26 I CHRONICLESnreform society, and redeem the world. But we could notneven save ourselves and our own ideals when the barbariansncame. And come they surely did.nUniversity leadership has now found its definition not innthe particular requirements of the tasks of the academy:nscholarship and research. Now what the campus needednwas what other large institutions—deemed no differentnfrom the university in substance, but only in form—alsonneeded. A person with political capacities could move fromnthe Cabinet or the House of Representatives to the campus.nA general could turn himself into a college president. Soncould a chief executive officer of a large corporation. Soncould a fund-raiser, a foundation program officer, anybodynwho had shown capacities to control, manage, administern—and it did not matter what. These new types of academicnofficeholders were not chosen because of achievement inneducation and scholarship, and they did not value capacitynto teach and write—things they had never done and couldnnot do. They were chosen to keep the peace and balance thenbudget, much as the Lord-Mayor of Johannesburg can keepnthe peace and balance the budget. And that is what theyndid.nThe ideal of the builders of the 1940’s and 1950’snproduced us, the professors of the 1960’s into the 21stncentury. We received a vision, and we lived by it. Thenvision discerned a different America and demanded of thenacademy a distinctive calling. But the academy can yetnserve useful purposes, if not the cause of education andncitizenship, community and civil discourse, reasoned argumentnabout honorable alternatives. So use it for what it canngive: the chance to do your work, that alone. The academynhas no room anymore for those who find themselves callednto learning and to service. It is a place for careers—andncareerists. It is not going to change very soon. Take yournpay, and do your job, just as you would in any otherncorporation, in a normal, utterly professional and impersonalntransaction. More is not wanted.nThe barbarians have inherited Rome, and, as before, thenDark Ages will endure for some time to come. Soon wenshall smell the smoke of burning libraries. It will not benbecause the books contain subversive ideas, but becausenadministrations wonder, who needs all those books anyhow?nUniversities served when they served, for a brief spell.nNow they become socially useless, too expensive for thenstudents, sustaining self-indulgent and unproductive timeserversnwho substitute self-righteousness for achievement,nself-inflation for accomplishment.nBut learning will go forward, if not on the campus, thennelsewhere. For the curiosity of humanity draws us onward,nand if this kind of institution does not nurture learning,nsome other will. The will to know, to ask why? and whynnot? and what if?—that never-to-be-satisfied hunger andnthirst will never fail us but will always sustain us. It is what itnmeans to be human.nSCIENTIFIC AMERICAN GOES TOnMOSCOW by Jocelyn TomkinnWho is Mr. Piel? He is an American, a Harvardngraduate (1937 magna cum laude), and a journalistnwho has devoted his career to the promotion of publicnunderstanding of science. From 1947 to 1984 he wasnpresident and publisher of Scientific American and is nownits chairman. (In 1984 his son, Jonathan Piel, becameneditor.) He is a former president of the American Associationnfor the Advancement of Science (AAAS), America’snpremier scientific organization. He has been elected to thenHarvard board of overseers twice and has been, or is, antrustee of Radcliffe College, New York University, and thenMayo Foundation. He has received various prizes fornpopularization of science and in 1980 was the MagazinenPublishers Association’s Publisher of the Year. In short, henis a well-educated American who, although not famous, isnof more than average distinction and influence; a man ofnachievement who, although associated with science, is notnhimself an egghead. A biographical sketch notes “henflunked physics and at Harvard he kept a respectful distancenbetween himself and such subjects.”nWhy did he go to Moscow? To be conferred with annhonorary degree (Doctor Honoris Causa) by Moscow StatenJocelyn Tomkin is professor of astronomy at the Universitynof Texas.nnnUniversity. What did he say in Moscow? Before we considernhis acceptance speech it is worthwhile to enter the spirit ofnthe occasion—a public event at a major university innSoviet Russia.nOfficial Communist doctrine would have been the approvednlanguage of discourse. This system purports to be anscientific form of government. Marx and Engels punctuatedntheir writings with allusions to the physical sciences intendednto suggest by association that their theories of economicsnand politics were as well-founded as the law of gravity. Fornexample, Engels’ pamphlet “Socialism: Utopian and Scientific”nargued that Marxism is scientific socialism, whereasnother brands of socialism are mere meanderings of wishywashynidealists. Lenin also invoked science when he definednthe “dictatorship of the proletariat.” In “The State andnRevolution” he wrote: “The scientific term ‘dictatorship’nmeans nothing more or less than authority untrammellednby any laws, absolutely unrestricted by any laws whatever,nand based directly on violence.” Since Lenin’s time the usenof the name of science to endorse Communist rule hasncontinued; a biography of Brezhnev published in the U.S.nin 1978 was written by members of the Soviet Academy ofnSciences.nSome members of Mr. Piel’s audience may have hadndoubts about Communism, particularly its claims to ben