ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 730 / C &RL News Ethics and the N uclear Age By Ronald H. Epp Managing Editor Choice A preview of two upcoming television specials. E arly in 1989 two television series will premiere as part of the Annenberg/CPB Collection. L ibrari­ ans are familiar with other series in this collection: “The Constitution/’ ‘‘The B rain ,” “Congress: We the People,” “Planet E a rth ,” and two recent pro­ ductions reviewed in C &R L N ews: “The Africans” (September 1986) and “Voices and Visions” (De­ cember 1987). The two new series, in distinctly different ways, will educate us to certain harsh— and at times inspiring— m oral truths about ourselves, our neighbors, and our leaders. They both will make us uncomfortable, although wiser. Ethics in America One series, “Ethics in Am erica,” consists of ten one-hour-long roundtable discussions about per­ missible conduct in contemporary America. The other, “W ar and Peace in the Nuclear Age,” is a thirteen-part series that documents the events that brought about the atomic era; many fear that this period may be but the prelude to the state that Jon ­ athan Schell has so chillingly characterized in The Fate o f the Earth (Knopf, 1982): a republic of in­ sects and grass. “Ethics in America” records nine separate con­ versations that took place in 1987-88. In each pro­ gram twelve to fifteen panelists work their way through an unrehearsed case study (there is no dramatization, merely the verbal development of the example). Each program is introduced by Co­ lumbia University professor Fred W . Friendly, who sharply contrasts the main ethical dilemmas to be examined by panelists seated before a small au­ dience. Above this group hang placards with the names of Plato, Aristotle, Demosthenes, Kant, Mill, Marx, and other philosophers of considerable renown, reminding viewers of the ethical heritage that preceded these discussions. In Socratic fashion a so-called moderator paces before them, questioning each roundtable partici­ pant and directing the development of each case study. C h arles O g letree, A rthur M iller, and Charles Nesson of the Harvard Law School, and Lewis Kaden of Columbia Law School serve this critical function of facilitating discussion. Twenty-three females and five blacks are among the 100 participants in this series, including an im­ pressive array of prominent public figures, al­ though fortunately the less well-known predomi­ nate. Several panelists participate in more than one program. Although considerable attention seems to have been given to the mix of panelists for each program, some discussions were too heavily weighted in one area of expertise. Contrariwise, in a lively dialogue on w hether a physician indeed know s w hat is best— in the largest sense— for the patient, the panel includes only two ethicists; indeed, ethicists were omitted from three programs where their ex­ pertise in the complexities of human conduct may have benefited the discussion. Moreover, many viewers will object that the programs downplayed daily matters of ordinary conduct that are ethically vexing for most of us. Others may question the choice of topics, arguing that the ethical dimensions of inequality, resource allocation, or abortion should have been treated. December 1988 / 731 (L e ft to right) Arthur R. M iller, Peter Jennings, Joseph A. C alifano Jr., Jea n e J. Kirkpatrick. Generally, lawyers were the most heavily repre­ sented (e.g., Justice Antonin Scalia, and James E . Neal) followed by journalists, editors, and pub­ lishers (e.g., Peter Jennings, Katherine Graham , Mike W allace) and physicians (e.g., C. Everett Koop, W illiard Gaylin). Politicians (e.g., Jeane Kirkpatrick, Allen Simpson, and Geraldine F er­ raro), m ilitary figures (e.g ., Generals W illiam Westmoreland and E .P . Foote), and business lead­ ers were present in considerable number, with an educator or social service figure occasionally in­ cluded. All in all, spokespersons for the law, medi­ cine, and the media were in the majority. Produced by the Columbia University Seminars on Media and Society, the series begins with con­ sideration of one of the most fundamental ethical questions: who are my neighbors and what do I owe them? Most of the programs treat topics that ethicists would identify as part of the domain of po­ litical philosophy: on the obligations of lawyers to defend a guilty client, on the concept of trust as it is used by public officials and private citizens, and on the related concept of truth as it is applied by the media and by legal practitioners. The series at: times seems to play to the crowd, as when the final program examines the role of the press and the public’s right to know during an elec­ tion year. (In fact, half of this program was aired before the 1988 election in order both to capitalize on public interest and to whet appetites for the forthcoming programs.) However, it is not only timing but the manner in which the so-called mod­ erator directs the development of the case studies that he provides. That each is affiliated with a law school may account for the impression that the questions are not value-free, but often the leading questions of the skillful attorney. Two programs deal with matters of social philos­ ophy. The first, “Anatomy of a Corporate Take­ over,” raises diverse ethical questions about the re­ sponsibility of a corporation to the shareholders, investors, employees, consumers, and the public. Many of the issues raised here were recently consid­ ered by B. Barber in The L ogic and Lim its o f Trust (Rutgers, 1983); for an historical/sociological anal­ ysis of trust refer advanced readers to S.N. Eisen- stadt’s Patrons, Clients, and Friends (Cambridge, 1984). More advanced readers should be directed to Daniel Goleman’s Vital L ies, Simple Truths (Si­ mon & Schuster, 1985) for lively essays on the psy­ chology of self-deception, a theme implicit in many of the panelists’ responses. Of course there is Sisela Bok’s Secrets (Pantheon, 1982) and Paul Ekm an’s Telling Lies (Norton, 1985), which treat deceit in the marketplace, politics, and marriage. For a bib­ liographic essay on “Recent Work in Business E th ­ ics,” see the fine review by T .R . Mach an and D .J. Den Uyl in the Am erican Philosophical Quarterly, vol. 24 (1987). The second two-hour program is titled “Under Orders, Under Fire” and shows radically different views about special aspects of military responsibil­ ity under both ordinary and extraordinary circum ­ stances. This program encourages viewers to take 732 / C &RL News sides—we must choose between duty and decency. Again and again we hear military personnel— and many public officials— defend the obedience im­ perative. Paraphrasing philosopher Thomas Na­ gel, most of us do not have the option to justify our conduct by saying that we were only following or­ ders or doing our job. Readers who wish to explore the military approach to conduct should consult Peter L. Stromberg’s The Teaching o f Ethics in the Military (The Hastings Center, 1982). Finally, two programs deal with two case studies that reveal the personal agony that is traditionally thought to be the heart of ethical reflection: in “Does Doctor Know Best?” a terminal cancer pa­ tient who is pregnant struggles with her physician and family, thereby raising intriguing questions about patient autonomy and the limits of medical paternalism ; and the “ H um an E x p e rim e n t,” which focuses on the medical justifications in­ volved with putting volunteer subjects at risk. Viewers who want resources on bioethics should consult the annual volumes of LeRoy W alter’s B ib­ liography o f Bioethics (Gale, 1975- ). The print resources to support this series are widely scattered among many disciplines. If stu­ dents begin with the title of the series and attempt to use the card catalog to locate material on Ameri­ can ethics, they will quickly be forced to approach the reference desk or make use of the Library of Congress Subject Headings. Although some sources can be located under “United States— Moral Con­ ditions” or “ U nited S ta te s — S o cia l L ife and Customs— 1980– ,” the bulk of the literature must be located under the “Moral and Ethical As­ p e c ts ” subheading of specific subjects (e.g., “Mass Media— United States— Moral and E th ical As­ pects”). Three audiocassettes are available that should impose on the ideas articulated in the videotapes the more formal requirements of philosophic dis­ cussion. One is on a general theme (the nature of ethics), another focuses on a specific problem (the ethics of killing), and the third is a dialogue be­ tween Columbia University students and two fac­ ulty. To purchase audio cassettes/videocassettes, call 1 (800) LEA RN ER. Two print sources accompany this series. Ethics in America Source R ead er, edited by Lisa H. New­ ton (Prentice-Hall, 1989), contains primary source material from the history of philosophy that covers four ethical traditions implicit in the discussions: Biblical, Greek, moral law, and utilitarian. Editor Newton is director of the Program in Applied E th ­ ics at Fairfield University. Newton has also edited Ethics in A m erica Text /Study G uide (Prentice- Hall, 1989), which is the more essential acquisition for both libraries and students since it not only dis­ cusses ethical theory— which any standard ethics text might do— but in separate chapters are clearly detailed summaries of each television program, in­ cluding extrapolation from and synthesis of the ideas of the video participants. From beginning to end, the series “Ethics in America” conveys an impression that at this time ethics is no longer the domain of the philosopher or the theologian, perhaps not even the province of the ordinary citizen. In terms of the sheer weight— in both policy and practice— the ethical arena is in­ fluenced largely by attorneys, politicians, the me­ dia, and other special interest groups. As Thomas Nagel puts it (in “Ruthlessness in Public L ife ,” Pub­ lic and Private M orality, edited by S. Hampshire, Cambridge, 1978), these people may be attracted to the role by the special requirements of the posi­ tion and their release from some of the ordinary re­ strictions. Encapsulated in their roles, “they are in­ sulated in a puzzling way from what they do...as agents they have a slippery moral surface.” Moreover, many viewers will be left with the im - pression that Plato’s Thrasymachus in the Republic may still be on the mark when he locates the ration­ ale for justice within the exercise of power. That is, that in matters of right and wrong these panelist, may be guided more by externally driven public standards, and very infrequently by the interna) standards inspired by the cumulative wisdom of our Judaeo-Christian heritage. This is not the lesson that Professor Friendly and the producers of “Ethics in Am erica” wish the viewers to draw. They nowhere propose that the series answers any of our fundam ental ethical problems. Instead, they rightly see this series as provocative, initiating discussion that may be ethi­ cally fruitful. The panelists repeatedly show that ethical questions remain unanswered even after all the relevant information has been secured. This se­ ries shows the limits of moral reasoning in an in­ formed group of well-intentioned panelists who were dealing only with imaginary circumstances. The Nuclear Age Like the “Ethics in America” series, the thirteen “W ar and Peace in the Nuclear Age” programs were designed as a coilege-eredit course. To license either series as a television course, call 1 (800) ALS- ALS8. The disciplines of political science or history are most likely to express curriculum interest. Ac­ companying print m aterials— a reader, study guide, and tradebook— from Alfred A. Knopf were not available for preview. This series will be cap­ tioned for the hearing-im paired. Produced by W GBH Boston and Central Independent Televi­ sion (UK) in association with NHK (Japan), the se­ ries has extensive foundation support. “W ar and Peace” covers the first half-century of the Nuclear Age from the late 1930s to the present. It blends archival film footage with recent inter­ views with significant U .S ., Soviet, European, and Asian participants to show how technology both pushed and responded to political and moral pres­ sure, influencing profoundly the character of inter­ national relations and the substance of contempo­ rary thought. December 1988 / 733 Two unedited preview tapes were provided this reviewer. “Daw n” establishes the historical and cultural backdrop for the development of the first atomic bomb from the late 1930s through the fail­ ure to reach international control of atomic weap­ ons after Hiroshima. “At the Brink” establishes the background to events that led to the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis. It is hoped that the final version includes an in­ troduction that exposes the audience to the inten­ tions of the producers. For viewers over forty years of age much of the archival footage will be fairly co m m o n p lace, req u irin g little n a rra tio n . F o r younger viewers the names and events may fly by with such speed as to blunt the visually unprepared mind. This series clearly intends to provide viewers with an accurate history of this period, supple­ mented by recent retrospective insights given by key participants. In “D a w n ,” physicists V ictor Weisskopf, Bernard Feld, Hans Bethe, and Sir Ru­ dolph Pierls focus almost exclusively on the politi­ cal factors that propelled developments in nuclear research. Prominent Soviet and German scientists are also featured, which gives this program— and perhaps the series as a whole— a more thorough character. The narration and skillful editing combine to in­ volve viewers in the urgency of the race to complete and test the first atomic bomb, Viewer involve­ ment is more keenly experienced as documentary footage covers the highpoints of the p o litic a l brinksmanship of Kennedy and Khruschev as they brought us to the edge of nuclear war. In “At the Brink” we also hear the disarming interpretations of McGeorge Bundy, Robert McNamara, and their Soviet counterparts. Viewers are forced to confront the psychodynamics of this most horrifying form of political posturing. Eleven programs that were not previewed will treat the origins of the Cold W ar, Soviet technolog­ ical achievements— including Sputnik— during the la te 1950s, NATO and E u ro p ean n u clear weapons, the policy changes im plem ented by- McNamara and then Kissinger during the era of détente, Europe and the Nonproliferation and SALT II treaties, weapons systems, SD I, and fu­ ture visions of war and peace. One is reminded of Dean Acheson’s remarks re­ garding the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 when he speaks of the “irrelevance of the supposed moral considerations brought out in the discussion.” Per­ haps this series will force the public to recognize that there may be a divergence between the inter­ ests of morality and the interests of the United States. On this m atter see Douglas P. Lackey’s M oral Principles and Nuclear W eapons (Rowman & Allanheld, 1984), while more advanced readers should seek out John Finnis, et al., Nuclear D eter­ r e n c e M o r a lity , and Realism (Clarendon, 1987). There is little evidence in this promotional mate­ rial to suggest that the series will relate to most of the issues discussed in the “Ethics in America” se­ ries. However, it could be seen as a background to the two programs in that series titled “Under O r­ ders, Under F ire .” Given that nuclear war could destroy all human life, many ask whether it makes any sense to apply ethics to war of such magnitude. Viewers may in­ deed associate loyalty, obedience, courage, and selflessness with the military profession, but can the moral language of an institution be applied to the ethics of personal relations— are we dealing here with moral apples and oranges? Libraries that do not have the second edition of M.M. W akin’s W ar, M orality, and the Military Profession (West- view, 1986) should consider it as a companion to Joseph S. Nye’s Nuclear Ethics (Free Press, 1986). Most recently, Ian Clark’s slim volume on Waging W ar (Clarendon, 1988) is a most appealing philo­ sophical introduction. In addition to sources secured through online searches and the standard indexes, librarians may wish to direct readers to some of the following very recent bibliographies published since 1980. The Atom ic Papers, by Grant Burns (Scarecrow, 1984), remains the most useful starting point, supple­ mented by the sixth edition of To End W ar, edited by Robert Woito (Pilgrim, 1982). Peace and War: A Guide to Bibliographies, edited by Bernice A. Carroll, et al. (ABC-Clio, 1983), is also a useful starting point for undergraduates. More special - Marines w atch an atom ic cloud surge skyward during tests in N evada in the 1950s. 734 / C &RL News ized is Richard Scribner and R .T . Scott’s Strategic Nuclear Arms Control Verification (AAAS, 1985), an annotated bibliography that surveys the sources from 1977 to 1984. The Nuclear A lm anac, compiled and edited by the faculty of M IT (Addison-Wesley, 1984) and Jonathon G reen’s T he A -Z o f N u clear Jarg on (Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1986) will help new readers with the fundamentals. There are also numerous recent dictionaries and directories that emphasize efforts to achieve peace: the American P eace D irectory, 1984, edited by M. Fine and P.M . Steven (Ballinger, 1984) treats more than 1,300 groups; if interest is more far-reaching, viewers of this series should be directed to Peace M ovem ents in E u ro p e an d the United S tates, edited by W . Kaltefleiter and R .L . Pfaltzgraff Jr. (St. Martin’s, 1985). The leaders of these move­ ments are well characterized in the Biographical Dictionary o f Modern P eace L eaders, edited by- Harold Josephson (Greenwood, 1985). Forthcom ­ ing from ABC-Clio is a Nuclear War and P eace Dictionary, by S.R . Ali. More advanced readers may wish to use The Long Darkness, edited by L . Grinspoon (Yale, 1986), provocative essays on the psychological and moral implications of a nuclear w inter, or the unique study by Guenter Lewy, Peace & Revolu­ tion (Eerdmans, 1988), which is a chronicle and critique of recent trends in the policies of pacifist organizations in the United States. Journals that treat normative questions include the Jou rn al o f C o n flict R esolu tion , Jo u rn a l o f Peace Research, International Security, Journal o f Strategic Studies, and Survival. Somewhat less technical discussions will be found in Foreign A f­ fairs, W orld A ffairs, Com m entary, and two jour­ nals that will also be useful for viewers of the “E th ­ ics in America” series: Ethics and Philosophy and Public Affairs. Colleges and universities may find that portions of this history of the nuclear age are already part of their audio/video collections. In recent years a number of fine film/video programs have been pro­ duced, most notable the award-winning “Day Af­ ter Trinity” (1981), which chronicles the role of J. R o b e rt O p p en h eim er, and “ In the N u clear Shadow” (1982), which reveals the thought and feelings of representatives of yet another new gen­ eration that lives with the constancy of the nuclear threat. Librarians might compare coverage in “W ar and Peace” with the scope and content of five other notable programs: “W ar W ithout W inners I I ” (1983), “Race to Oblivion” (1982), “Nuclear W ar: A Guide to Armageddon” (1983), “No First Use” (1983), and the stirring “Hiroshima and Nagasaki” (1982). It is my hope that many viewers will stay with each series and not be put off by the documentary character of “W ar and Peace” or the scenarios in “Ethics in America” that will seem to many to be detached from the ordinary ethical dilemmas with which each of us deals on a daily basis. For, after all, ethics is not just roundtable talk about what we should do given the circumstances, but the applica­ tion of ethical reasoning to conduct. Each series will succeed if viewers are moved to discuss with their families and friends the issues generated by these panelists. Who knows? They may even look to members of the academic community for assist­ ance in resolving these questions. South Africa and the free fl ow of information This complex and highly charged issue was the subject of a panel presented at the annual meeting of the African Studies Association (ASA), held in Chicago, October 2 7 -3 1 , 1988. Sponsored by the ASA/Archivists-Libraries Committee and chaired by Alfred Kagan (University of Connecticut), the panel discussed positions for and against the unre­ stricted exchange of information with South Af­ rica, especially the potential effect of constraints on libraries and scholars. Corinne Nyquist (SUNY/New Palz) summarized the history of this controversy in the library com­ munity, particularly since the enactment of the Anti-Apartheid Act of 1986. As Nyquist stated in a background paper, “The librarians’ abhorrence of censorship was pitted against their abhorrence of apartheid.” The conflict was clearly illustrated by the defeat at the 1987 ALA Annual Conference in San Francisco of a resolution opposing the applica­ tion of sanctions legislation to purchases from or sale to South Africa of books, periodicals, and re­ search materials. Thomas E . Nyquist (SUNY Central Administra­ tion, Albany) articu lated the dilemmas facin g scholars, both Americans invited to lectu re in South Africa or who want to do research there, and South Africans who want to visit the United States. He pointed out th at the presence of A m erican scholars in South Africa could be interpreted as an act of solidarity with anti-apartheid forces, but could also as easily be construed as support for the South African government. Two other panelists offered diametrically op­ posed views. Stating both his own position and that of E .J . Josey, Ismail Abdullahi (University of Pitts­ burgh) urged a complete academic and informa­ tional boycott of South Africa. Lorraine Hari- combe, a black South African librarian currently pursuing doctoral studies at the University of Illi­ nois, argued that denial of information is in fact December 1988 / 735 hurting those whom the boycott was intended to aid, resulting in the availability of even fewer re­ sources for libraries serving black students and scholars. Audience response reflected the complexity of the topic. Several participants strongly supported exemption of informational materials from an oth­ erwise solid boycott. Although the position of the A frican National Congress is total isolation of South Africa, other participants made it clear that the ANC is not the sole voice of anti-apartheid forces. As Corinne Nyquist concluded, the impor­ tance of the session lies not in its resolution of the problem but in its open discussion. The panel will be repeated at ALA Annual Conference in Dallas next summer. —Helen M a cL a m , Choice m aga­ zine. A customized d atab ase on Scandinavian governm ent By M artha L. Brogan Assistant to the Provost and Vice President fo r Academic Affairs University of Minnesota and Robert B. Kvavik Assistant Vice President fo r Academic Affairs University of Minnesota Customized bibliographic databases and educational innovation. T h e development of the Scandinavian political studies database is a joint project of Martha Bro­ gan, a professional librarian and former bibliogra­ pher for Western European Studies, and Robert B. Kvavik, a political scientist with a specialty in Scandinavian government and politics. Originally and ultimately intended to facilitate the compilation of a published bibliography, the project— while still in its developmental phase— has already served a beneficial use to support re­ search and instruction at the University of Minne­ sota. During Winter Quarter 1988, in a graduate seminar on Scandinavian government and politics, the database was used effectively to develop spe­ cialized readings lists on such topics as Finnish for­ eign policy, Norwegian and Iceland ic interest groups, and coalition governments in Sweden. The customized lists were discussed with the students, and research themes were identified which could be investigated using materials held by the Univer­ sity Libraries. The database also produced a master reading list for an undergraduate class on Scandinavian poli­ tics. The electronic bibliography saved us, our students— and presumably some of our library staff— precious time in identifying and locating relevant materials. Rather, the faculty member’s energy focused on helping students specify research problems, the student’s on synthesizing materials and formulating positions on agreed-upon prob­