by Michael Gasser
May 31, 2014
For 20 years of my academic life, I worked in cognitive science, the interdisciplinary field that brings together psychology, neuroscience, philosophy, artificial intelligence, and linguistics in the study of the mind.
About 10 years ago, several other faculty at my university and I received an email from a colleague — one of the most distinguished cognitive psychologists in the world — asking us if we’d be interested in applying for funding from the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to establish a center for research on the “cognitive science of terrorism.”
I was shocked at his proposal and replied that I was not interested. He was curious to know why. I told him that funding from DHS would necessarily come with strings attached; in particular, they would get to define terrorism, presumably in a way that excludes the killing of non-combatants by Americans and their allies.
Second, however terrorism is defined, wouldn’t it be appropriately studied as a phenomenon with social/political/economic origins rather than as something to be explained in cognitive terms?
My colleague was not impressed. “Oh, an idealist. Look, we’ll just keep doing our research, and DHS will pay us for it.”
One of DHS’s “centers of excellence,” at Purdue.
Fortunately the response from others at my university was also negative, but that didn’t stop groups in other universities from taking DHS’s money to establish “centers of excellence.” There are now 12 of these, headquartered at 23 different U.S. universities. At least seven of these centers focus in part on perceived threats from various enemies, internal and external.
To get a handle on the influence of DHS and the government’s obsession with “terrorism” on U.S. universities, let’s examine two of the centers of excellence, based on information on their websites.
The National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism (START) was created through an initial $12 million grant from DHS in 2005 and has been the recipient since then of more funding. START is based at the University of Maryland but associated with 54 “partner institutions,” mainly in the United States but also in Israel, Turkey, Singapore, Macedonia, and Britain.
START’s site lists 114 “investigators and research affiliates” and 125 funded research projects, including those concerned with “community-level indicators of radicalization,” “patterns of radicalization in political activism,” “guerrilla insurgency: the springboard to terrorism?,” “police responses to terrorism: lessons from the Israeli experience,” “countering Jihadist ideology among detainees: the effects and effectiveness of de-radicalization programs,” and “intelligence-led policing in counter-terrorism.”
START also has an educational mission: through START one can “study to stop terrorism,” that is, minor in Terrorism Studies or receive a Graduate Certificate in Terrorism Studies.
The more modest National Center for Border Security and Immigration (BORDERS), headquartered at the University of Arizona, brings together 14 other universities and three think tanks, including the Rand Corporation.
This center has 26 faculty investigators and funds 15 graduate students. Among its extensive research facilities are the Deception Detection Laboratory, created with Army and Air Force funding; the College Ranch Test Range, a 100-square-mile “outdoor laboratory” in New Mexico for “testing border security technologies”; and the Unmanned Aircraft Systems Flight Test Center at New Mexico State University.
The 29 research projects listed on BORDERS’ website include ones dedicated to “automatic truth assessment,” “biometric identification,” “localization and tracking of vehicles, cargo, and persons,” “intelligent monitoring of human interactions,” and “airborne detection of illegal activity.”
DHS also provides scholarships and internships to students pursuing courses of study in areas related to homeland security or interested in careers in homeland security, placing a special focus on “minority-serving institutions,” that is, historically Black, tribal, and Hispanic-serving colleges and universities.
Finally, if we needed more evidence for a new homeland-security-academic complex, we have to look no further than the appointment last year of former DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano to head the University of California.
The significance of her appointment is summed up in a statement by the UC Student-Workers Union (UAW 2865): “We question the implications for academic freedom that arise from installing a law enforcement official with a background in surveillance, cyber-security, and border control in a central leadership role at an institution of free expression and learning.”(1)
This surge in funding and educational programs related to “terrorism,” surveillance, and border security that began soon after the creation of DHS builds on the long-standing relationship between the military and intelligence communities and the U.S. university. These other relationships are more familiar and have been the subject of many books.(2) In what follows I will focus on the developing connections between the military and intelligence communities since the Cold War.
The Military on Campus
Most countries have special-purpose institutions of higher education to train military officers. The United States has 18 such colleges and universities, including federally funded ones such as West Point, state-funded ones such as The Citadel, and private ones such as Norwich University. What distinguishes the United States from all but a few other countries is the presence of the Reserve Officers Training Corps (ROTC) at civilian colleges and universities.
Created in 1916, ROTC is probably the most visible sign of U.S. military involvement on non-military colleges and universities, with its uniformed cadets and midshipmen and university credit for courses taught by military officers on “military science” and “leadership.” Army, Navy), or Air Force ROTC programs are present today on almost 500 campuses.
ROTC suffered a setback in the 1960s, when opposition to the Vietnam War resulted in the dropping of the requirement that all male students at many universities participate in ROTC and the expulsion of ROTC from several prominent universities.
But things have been looking up again for ROTC. In 1996, the Solomon Amendment was passed, allowing the federal government to deny funding to universities that exclude ROTC or otherwise prevent the military from recruiting on campus.(3)
Although the government has chosen not to invoke the law to challenge influential universities, ROTC has returned to several of these in the last three years, including Harvard, Yale and Columbia.(4)
Behind the scenes, the military is present in many other ways, most prominently in the funding of research, a relationship that goes back, with a few gaps, for almost 100 years.(5) Military funding for research is administered by at least four agencies, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), the Office of Naval Research (ONR), the Army Research Laboratory (ARL), and the Air Force Office of Scientific Research.
It is difficult to get a clear estimate of the dollar amount of military funding for academic research. The 2014 Department of Defense (DoD) budget allots $12 billion to “science and technology,” which includes the categories of “basic research,” “applied research,” and “advanced technology development.” Some of this money goes to in-house military laboratories, others to industries and non-profit organizations such as the Rand Corporation and the Mitre Corporation that are dependent for their very existence on military and intelligence-related research and development.
Some is specifically earmarked for academia, however. All four funding agencies allot a portion of their budgets to “university programs”; this amount totals $330 million in the 2014 budget. This category includes, for example, the Young Investigator Research Program or Young Faculty Awards, made to young faculty and other researchers early in their career.
The goal is “to develop the next generation of academic scientists, engineers and mathematicians in key disciplines who will focus a significant portion of their career on DoD and national security issues”.
A further program, at least within ONR, supports faculty for 10-week periods during summer or sabbatical leave to participate directly in in-house military laboratories. As with DHS, there is a special effort to involve students and faculty at “minority-serving institutions.”(6)
Within the defense-wide budget, a further university-specific category is the Minerva Initiative. Created in 2008, this is a “university-based social science research initiative” whose goal is to “improve DoD’s basic understanding of the social, cultural, behavioral, and political forces that shape regions of the world of strategic importance to the U.S.”.
Although the Minerva Initiative has attracted more controversy and criticism than most of the Pentagon’s funding programs because the target population includes scholars such as anthropologists who have been the most resistant to military funding, there has been no lack of interested researchers from a wide range of disciplines, especially from those who make use of computational modeling rather than more traditional social science methods.(7)
The Minerva Initiative is just one example of how the Pentagon is involved not only in the sort of research one might expect from the military, such as “elastomeric polymer-by-design to protect the warfighter against traumatic brain injury” or “novel approaches to packaged radiation detectors for identifying hidden threats,” but also research within the social and cognitive sciences.
Consider this description of ONR’s Human and Bioengineered Systems division: “Human and Bioengineered Systems Division’s mission is to direct, plan, foster and encourage science and technology in cognitive science, computational neuroscience, bioscience and bio-mimetic technology, physiology and biophysics, immunology, social/organizational science, training, human factors, and decision making as related to Naval needs.”
Subcategories include “cognitive science of learning,” “perception and cognitive control,” and “reasoning about uncertainty.” The intended pool of researchers clearly includes psychologists and education researchers, as well as the physicists, chemists, biologists, and engineers that we would normally associate with military research.
Penetrating the University
The Pentagon’s involvement in university education goes far beyond its support for military colleges and universities and for ROTC. Beginning with a pilot project in 2005, Congress has authorized the Pentagon to administer the National Defense Education Program (NDEP). The NDEP “supports students across the entire spectrum of their educational experience” (pre-college, university, faculty) with the goal of “supporting the workforce needs of the Department of Defense.”
Students supported on NDEP scholarships spend their summers working in defense R&D laboratories and commit to working after graduation for one year at a DoD lab for every year of support they received.
Relationships between the military and academia exist not only at the level of the individual professor or student. They may also be established at the institute or even at the university level. DoD has created 13 University Affiliated Research Centers (UARC) at universities across the country.
The purpose is to “conduct science, technology, and engineering work on behalf” of DoD. Among these are the Institute for Soldier Nanotechnologies at MIT, sponsored by the Army, and the Center for the Advanced Study of Language at the University of Maryland, sponsored by the National Security Agency.
Some of the UARCs are very large; the Applied Research Laboratory at Penn State, sponsored by the Navy, employs more than 1000 faculty and staff. Another category of institute are the Federally Funded Research and Development Centers, at least two of which are university-run and military-funded, Lincoln Laboratory, run by MIT, and the Software Engineering Institute, run by Carnegie Mellon University.
Collaboration on research and education also occurs at the school or even the university level. One has to go no further than my own university, which in 2012 concluded an agreement with the nearby Crane Naval Service Warfare Center “that will allow Indiana University campuses to work more closely with Crane and with private-sector partners to transfer technology to the private sector.”
Or consider the even more ambitious partnership between Towson University and ARL, by which “ARL will collaborate with TU on programs of mutual interest, including identifying areas of priority interest and potential sources of funding.” “Specific areas of research where TU students can obtain academic credits for work on research projects at ARL laboratories will be identified and developed.” Through such agreements, the Army becomes directly involved in the curriculum and research initiatives of an entire university.
Finally, the example of Janet Napolitano’s seamless transition from DHS secretary to university president has had many parallels in the military world. In what appears to be a new trend, retired generals and admirals, including Stanley McChrystal, former commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan, are now teaching classes as professors.(8)
The Intelligence Community on Campus
The intelligence community (IC) also has a long history of relationships with academia,(9) but because of the secrecy involved and perhaps also the stigma associated with the institution within academia, these relationships have mostly remained hidden from view, at least until recently. When they were exposed in the past, as happened in the 1960s and again in the 1980s, there was an outcry on the campuses involved.
In one such incident in 1984, two political scientists at Rutgers, including the department chair Richard Mansbach, were using student class projects to gather information for the CIA. Mansbach had maintained close relations with the CIA throughout his academic career.(10)
Beginning in the 1980s, the climate for a CIA presence of one sort or another has become considerably more open. For example, Richard Mansbach’s flouting of Rutgers’ rules in 1984 seems to have had little effect on his academic career. He went on to be the chair of political science at Iowa State University, where he teaches today. A number of other distinguished scholars, including Robert Jervis, former president of the American Political Science Association, now openly work as consultants for the CIA.(11)
Not content just to work with professors, in 1986 the CIA created a program by which its own officers serve as visiting professors for two years while still employees of the agency. Inspired by the State Department’s Diplomat-in-Residence program, the Officer-in-Residence program had by 2006 posted 100 officers to 51 different institutions, including Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Dartmouth, USC, Virginia, and my own university.
While the stated mission of the officers-in-residence program is to “teach intelligence,” informally they play a role in recruiting future CIA employees. Some of the alumni of the program go on to retire from the IC and become regular professors at the universities where they served.
Like DHS and the Pentagon, the IC funds students and postdoctoral researchers. There is a wide range of funding opportunities for students.
The largest of these, the Pat Roberts Intelligence Scholars Program (PRISP), administered by the CIA, and the National Intelligence Scholars Program, administered by the Defense Intelligence Agency, require students supported by the program to work for one or another intelligence agency for a minimum period upon graduation.
These programs focus on recruiting students in social sciences and area studies and allow the students to conceal the source of their funding from their university.(12)
In 2000, the government established the Intelligence Community Postdoctoral Research Fellowship Program. Administered by the CIA, the program has to date supported almost 300 postdoctoral researchers. In addition to “facilitating research for the long-term needs of the IC,” the program aims “to establish long-term mentoring relationships with its Postdoctoral Fellows.” In addition to their faculty advisor, each participant is assigned an “IC Advisor,” that is, “a federal senior-level scientist in the IC.”
Since 2007, the IC has also offered Young Investigator awards to faculty to prepare them to be advisors to IC-funded postdoctoral researchers. Although the research performed under the program is unclassified, the CIA acquires “unlimited rights to the technical data resulting from research … under the resulting grants.”
Fellows are expected to submit papers to the intelligence community’s in-house journal, the Journal of Intelligence Community Research and Development. The call for research proposals for 2013 gives an idea of the topics of interest. Of the 34 topics listed, many are within physics, chemistry, biology or engineering. Several of the others focus on social media, either their use in “influencing attitudes and behavior” or for data mining to “build an intelligence picture.”
Others are concerned with cognition: vulnerability to “misinformation effects,” “reconstitution of events prior to trauma,” “cognitive plasticity: improving analysts’ ability to reason, remember, and resolve ambiguity.” Clearly the IC is involving itself on U.S. university campuses in a very wide range of academic fields.
The Military-Intelligence-Security-Academic Complex
The Pentagon, the 16 intelligence agencies, and the Department of Homeland Security are the public face of U.S. empire, permanent war, massive surveillance and militarized borders. These agencies are succeeding in a concerted campaign to exert influence on the U.S. university and exploit faculty, students and postdoctoral researchers in service of their perceived needs.
As we have seen, they are doing this in several ways, none of them covert. First, they fund the research that is done in universities to an extent perhaps unseen in U.S. history, and in fields as diverse as political science, physics, anthropology, computer science and biochemistry. Second, they are training a new generation of researchers to participate in their mission to “defend Americans.” They do this by paying for the education of thousands of students and postdoctoral researchers and by placing their own people, retired or current, in universities to teach classes.
Although it would be foolish to suggest that somewhere in Washington a military-intelligence-security-academic complex (MISAC) czar was overseeing the process, the programs offered by the different agencies are strikingly similar.
Perhaps the clearest evidence for a “complex” rather than a series of isolated phenomena is the informal revolving-door system that recycles members of the military-intelligence-security (MIS) communities and the academic communities back and forth.
Robert Gates moved from Director of the CIA to President of Texas A&M to Secretary of Defense. Leon Panetta went from a position in Army Intelligence to the House of Representatives to the faculty of several California universities to Director of the CIA to Secretary of Defense; today Panetta’s Institute for Public Policy “serves the entire California State University system” in various ways.
The massive funding of research in science and engineering by the MIS communities has several important consequences.(13) First, assuming the agencies are spending their money in clever ways,(14) it furthers the work of these agencies. This work involves projects such as the expansion of border security, spying on millions of innocent people, torture techniques and drone warfare.
Second, it steers the research done in these fields toward particular subfields and away from others, and favors certain approaches over others within these subfields. It does this most directly by funding research projects in the favored subfields, but also indirectly by funding the education of the next generation of researchers.
It’s difficult of course to quantify the ways in which MIS funding skews research. The examples of research projects and topic areas given in this article give a sense of how this happens. The fact is that all fields of scholarship have an essentially unlimited set of possible directions they could go, many with the promise to meet real human needs. Having these directions decided by the MIS community can only result in a serious distortion of the academy’s role in society.
Third, MIS-related funding of research and involvement in educational programs increases the influence of these agencies within the academy. The agencies themselves are relatively explicit about this.
For example, part of the stated mission of the Office of University Programs of DHS is “foster[ing] a homeland security culture within the academic community.”
Although it is not stated what precisely is meant by “homeland security culture,” one can surmise that it places the “terrorist” threat high on a list of priorities and suspecting everyone as a consequence (DHS is after all the source of the “if you see something, say something” campaign).
Another aspect of the culture of security is the willingness to accept secrecy, to conduct research that will not be accessible to all or will be the property of a federal agency. Some military-funded research conducted in universities is reported at military conferences, where participation is restricted to those with particular clearances.
MIS “culture” also has implications for the curriculum. One can now earn degrees in “homeland security,” “border security,” and “terrorism and counterterrorism studies” at scores of universities.
Finally, though it is difficult to assess this trend, MIS funding for academic research and educational programs almost certainly has the effect of building support for U.S. foreign policy, the militarization of our society, and the surveillance state among members of the academic community, in the process countering the traditional role of the academy as a venue for the independent analysis and critique of government policy.
To see the resulting complacency as just some unintended side-effect of the MISAC would be to miss the point, I would argue. The university is in the process of being silenced.
Why Is This Happening?
Why are more and more scholars turning to DoD, DHS, and intelligence agencies to fund their research? One reason is the reduced availability of traditional funding sources.
Academic research in the United States has traditionally been provided mainly by the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), and the bulk of university research funding still comes from these agencies (though in some fields, such as computer science, most funding comes from MIS).
The recent news is not good, however. A coalition of scientific organizations conducted a survey of US scientists in the summer of 2013 on governmental funding for non-defense science; 3,700 scientists from a wide variety of fields responded.(15)
The report concludes, “flat budgets and sequestration have put a significant strain on scientists to pursue the important research that will uncover tomorrow’s cures and technologies. And now, the U.S. scientific community is approaching a point where these short-sighted budgeting techniques will irreversibly damage the research enterprise in this nation.”
Not surprisingly, the Pentagon, the intelligence agencies, and DHS are not seeing the same sorts of cuts. In recent years DoD’s budget for science and technology has been almost twice that of the entire NSF budget.(16) In this sort of funding climate, it is not surprising that researchers would hold their nose and apply for military, intelligence-agency or DHS funding, even if this means steering their research in directions more interesting to these agencies.
In fact there is little evidence of nose-holding. Beyond a few isolated voices of concern, especially from fields without a strong historical link to military or IC funding, such as history and anthropology, the new MISAC operates smoothly on most campuses. This level of acquiescence should not surprise us given the generally sorry state of faculty activism within the modern neoliberal university.(17)
Indeed many researchers are eager to accept the money from the MIS agencies. On the one extreme there are those like the graduate student researcher at MIT in 1970 who stated, “What I’m designing may one day be used to kill millions of people. I don’t care. That’s not my responsibility. I’m given an interesting technological problem and I get enjoyment out of solving it.”(18)
Probably more common are those like my psychology colleague, who claim that they simply do their research, seeking funding wherever they find it. A common justification is that of David Matsumoto of San Francisco State University, one of the first recipients of a Minerva Initiative grant: “One way to make sure one’s research is used to benefit the common good is to be actively participating in the process.”(19)
Finally, there is a very influential camp of academics who actively support the collaboration, either because the academy is needed to defeat “our enemies” or because of the supposed side benefits of military research. A well-known example among anthropologists is Felix Moos of the University of Kansas, who in 2005 stated: “The United States is at war, and thus, simply put, the existing cultural divide between the intelligence community, the U.S. military, and academe has become a critical, dangerous, and very real detriment to our national security at home and abroad.”(20)
Moos was one of those responsible for the creation of PRISP. Not surprisingly, he and other supporters of the MISAC such as Elizabeth Rindskopf Parker, dean of the School of Law at the University of the Pacific, have a history of involvement with the military or the IC.
For students seeking majors that will lead to jobs and financial support in an era of increasing tuition and declining aid, the cornucopia of offerings from the MIS world must be very tempting, especially in the absence of any critique of the MISAC among the faculty at their universities.
Of course the NSF, NIH and NEH are also government agencies, but until recently, funding from these agencies was relatively free from the obvious bias that is seen in calls for funding from the MIS agencies. There are signs that this is now beginning to change.
In March 2013, the Senate added an amendment to the bill funding the NSF that restricted NSF funding of political science research to projects “promoting national security or the economic interests of the United States.”(21) As a consequence, NSF canceled their usual funding cycle for political science in Fall 2013. In the future, funding from these other agencies may look more and more like MIS funding.
When I began the research for this article, I thought I had a good sense of the scope of the involvement of the Pentagon, the IC, and DHS in U.S. academia. I didn’t. Following the paths linking these agencies to the university was like trying to get hold of some enormous squid, whose tentacles reach almost everywhere in academic life.
Although the big picture is obscured, for good reason, it is surprisingly easy to find the details. These reveal that more than 20 years following the end of the Cold War, the MISAC is not only alive and well; it is thriving as never before.
The increasing influence of these agencies over the academy can only mean a decline in opportunities for criticisms of the policies they represent. As the security state takes hold, university faculty are doing the research needed to move it forward, and university students are being trained to participate in that research and to take positions as compliant workers within the security state.
Because of space limitations, I have left out the other component of Eisenhower’s famous warning: industry. There is much that could be said here — about the blurry line between universities and the private sector at places like SRI and Draper Laboratory, with their close relations to Stanford University and MIT respectively; about the funding of research by corporations, such as Lockheed Martin, that are practically arms of the Pentagon; about military-corporate-academic partnerships such as seen at the University of Dayton Research Institute.
Suffice it to say that the squid’s tentacles reach even farther than outlined in this article. Of course universities have not yet lost all their independence, and there are a few voices who have noticed the scale of the threat and are alerting the academic community to it, people such as historian Bruce Cumings (University of Chicago),(22) historian David N. Gibbs (University of Arizona),(23) historian of science Stuart Leslie (Johns Hopkins University),(24) and anthropologist Catherine Lutz.(25)
In any case, in today’s repressive academic climate, the best hope for change is probably the students. After all, it was they who took the lead in fighting the military influence on campuses in the 1960s and ‘70s.
Michael Gasser is Professor Emeritus of Informatics & Computing and Cognitive Science at Indiana University. He now lives in Santa Cruz, CA, and is a member of Solidarity. This article appears in the most recent issue of Against the Current.
- UAW 2865 — UC Student-Workers Union. “On the Recent Appointment of Janet Napolitano for UC President.” July 15, 2013. http://www.uaw2865.org/?p=3365.
back to text
- For example, Sigmund Diamond, Compromised Campus: The Collaboration of Universities With the Intelligence Community, 1945-1955 (Oxford, 1992); Henry A. Giroux, The University in Chains: Confronting the Military-Industrial-Academic Complex (Paradigm Publishers, 2007); Stuart Leslie, The Cold War and American Science: The Military-Industrial-Academic Complex at MIT and Stanford (Columbia University Press, 1993); Robin Winks. Cloak and Gown: Scholars in the Secret War, 1939-1961 (William Morrow, 1987).
back to text
- See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/983.
back to text
- Ben Smith. Ivies Move Toward Restoring ROTC. Politico, December 18, 2010. http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/1210/Harvard_Yale_moving_on_ROTC.html.
back to text
- Leslie 1993, op. cit.
back to text
- For example, see the list of recipients of the 2010 Historically Black Colleges and Universities/Minority Institutions Research and Educational Program Awards (http://www.defense.gov/news/d20110217grants.pdf).
back to text
- Stephen Glain, The Pentagon Goes to College, The Progressive, July 2011 http://www.progressive.org/glain0711.html.
back to text
- Elisabeth Bumiller. “After War Room, Heading Ivy League Classroom.” New York Times, May 6, 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/07/us/retired-military-officers-teaching-at-ivy-league-schools.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0.
back to text
- Diamond, 1992; Winks, 1987.
back to text
- Konrad Ege. “Rutgers University: Intelligence Goes to Campus.” CounterSpy, June-August, 1984, pp. 42-44. http://www.randomcollection.info/mcf/rutgers-university.htm.
back to text
- Giroux 2007, 64.
back to text
- David Price. “The CIA’s Campus Spies.” Counterpunch, March 12-14, 2005; David Price. “Son of PRISP: Obama’s Classroom Spies.” Counterpunch, June 23, 2009.
back to text
- See also Giroux, 2007 and Vera Kistiakowsky, “Military funding of university research.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 502, Universities and the Military (Mar., 1989), 141-154.
back to text
- There is of course no guarantee that they are. There are probably many examples of academics like my psychology colleague with his plan to study the “cognitive science of terrorism” who are capable of convincing the MIS people that their research is relevant to the agencies’ goals when it patently isn’t.
back to text
- American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. Non-Defense Discretionary Science 2013 Survey: Unlimited Potential, Vanishing Opportunity. http://www.asbmb.org/uploadedFiles/Advocacy/Events/UPVO%20Report%20V2.pdf.
back to text
- Sharon Weinberger. “Power of the Pentagon: the Changing Face of Military Science.” Nature, 477, 2011, 386-7. http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110921/full/477386a.html.
back to text
- Purnima Bose. “Inside the Corporate University: Problems of Faculty Activism.” Against the Current, 165 (July/August, 2013), 11-12.
back to text
- Harvey M. Sapolsky. “Academic Science and the Military: the Years Since the Second World War.” In Nathan Reingold, ed., The Sciences in the American Context: New Perspectives (Washington, DC: Smithsonian Institution Press, 1979). 379-99.
back to text
- Scott Jaschik. “First Minerva Grants Awarded.” Inside Higher Education, December 29, 2008. http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/29/minerva.
back to text
- In an interview with David Glenn. “Cloak and Classroom.” Chronicle of Higher Education, March 25, 2005.
back to text
- Paul Basken. Senate Moves to Limit NSF Spending on Political Science. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 21, 2013.
back to text
- Bruce Cumings. “Boundary Displacement: Area Studies and International Studies During and After the Cold War.” Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, 1997.
back to text
- David N. Gibbs, The Question of Whitewashing in American History and Social Science, in Donald Trent Jacobs, ed., Unlearning the Language of Conquest: Scholars Expose Anti-Indianism in America (University of Texas Press, 2006).
back to text
- Leslie 1993.
back to text
- Catherine Lutz. “Anthropology in an Era of Permanent War.” Anthropologica, 2009, 51: 367-79.
back to text