FOCUS: Classified Information

Classified research takes place at the University City Science Center, even though the center adopted a policy outlawing it years ago. Classified research takes place at the University City Science Center, even though the center adopted a policy outlawing it years ago.CORRECTION (3/3): A story in yesterday's Daily Pennsylvanian incorrectly stated that the University City Science Center does classified military research. While it does receive money from the Department of Defense, the research the UCSC conducts for the DoD is not classified. It seems as if one piece of history at the University has been lost. It deals with a little-known institution north of campus on Market Street named the University City Science Center, and it stands as a milestone that rocked the University. The UCSC's research policy was changed in 1969 as a result of intense protest and demonstration by both students and faculty on the University's campus, culminating in a six-day sit-in at College Hall. At the time, student and faculty activists felt the University was using the Science Center as a legitimate way for University professors to conduct classified military research while not breaking the University's open-research policies. Activists pressured the University to revise the charter to state that the UCSC "should only seek research contracts oriented to to the enrichment and prolongation of human life," and that "classified, military or Defense Department research" could not be undertaken by the UCSC. In the 20 years since the Science Center's charter was changed, its significance has all but vanished with its intents falling by the wayside. Some University and UCSC officials said last week that the center is ignoring the charter, which caused such a furor 20 years ago, and now conducts classified research. UCSC president Louis Padulo said he is "positive" the center conducts classified research, adding "I'm not aware of" the center's policy against it. So, while students and faculty protest the University's connections to the Department of Defense and the proposed Institute for Advanced Science and Technology, the classified research IAST opponents protest takes place every day at the Science Center -- a venture owned partially by the University. University and Science Center officials say the center's purpose has changed, that it promotes economic development as much as research. But the center's director displayed a marked lack of knowledge about both the policy and its history. · The UCSC is an institution that was "put together under change," said Robert Rutman, an emeritus professor of biochemical animal biology. He added that many of the faculty of today participated in the effort to change an establishment they felt was at the time "destructive" and "oppressing." And he questioned whether the University and the Science Center are living up to the charter that they set into place more than 20 years ago. No one expected the protests of February 18, 1969. Prior to this date, University activists had immersed themselves in civil rights, the research policies of the University itself and community housing. But in February 1969, over 600 students from the University and several surrounding universities marched on College Hall and began a sit-in that would last six days. Concerns about the various policies of the University City Science Center sparked the protest. Protestors had three demands: · First, that the UCSC give land it owned to West Philadelphia. · Second, that the UCSC, the University, and the West Philadelphia Corporation give money to build low rent housing to help out the community. · And third, that the UCSC change its charter so it could not undertake classified, military-related, or Department of Defense funded research. The final demand was a result of 37 classified projects being undertaken by University researchers. The projects, bearing names such as Spice Rack, Summit, and Big Ben, were all highly classified projects. The University undertook the projects so the United States military could gain an advantage in Vietnam using biological warfare. According to Robert Davies, a professor emeritus of molecular biology who was then the chairman of the committee on research at the UCSC, the University had recently established its own policy of not accepting "unpublishable" research. Administrators were then trying to fight the policy's renewal, and were transferring projects to the Science Center. But the president of the University at the time, Gaylord Harnwell, renewed the research for the Spice Rack project without notifying the faculty committee intending to reject the renewal. As well, Davies claimed the project was to be transfered to the UCSC when the University finally adopted its non-classified research policy. The transfer enabled the University to continue research without technically violating its own policy. But, in 1969, the University held 2000 shares in the UCSC, thereby giving it controlling power of administration. As a result, he said that he "welcomed such research as Spice Rack" to the UCSC. By switching the classified military projects to the UCSC, research would still be conducted under the auspices of the University. However, researchers would circumvent the ruling that the University itself had put in place to support "free-publication." "Part of the situation was that when Spice Rack was removed, it would go to the Science Center," Davies said. He also explained that over 10 colleges had arranged a consortium, with students at all shareholding colleges at the UCSC, to discuss the project transfer. The consortium would eventually lead to "the prevention of the project starting at the UCSC. This was a major aim of the sit-in," Davies explained. The executive vice president's words sparked a debate that would not end until his eventual resignation after the University won the charter battle. · On February 19, 1969, with College Hall 200 flanked with students, the time had come. The sit-in shook the campus awake, as debates, discussions, and forums were held to argue the issues the demonstrators were bringing to light. The demonstrators formed a steering committee that said its protesters would "stay in this building until we are satisfied that the Trustees of the University have taken postive action toward meeting the requests." The steering committee in fact threatened to turn the sit-in into an occupation of College Hall. By February 20, the second day of the College Hall sit-in, the demonstrators eagerly awaited the reaction of the administration, as approximately 400 students woke up to address President Harnwell as he dashed into his office. With the hallways jam-packed, the president soon returned to the hallway to face the students. The first to address Harnwell was Joe Mikuliak, the leader of Students for a Democratic Society. Mikuliak asked the president to "cut his jive and tell us straight, 'yes' or 'no' to our demands." That same day, the demonstration steering committee issued a statement demanding that "the Trustees of the University to be called to meet within the next 24 hours to discuss the demands about the UCSC and the role of the University within the community." One student demonstrator said that "It's about time the University is confronted so it faces its responsibility." · The results of the eventual six-day sit-in were astounding, explained Rutman. Alluding to the demonstrators at the time at Columbia and Berkeley, he explained that the six-day sit-in was the first "non-violent" protest accomplishing positive results from the standpoint of both students and administrators. By Sunday, February 23, 1969, the Trustees had reached an agreement with the demonstrators to honor all three of their demands. As a result of the Trustee's approval, the University established a quadripartite committee. It was charged with forging the University's future relations with the community and accepting "the concerns and aspirations of the surrounding community as its own concerns." The committee consisted of the Trustees, community members, faculty members, and students. By Monday, February 24, with the agreements and committees in place, the 800 satisfied demonstrators "drifted lazily" out of College Hall, donning victory signs to the watchers-on, according to news reports at the time. Ira Harkavy, the Vice Dean of the School of Arts and Sciences, who was then the head of the student negotiating team, declared "victory for the community of demonstrators." "We have won more than any other college movement in history." Harkavy said. In the aftermath of the sit-in victory, Davies said, a steering committee was set up to ensure that the newly-established charter of the UCSC was being obeyed. The steering committee consisted of three faculty and two students from Penn, and one faculty and student from the other universities that held shares in the UCSC. · More than 20 years later, two of the three goals are still intact. The community housing, which resulted from the first two student demands, is standing. Davies said the University followed through with the establishment of low-cost housing on the land originally belonging to the UCSC. Standing ghostly still on Market Street, the houses mark the progress of student devotion of twenty years long past. But the UCSC steering committee is only a memory. Davies, who was the chair of the committee, explained that it disbanded. "The student members simply stopped showing up, but the faculty [continued]," Davies said. "The students did not even vote to nominate new members. There was no point in keeping on the committee. One thing about students is that they often lose interest." Davies also said there was no longer a need for a committee, since the Science Center protest had already ostensibly met its goals of giving the land back to the community, building low-cost housing and preventing classified military research. (continues)

Please note All comments are eligible for publication in The Daily Pennsylvanian.