Abstract
In the summer of 1953, a major military-academic project came under attack on Capitol Hill. The target was Harvard University’s Refugee Interview Project, sponsored by the Air Force to the tune of almost $1 million – equivalent to $8 million in 2008. It sought to understand Soviet society by applying the latest techniques of “behavioral science,” the ill-defined amalgam of sociology, cultural anthropology, and social psychology then in vogue. A handful of budget-minded senators attacked. One called the program “insane,” while another offered a broader condemnation, as summarized and quoted in a Boston newspaper:
The program Harvard conducted got nothing “except just a lot of professor theories and all that stuff.” If the army, navy and Defense Department and American citizens have not sense enough to know how to counteract Soviet propaganda without hiring a bunch of college professors… [then] this defense establishment is in one darn bad shape in my opinion.”1
We can take at least some solace from the fact that such inquisitions and insults have not accompanied the Minerva discussion. Indeed, judging by the posts in this forum and others, the strongest opposition to Minerva seems to be coming from a “bunch of college professors.”