POLITICS IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE AND LEARNING 419

A union coordinating committee, of dubious legal status and which is unknown to its colleagues, has made certain incorrect statements. The dean reminds them that he is responsible ,to the faculty assembly and not to any staff union.

Certain students were able to prevent access to the buildings of the faculty and free movement within the buildings. These students who talk about democracy are acting in contradiction to the academic freedom which they pretend to defend by methods unworthy of a democracy.

On 19 February, the Fdddration des groupes d'dtudes de lettres de Paris, an affiliate of the U.N.E.F., announced that it was organising a strike at the beginning of March to protest against the proposed reforms. The president of the Fdddration, M. Serment, said during a press conference:

The reforms do not deal with the four fundamental problems: orientation (by a genuine i~ntroduetory course of one or two years), a proper university and social stares for students (by provisions which will allow students to study full- time and to escape from family ties), modernisation of teaching methods (giving especially an introduction to contemporary methods of research and criticism) and the reorgauisation of degree courses.

The Fdddration asked to be kept informed about the projected reform and announced that its demands would be presented to the Minister of Education and the dean of the faculty of arts in Paris.

Following the proclamation by the U.N.E.F. of a week of agitation against the proposed reforms, the Association des dtudiants de lettres of the University of Lille, at a meeting attended by 500 out of the 5,000 students enrolled in the faculty, decided to call a strike from 1 to 3 March. The dean of the faculty then announced that no classes would be held during this period, because he did not wish to invoke the aid of the police and had no other means of preventing the kind of incidents which had occurred at "another university ". He said that, in future, strike action could only be taken after there had been proper consultation between the students and a secret ballot had been taken.

On 10 February, 450 third and fourth year medical students of the faculty of medicine at Bordeaux refused to sit for an examination in surgical pathology which had been set in the "mul t ip le choice answer" form.

The students claimed that this form did not allow their intellectual capacity to be judged and was particularly unsuited to examining the subject in question. They considered that the system was being used because of a shortage of examiners.

The multiple choice form of question is widely used in many medical faculties, particularly during the first years of the course.

G E R M A N DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC

PROE. H A V E M A N N A N D THE EAST G E R M A N A C A D E M Y

In a confidential communication to members of the East German Academy of Sciences, the president, Professor Werner Hartke, made the following observations about Professor Robert Havemann 8 :

The Academy of Sciences .has for some time been put into very embarrassing situations by Professor Havemann.

Professor Havemann's assertion that the Academy did not accord him freedom of expression must be rejected. He could, for example, have expressed his

Translated from the text which appeared in Die Zeit, No. 12, 18 March, 1966, p. 3. The footnotes are taken from the version in Die Zeit.

420 CHRONICLE

opinions at the plenary session of the Academy on "Truth and Adherence to the Party" but he left the meeting before the discussion was concluded. The encounter of divergent opinions is not forbidden in the German Demo- cratic Republic [D.D.R.] but this does not mean that one may set up in com- petition with the prevailing ophaion or go over to the enemy. Furthermore, it is necessary to bear in mind the public which ,one is addressing. Openness in discussion is not the same as the expression of opinion in public. Professor Havemaun has also raised questions about political power and about alternatives to the prevailing political system in the German Democratic Republic. Members of the Academy, who are citizens of the D.D.R., must be aware that their assertions have a different significance from those of foreign members. The former must accept the following propositions as unquestionably valid:

(1) The alliance of all progressive forces in the D.D.R. : Havemann's alter- native of an opposition party would serve as a focus for discontented and even counter-revolutionary forces. (2) The responsibility of all workers for the means of production which belong to them--socialist democracy: Havemann recommends the use under socialism of techniques of class conflict which are appropriate for the subversion of capitalism. (3) The theoretical and organisational unity of the socialist party. Have- mann would permit the expression, within the party, of differences of the type which disintegrated the labour movement and which made it possible for large scale industrial enterprise .to bring Hitler to power.

Havemann's proposals naturally found hospitality in the press of the big industrialists of Western Germany. This shows the value and significance of these proposals. They must be radically opposed. In Maroh 1964, vchile he was stiU a professor at the Humboldt University, I-Iavemann received West German journal!sts in the rooms which were provided for him by virtue of his status as a professor. He discussed with them general political questions and a lecture which he had delivered and which had become widely known. The content of these conversations was used in the Western press against the D.D.R. in an absolutely slanderous manner. Havemann has thus grossly infringed the official requirements and his obligations as an educator, as well as his particular obligation of loyalty as director of an institute. He continued this course despite the warnings of the rector of the university. As is known, because of this irresponsible and thoroughly pernicious activity, Havemann was dismissed from his professorship. But, with the agreement of the government, he continued to hold an official post in the German Academy of Sciences. In the summer of 1964, it became known that I-Iavemann had made a contract with a West German publisher to publish the lectures which he had delivered ~n the Humboldt University. r The board of management of the Research Institute informed Havemann, on 1 June, 1964, that, in view of the special circumstances under which he was employed in the institute, he should have told them that he was renewing the dangerous contacts which had already given rise to earlier disciplinary action against him. Havemann acknowledged the correctness of these representations by stating that he had prepared the text for publication before entering the employ of the Research Institute. The publication of these lectures was treated by the enemies of the D.D.R. in the same way in which they had treated his Leipzig lecture: to the detriment of the D.D.R. Towards the end of 1964, Havemann received numerous invitations to deliver philosophical and political lectures in Western Germany. The authorities of the

r Published as Dialektik ohne Dogma? (Hamburg: Rowohlt Tasehenbuch Verlag GmbH, 1964).

POLITICS IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE AND LEARNING 421

Academy informed Havemann that these lectures were not compatible with his official responsibilities and that they did not serve either science or the Academy. Havemann complained about this to me in my capacity as president of the Academy, saying that his intellectual freedom was being infringed by such warnings.

When I invited him to discuss the matter with me, he said he would do so only in the presence of a witness chosen by himself because he regarded it as important that our discussions should be public. This was an affront to the honour of the Academy.

The president of the Academy refused to accept this condition and thus no discussion took place. Early in 1965, Havemann was again invited to lecture in Western Germany by a political and a religious organisatJon. Havemann was again requested by the president of the Academy to discuss the matter. This time he did so without stipulating special conditions. Meanwhile Havemann author- ised the publication of another article in Der Spiegel s in which he discussed the affairs of the D.D.R. When the president began his discussion with Havemann, he expressed his concern, at the fact that whatever went on between them, either in writing or orally, soon found its way into Western publications. This had, for example, happened with an official letter from the general secretary addressed 'to Havemarm. This found its way to RIAS 9 within 36 hours. Havemann refused to give any undertaking to prevent a repetition of such matters. This was considered to be one of the most serious aspects of his conduct and Havemann was told that the directorate of the Academy had passed these views on to the Ministry of the Interior. Havemann admitted that he had telegraphed the content of an official letter from the general secretary of the Academy to the bodies which had invited him to Western Germany. It was not remarkable, therefore, that it had go.t into the possession of RIAS. The president replied that his associates in Western Germany had very close links with the enemies of the D.D.R. He also pointed out that Havemann's conduct was being exploited by the enemy but Havemann would make no comment on this subject either. Havemann on the contrary admitted that he had expressly agreed to the publication of his article in Der Spiegel.

At about this time, .the president of the Academy was informed by the President of the D.D.R. that the latter had officially pointed out to Havemann the way i,n which his eontaots with persons, publications and news agencies in the West and particularly in the Federal Republic involved serious dangers and asked .that they be discontinued. Havemann then said that he would not abide by this request.

In September 1965, the Research Institute (Forschungsgemeinschalt) sent a seizure warrant to Havemann. He had already been fined by order of the magi- strate for having dis~a-ibuted, without official licence, a mimeographed article which was a reply to criticism in Forum, the journal of the F.D.L [Frei Deutsche .lugencl]; the F.D.J. having refused to publish ~ reply, Havemann sent the mimeographed copies to all members of the Academy in the D.D.R. The Minister of Culture rejected Havemarm's appeal against the rnagistrate's decree. Havemann was of the view that the more people knew about these matters the better and he collected ,the documents as a basis for something which he wished .to write oaa the legal system of the D.D.R. The president of the Academy learned about the official side of these matters from a detailed article in Der Spiegel. lo

In September 1965, Havemann again published an article in a Western publi- cation, xx The directora.te of the Research Institute then dismissed Havemann from his research post.

s No. 51 (1964). 9 A West Berlin wireless station broadcasting to Eastern Germany.

10 No. 14 (1965). ix ,, P1/idoyer fiir e~e neue KPD ", Der Spiegel, No. 52 (1965).

422 crmoNICLE

For two years Havemann has put the Academy into conflict with the laws of the state and with the governmemt which maintains the Academy. He has refused to take advice and has considered himself as component to decide which rules and laws he should observe.

His attitude has brought him close to breaking the law of secrecy, since the article in Der Spiegel contained a reference to the work on photosynthesis which was being done by the Council on Mutual Economic Aid and of which Havemann was the coordinator in the D.D.R. How can discipline be maintained when the responsible head of a research team insists that the world-wide public is entitled to know everything about the work in which he is involved?

He has broken the confidence of his colleagues concerning professional, methodological and political matters. He has never expressed a word of regret about all this.

Such a condition of anarchy cannot be tolerated.

On 9 March, Professor Havemann addressed the following letter to members of the Academy. 12

Esteemed Members of the Academy, You have received a communication from President Hartke, to which is attached a detailed report addressed by Herr Hartke .to the chemistry, biology and geology sections and w~aicah refers to alleged misconduct, infringements, indiscipline and other misdeeds which I am said to have committed in the past year. I have learned about the substance of this communication by accident, although the charges made in it are to serve as the basis for the discussion which is to take place at the plenary session of the Academy of 24 March with a view to my expulsion from the Academy. The charges made by Herr Hartke in the report include new accusations which are not wholly consistent with those cited as grounds for my dismissal from my research post in December 1965 . . . . I have not been invited to the plenary session of 24 March.

It is intended that my expulsion from the Academy should be based on these charges without giving me the opportunity to reply to them or to justify myself before the members of the Academy who are to vote on my expulsion. This procedure is contrary to the mostbasic requirements of justice . . . .

Since my expulsion is to-be decided upon by vote, I should at least have the opportunity of 'replying in detail to Herr Hartke's accusations. This would require a postponement of the date of the meeting. I cannot prepare over one hundred copies of a detailed statement by 24 March since I do not have access to any duplicating machines.

In the statement which I wish to prepare, I will refute all the contentions and accusations asserted by Herr Hartke. Here I will only state emphatically that the allegation of a transgression of the law of secrecy made by Herr Hartke has no foundation whatsoever and borders on malicious defamation.

But, in addition tO this written self-defenee, I should also be given an opportunity to appear personally before the members of the Academy and to justify myself before them.

I believe that the observance of these fundamental conditions for the conduct of the proceedings is absolutely indispensable if the dignity and reputation of the Academy are to be preserved. I therefore appeal to you to refuse to vote in the plenary session if the direc4orate of the Academy refuses to a6here to these conditions.

Most respectfully yours, Robert Havemann.

1~ Die Zeit, No. 12, 18 March, 1966, in. 3.

POLITICS IN THE WORLD OF SCIENCE AND I.EARNING 423

On 24 March, 1965, at a meeting of the Eas t German Academy of Sciences, the proposal to deprive Professor Havemann of his membership was not accepted. An expulsion of a member of the Academy requires the support of 75 per cent. of the membership. The motion put forward by the authorities of the Academy obtained only 70 per cent.

G H A N A

On 28 February, 1966, the executive committee of the academic board of the University of Ghana, at a meeting held in the council chamber, adopted the following resolution:

The Executive Committee of the Academic Board, acting on its own behalf and on behalf of the University of Ghana, send their warmest congratulations and gratitude to the National Liberation Council on the successful overthrow of the Kwame Nkrumah regime.

We in this University (staff, students, workers and all) have suffered from serious encroachment on freedom of speech and thought which threatened to undermine the acadernie integrity and standing of this University. We are therefore most grateful to the Ghana Armed Forces and the Ghana Police Services for the timely deliverance of the sovereign people of th~'s country from the arbitrary rule, oppression, nepotism, maladministration and economic mismanagement of the corrupt Kwame Nkrumah government. We are happy to note that the National Liberation Council are determined to rescue the country from the chaos created by the old regime.

We pledge our resolute support and loyalty to the National Liberation Council and affirm that, as much as in us lies, we shall all fulfil the great tasks that lie ahead of us, and make this University a true centre of learning, science and research, where freedom of thought and expression will forever prevail according to ~ e highest academic traditions. We dedicaCe ourselves to the service of Ghana.

Long Live Ghana. Signed by Prof. A. A. Kwapong,

Acting Pro-Vice-Chancellor.

Following the displacement of President Nkrumah and his government, the pro-vice-chancellor and acting vice-chancellor of the University of Ghana, Legon, Professor W. E. Abraham, was taken into protective custody as an M.P. and a former member of the Presidential Commission, on the orders of the Nat ional Liberation Council.

A. A. Kwapong, professor of classics and senior professorial member of the university council, was appointed to replace Professor Abraham. In response to a request by the Nat ional Liberation Council for a review of national educational policy, Professor Kwapong has appointed three com- mittees. The advisory committees on arts and social studies and on science and agricul ture were charged with two main duties: (i) to examine those aspects of the national educational system which touch mainly upon the university system, e.g., admission standards, the distribution of students into arts, social science and science categories, standardisation of examina- tions and levels of achievement, etc., and (ii) to assess and make recommenda- tions on internal affairs of the University of Ghana itself, such as standards of entry, student classification and distribution according to fields of study, general studies, African studies, inaugural lectures, inter-departmental liaison and cooperation, publications, etc. A third committee was to consider the university's responsibilities in adult education and extension work.

424 CHRONICLE

The Legon Committee on National Reconstruction, an unofficial university group, was formed on the initiative of a group of Ghanaian staff members. Professor K. A. B. Jones-Quartey is chairman. It has four subcommittees: (i) constitutional, (ii) legal, (iii) economic and (iv) political.

At the University College of Science Education, Cape Coast, Dr. C. A. Ackah was reinstated as principal. The incumbent, Dr. Bakhoom, an Egyptian, was repatriated. Dr. Ackah had been dismissed from his post by the former regime.

The name of the Kwame Nkrumah University of Science and Technology was changed to the Kumasi University of Science and Technology. The vice-chancellor, Dr. R. P. Baffour, on behalf of himself and of the entire university staff, made a declaration of loyalty to the National Liberation Council.

Students at all three Ghanaian institutions of higher education who were previously in detention have been allowed to return to their studies and officers of the student wings of the Convention People's Party (C.P.P.), arrested by the army and police for questioning, were released.

GREECE On 16 December, 1965, Nikolai Maslokovich, professor of physics at the

Agricultural Institute of Rostov, disappeared while visiting Athens on the last stage of a Mediterranean cruise. Strong Soviet representations were made to the Greek Government but it did not disclose the whereabouts of the missing man.

On 6 January, an official of the Greek Government announced that it had been notified on 4 January that Professor Maslokovich "had fled to another country, reported to the American authorities for asylum and is today under United States Government protection ".

INDIA STUDENTS' AGITATION IN KERALA

On 28 January, eight students were among the 50 persons arrested in Emakulam for stone throwing in the course of demonstrations about rice rations. Students of four colleges abstained from classes and demonstrated in the streets. In front of one of the colleges, students erected road blocks to stop traffic. At Maharajah's College, students set fire to a bamboo open-air theatre. At Kottayam, I00 students boycotted classes at C.M.S. College and held demonstrations on the college grounds to protest against the rice ration.

On 30 January, five students were arrested in Ernakulam for stoning police vans which were making preparations for the state-wide agitation, called, by students for the following day to express their demand for an increase in the food ration. The rice ration in Kerala had been 6 oz. per day but was reduced to 4 oz. and then raised to 5 oz. under pressure from the continuing agitation.

It was decided to continue for another week the closure of the educational establishments in Ernakulam which had been suspended throughout the pre- vious week because of the agitation. In the rest of the state, colleges were to reopen on 31 January. In Trivandrum, the vice-chancellor, Professor Samuel Mathai, and the principals of three colleges broadcast an appeal to students and their parents to disregard the Students' Action Council's instruc- tion to all students to picket central and state government offices and to