.

	What should be done?  In my opinion, Mosher should be re-admitted
and given a reasonable time to produce a thesis.  If he submits a thesis,
the University should find a way to evaluate it, using outsiders if
necessary --- as it probably would be.  He can be reprimanded, but the
associated punishment cannot reasonably be a suspension for longer than he
has already been out.  If the University wants to suspend registration
until he has either accounted for the camera to the University's
satisfaction or paid for it, this would be legitimate.

	I must confess that reading Mosher's two excellent books,
admittedly more like journalism than anthropology, led me to believe
that Mosher is an acute observer and that American social science
has lost (probably to journalism) someone who is capable of substantial
contributions.
Questions for Iris Brest

1. In your opinion, does the public information warrant expulsion?

2. Does Mosher have legal advice?  Who?

3. What's his current address?
Mosher says that everything is covered.
Mary Mainland, Stanford Alumna
oct 1 1981
protected informants
protected anthropology

behaved unethically
Kenneth Prewitt complained about birth control article damaging U.S.
China relations

Bill Skinner expressed view that birth control article was unfortunate.
Stop publishing return and get perspective.
Arthur Wolf was called on carpet in Peking summer 1981
Aug 81
was pro-Chinese
China studies

Lipset, Berger, Inkeles, Packenham, Raubitschek
In 1934, Einstein's property was expropriated by the Nazis; he was
deprived of his German citizenship and forced to leave the country.
In the same year, Sergei Kirov was assassinated in Leningrad and
Stalin ordered the summary execution of sixty-six political
prisoners who had no connection whatever with Kirov's death.  A
public protest was organized in New York, and Levine sent a copy of
the appeal to Einstein for hs endorsement and signature.  Although
written forty years ago, Levine's questions are relevant today.

	Where are the hundreds of liberal and radical voices which so
properly raised a storm of protest last June upon the bloody Hitler
"purge"?  Why are these professed champions of human rights so
inexplicably silent in the face of the medieval bloodbath improvised
by Stalin?

	Where are our humanitarians who flooded the press last summer
with letters of protest against Hitler's detention without trial of
the Communist leader, Thaelmann?  I recall one long and powerful
plea which appreared in your pages [The New York Times] from the
pen of Waldo Frank.  Have these spokesmen of our public conscience
one standard for Russia and another for Germany?  Are they ready
to admit that they can condone the Red Terror and condemn the Nazi
Terror without outraging the fundamentals of civilization?

	Is there not a single public body in this cuntry to express
American indigntaion at the barbarous "purge" just consummated by
the Soviet government?

	In an accompanying note, Levine wrote to Einstein: "I know you
will agree with me that it is important to have a great Jewish voice
raised agaist the terror in Russia in order to make the protest against
the Nazi terror more effective."

	Einstein responded promptly but, to Levine's astonishment,
expressed this extraordinary reversal of his previous stance:

Princeton, N. J.
2 Library Place
December 10, 1934

Mr. Isaac Don Levine
400 East 52nd Street
New York City

Dear Mr. Levine:

	You can imagine that I, too, regret immensely that the Russian
political leaders let themselves be carried away to deal such a blow
to the elementary demands of justice by resorting to political
murder.  In spite of this, I cannot associate myself with your action.
It will ave no effect in Russia, but in the countries which directly
or indirectly favor Japan's shameless aggressive policy against Russia.
Under these circumstances I regret your action and suggest that you
abandon it altogether.  Take into consideratiion that in Germany
many thousands of Jewish workders are driven to death systematically
by depriving them of the right to work, without causing a stir in
the non-Jewish world.  Consider further that the Russians have proved
that their only aim is really the improvement of the lot of the
Russian people, and that they can in this regard already show
important achievements.  Why then direct the attention of public
opinion in other countries solely to the blunders of this regime?
Is such a choice not misleading?

With highest respect,
A. Einstein

from pp. 102-104 of "The New KGB" by William R. Corson and Robert
T. Crowley.
Questions for Thomas Grey:

When did he first get involved?

In his opinion do the public charges warrant dismissal?

Do the secret charges only concern actions in China?

Was the publication about forced abortions the original stimulus
to investigation?  Should Mosher have refrained from this?

Was Mosher properly represented?

Do the charges concerning actions in China and Taiwan warrant
dismissal?

Are Iris Brest and Clifford Barnett right in saying that what
Mosher did in China was forgivable?

In your understanding is Mosher only dismissed from the Anthropology
Department or from Stanford?