squarely is brought home by the strong pressures from young faculty members and, unless it is faced, the generation gap between the junior and senior members of the faculties will be far more divisive than the student dissidence. This problem is not limited to faculties in political science and the humanities. In differing degrees it already exists in almost every discipline in the university, though obviously people in some fields are more likely to be faced with the question of the relationship of their work to the recognized social challenges than those in others. Many universities have created new programs to provide students and faculty members with the opportunity to study and work on today's pressing problems. There are urban institutes, environmental and pollution study centers, disarmament research efforts, social policy centers, technology and public policy research centers and social inquiry groups, to list a few of the more common themes. It is too early to predict how well the universities will fill the needed social leadership role by these measures or to what extent they can regain the confidence of the current disenchanted generation and at the same time maintain the confidence of other elements of society. In any event, this task will not be easy for many reasons. First of all, effective work on socially related problems calls for a balance of intellectual pursuits different from that of the recent past, involving a variety of interdisciplinary research and teaching activities and a series of action-oriented programs which are in many ways alien to the traditional university mode of operation. Second, these programs call for extensive new financial and staffing resources. Furthermore, since the questions which must be faced -- the kind of a society that is to be, the allocation or redistribution of resources to achieve that society, the relationship of individuals and groups to the society and to each other -- are highly charged politi cal issues, there is considerable danger that if a university becomes too deeply engaged in their resolution, it will not be able to avoid becoming even more politically involved. In this circumstance it will be very advantageous to make a distinct separation between those activities of a traditional scholarly nature which should be protected from the political scene and those that clearly have political aspects. The universities should probably lean toward teaching, learning and advising, in contrast to direct operational responsibilities. Through becoming involved in action-oriented problems, the university should strive to meet four objectives. First, help to create a better understanding of the problems confronting contemporary society and at the same time rationally illuminate some options for their solution, as we did here today. Secondly, provide socially relevant educational alternatives for those students who would like to pursue careers more directly dedicated to the problems of society than are offered by traditional university programs.

Third, provide the faculty with opportunities to contribute directly to the solution of these problems, and fourth, by providing positive, creative leadership for a drifting and dispirited world, the university could become what it once was, the institution that offers hope, challenge and opportunity to the young. In a world of rapid change, the university must be the link between the world that is and the world that will be. I do not pretend that following this course of action will eliminate all strife from the campus. On the contrary, for reasons already given, becoming involved in the major social questions of the day may involve the university in even more disputes. Much of the polarization that now exists will undoubtedly remain, but with more options for students and faculty, a serious cause of present unhappiness will be mitigated. I do not believe that the course I have outlined will by any means placate all of the present campus disrupters and anarchists or even prevent new ones from arising from the next generations of students. The seeds of their discontents are planted long before they arrive at the university and the disturbance of some is so great that it will be impossible to engage them in any productive academic activity. In fact, the number of youngsters in this category is likely to increase. But if the large majority of the students and young faculty come to believe that the university is a progressive force, I believe that they will not support disruptive acts and may ultimately even protect the institution. Where does this leave us? With vision and badly needed support, I believe it will be possible to retain, or regain, a sufficient degree of tranquillity to allow the universities to function as centers of rationality and research in a turbulent world. However, if there are continuing cuts in funds available for support of students and research and no new support is forthcoming to genorate the needed socially oriented programs or what the disenchanted students and young faculty call "more relevant activities," there will be a growing mood of hopelessness which will certainly infect every area of the university. But I do not think that will occur. On many campuses, all over the country, some of the positive actions are already in motion. I believe that government in all of its parts will recognize the problem in time and provide the needed help. This does not mean that the problems are over, that there will not be many more confrontations and budget cuts, for governments and even universities will be slow to act, but if I had to make a prediction, it would be that the universities will survive as the prime source of fundamental knowledge and in addition, be forced to play an important role in the search for the world to be. -FIN-