1973 – Packard Speeches

Box 3, Folder 36 – General Speeches

 

January 8-10, 1973, AIAA Ninth Annual Meeting and Technical Display, Washington D. C.

 

Packard was asked to Chair the technical session on “Prototype Programs.” The folder contains the Meeting Program along with copies of letters between Packard and AIAA people arranging details for the meeting.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 37 – General Speeches

 

February 26, 1973, The Corporation and Society: Allies or Antagonists?, Business & Society Seminar, California State University, San Francisco, CA

 

2/26/73, Copy of typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard recalls that the first meeting he ever attended where the subject of corporate responsibility to society was discussed was back in the mid 1940s. The prevailing opinion was that business management had no particular responsibility to society beyond “simply doing a good job.”

 

Packard says he did not concur with that idea then, and “as you know, the [idea] that management does have…a responsibility beyond simply doing a good job in their business has become accepted on a rather broad base.” Packard mentions Adam Smith and his laissez -faire doctrine which said, in effect, that  if business men are left alone to do what is in their self interest, the result will be …what is best for society. And, in the same vein, Packard recalls Charles Wilson’s statement that what was good for General Motors was good for the United States.

 

When looking at the issue of the responsibility of business management to take an active part in social problems Packard recommends taking a  broad view. “We have to recognize that when there are concerns generated in the society about any matter, whether it is a business matter or some other concern that affects a significant number of people in the society, there are, generally speaking, three ways by which something is done to address the concern.”

 

The best way, Packard feels, is a voluntary effort by citizens to try to understand what the problem is and try to do something about it. “That is what business management can do, and that in my view is probably the best basis for rationalizing, justifying, and involving business management. If the people who have the responsibility and ability to do something about the matter of concern do not do so voluntarily, then it is almost certain one of two things is going to happen. There will be some kind of countervailing force built up -– a group of citizens, a group of protesters. That, I believe, is really the kind of mechanism that brought about the labor union situation. Failure of management to do what was appropriate, what was right in terms of employees, generated enough concern that caused and brought about the labor movement.”

 

“The third way things get changed, if people think they need to be changed, is through government regulation, and we have all had plenty of experience with that. In fact, if you look back into the history of business and industry there has been a very long history of government regulation that has restricted the freedom of management and at the same time I think has in general brought about some things that need to be brought about.”

 

“So, when I think about this general subject I always get back to a fundamental proposition. When there are concerns expressed about the business community and its relationship to society at large, including any group of people in the society – employees, customers, and people in the community where your plants are located – then to the extent that management can be responsive and can perceive and understand what the problems and concerns are and undertake to do something abut it, the result will be a much better solution that one imposed by a protest group of countervailing force of any kind. It will also be much better than the solution imposed by governmental regulation. Actually things are not quite that ideal, and even though business does undertake to address some of these things and do what is perceived to be right, it is very likely that there will be protest groups and governmental regulations anyway.”

 

“It seems to me there are lots of reasons why it is very desirable for business management to accept a responsibility to undertake to do those things which are obvious. Business should look ahead and try to understand those things that are likely to build up in the future. When there is some indication of concern in relation to society with which we are involved, it is much better to have done something about it. I suppose you can make the argument that management has a moral responsibility in this area, but I don’t think you need to rely on that sort of rationalization. I think it is just simply good business. I think you are going to end up with a better organization, and you are going to do a better management job if indeed you do some of these things. You can justify almost anything that is likely to be required in this area as responding to those things which are desirable to do in terms of simply better management.”

 

Packard says he would like to move on and talk about some specific things “One of the most important segments of society that we have to deal with is our employees. They are not only our employees but they are representative of the society in which we live. Therefore our dealings with our employees have a significant impact on the relationship of our organization with society. Here, there are a number of things that are important, but one is that we all complain about the bad image that business has these days. I simply tell you that the best and most effective public you have is your own employees. If they are home every day bitching about the way you are running your shop it certainly isn’t going to help the image of your company. On the other hand if they think, as they should, that it is the best company in the world this can go a long way towards that public image.”

 

“The attitude towards your employees is more important than anything you do, and the employees are able to perceive this. If they know that you are interested in their welfare, if they know that when there are some problems that they can come in and get a fair hearing, if they know they can count on you, this will go much further than any specific thing you do, any specific monetary reward or benefit of substance.”

 

Packard tells of an example where HP management and employees worked to solve a problem – in this case heavy traffic making commuting difficult to do in a timely way. The idea came up about trying a flexible work schedule whereby people could come to work any time between 6:30 and 8:00 in the morning and then put eight hours of work, excluding a half hour for lunch.
This has really been an amazing thing. As a result we now have substantially that kind of program in all of our plants in that area.”

 

“I think that to the extent we can look with our employees at some of their problems and adjust to them, that is one of those things that can have a real and positive benefit. Of course it is easier to do these things if you do not have a union, and fortunately we do not have a union in any of our plants except one in Singapore which we have to have by law. I have tried to follow the basic policy that I have really more reason to be interested in my employees than a union leader does. As soon as the employees think that one of these union people is going to be more interested and more responsive to their needs than I am, then I think they should have a union.”

 

Packard takes up the problem of discrimination. “…I guess everybody has spent a great deal of time in the last few years trying to figure out how to provide better opportunities for minority people and to address some of the other discrimination problems. But these things seem to be coming a little bit faster than they can be dealt with. I think one of the very serious problems we have is in regard to women. It won’t be long before a meeting like this well be picketed because there are no ladies sitting around the table with you. It is going to be very difficult to do the things that some of these people are interested in doing in respect to women in any reasonable time. I will again suggest to you that if you try to do something about it and actually recognize that this is a matter of real concern, then you will have a much better chance of dealing with this problem without having some completely impossible regulations imposed.

 

I have already indicated that if there is increased legislation, I think you will be able to live with that legislation whatever it is, more effectively if you get with it and think about it and try to get something done before you are forced to do so. The problem of minorities is a very difficult one; it is really a matter of educational levels, and I think we all are going to have to continue working on this problem. I must say that I am very encouraged by the progress that has been made. We started about six years ago working with the new urban coalition and with some other activities outside of the company and in the community, and we were able to undertake a great may things that have had positive results.”

 

“There are pressures for quotas; people would like to measure progress we have made in this area by numbers, which is not really the way to judge it, but there is going to be that pressure. We can respond to this problem in a positive way and it will be constructive.

 

“Our next equally important group of people in society that we must deal with are our customers, and I think in general the business attitude toward customers has come a very long way in this century. If you look back at the basic business attitude, caveat emptor, or buyer beware, you look at all the snake oil practices that were going on in the early days. There has been lots of regulation, but there also has been a great deal of responsible action by management people. And I think we are going to have to continue. I don’t know the extent to which these consumer movements will convert into legislation, but some of them will. In a sense the environmental problem is one, but there is also going to be pressure on uniform packaging, and not putting a small product in a big package and things like that.”

 

It seems to me the area of employees, the area of customers, the area of those communities around our plants where we operate are reasonable straight-forward problems. That is, we can deal with them and we can understand them if we try, and the impact that we have is a direct one on that particular group of people. Where you have a more difficult time is to understand in advance those areas where the collective action of business generates a problem which one business enterprise wouldn’t generate alone. In a sense air pollution is that type of problem. We have always had an air pollution problem if there has been one factory that generated a tremendous amount of smoke in a particular area. Apart from that, however, the fact that you now have a combination of a number of factories, the contribution of automobile exhaust, and other things have generated a problem that is very difficult for one business to deal with.”

 

“One of the reasons why private initiative has not been very effective in this area is because of our anti-trust and restraint of trade laws. It would be a lot easier for everybody in industry to sit down and address some of these problems themselves and decide what might be done. In doing so they might decide that they would have to increase their prices a little bit to pay for this, and that wouldn’t go over very well with the Justice department. We have a real problem in terms of how to get responsive private initiative in some of these areas.

 

I think myself it would be very helpful if it were possible to get some changes in these laws, and not only in terms of the environmental impact. There are a great many other ways in which business could contribute more effectively towards some of these larger social problems if we could get more flexibility under the law. Other countries do have a better situation in this regard. In Japan they have the situation where the government and business are almost in partnership, and they can and do decide all kinds of things. What they decide doesn’t always turn out to be the best, but at least they have a mechanism whereby this can be done and this procedure is followed.

 

“A question underlying the whole case for private business is really going back to Adam Smith’s laissez-faire philosophy. Despite the many, many problems we have had, despite the fact that there have been some very serious social problems, and some things that haven’t turned out well, the free enterprise economy has been demonstrated to be by far the most efficient and effective way to combine groups of people into a business enterprise, regardless of the kind of enterprise it is. That to me is the stake we have in this business, because we can all be very proud of the accomplishments that each of our business enterprises has made.

 

“We want to do what we can to preserve the environment that will enable us to be able to make individual decisions, to be able to continue to run our own businesses. Sometimes I am sure you all have gone to the office and you have so damn many problems you wonder if you are free to do anything without getting permission from somebody on the outside anymore. Actually we have a great deal of freedom, and that freedom is going to be preserved. However, it is going to be available to us to exercise and enjoy only so long as we are responsible in that exercise. I suppose this seems to get back to the moral issue, but I don’t really think so. I believe we can justify our decisions on the simple proposition that we are each going to be able to run our business better. In fact each business can make a better contribution to society at large to the extent we can maintain the control of those businesses and manage them ourselves and do those things that are be necessary.

 

“I don’t know whether the pressures that have built up in these last five years – or approximately that period – are going to increase or not. I do think there is some evidence that the pressures are lessening a little bit in some ways, but there are also some evidences that some pressures are increasing. These things to go through cycles and we are probably moving into an area where there is a little more concern than there has been on the average.

 

“However, let me go back to what I said in the beginning – that this is not a new subject. It is a subject that scholars have been thinking about for centuries. It is a problem that people have been dealing with and living with for centuries. If you look at the overall progress we have made it has been a very heartening thing and a very impressive performance.”

 

2/25-27/73, Printed program listing speakers at the seminar

9/21/72, Letter to Packard from S. I. Hayakawa, Cal State University of San Francisco President,  inviting him to participate in the seminar the university is having on Business & Society.

10/4/73, Copy of a letter to Dr. S. I. Hayakawa from Packard accepting the invitation

2/5/73, Letter to Packard from Homer Dalbey, seminar director, giving details of the schedule

3/7/73, Letter to Packard from Homer Dalbey thanking him for participating in the seminar.

 

 

Box 3, Folder 38 – General Speeches

 

March 26-28, 1973, Perceptions of the Military Balance, Europe-America Conference, Amsterdam

 

3/26/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech with two pages of handwritten thoughts at the end of the typewritten pages

 

This Conference, attended by large contingencies from NATO countries, the U.S. and Canada, was an appraisal of past policies and a look toward opportunities in the future. Packard had been asked to give a paper on the balance of military power in the Atlantic/Mediterranean area.

 

Packard says the NATO alliance has been a great success – “It has provided the security and kept the peace in western Europe. This was an absolutely essential ingredient to make possible the great economic and social progress of the nations of the Atlantic Community during these past 24 years.”

 

During the 1950s and the early 60s there were several crises but these were “containable,” Packard says, “because the overall military balance weighed heavily on the side of the Free World. It was a decisive balance because of the vastly superior United States strategic nuclear power. This was backed with worldwide Naval superiority of the NATO  forces, and what has turned out to be an adequate air and ground force posture in Europe.”

 

However, Packard describes the situation in 1973 as greatly altered. “Today, the Soviet missile force ….exceeds both in numbers and in destructive power the U.S. missile force of …nuclear missiles…..Today neither the Soviet Union nor the United States could risk a nuclear exchange.”

 

Packard sees this change in military power as posing a different problem, though not necessarily a more difficult one than existed in the past. “It is essential to recognize that great changes have taken place and to try to comprehend their significance in charting a course for the future.”

 

Packard then summarizes “some of the changes that must be taken into account when considering what must be done to help assure a peaceful environment for the Atlantic Community in the years ahead:”

 

1. The superiority the U. S. enjoyed in nuclear forces in the 1950s was lost in the 1960s “and it cannot be regained short of a major technical breakthrough, which no one can foresee.
2. “This change,” Packard says, “in the nuclear force balance has been accompanied by a substantial increase in the destructive power of both sides….This vast increase in destructive power, combined with the rough equality which has been achieved, severely restricts the utility for nuclear forces for the kinds of confrontations which are probable in the future.
3. “The United States, supported by its allies, has had virtually absolute control of the oceans and seas around the world. This favorable balance is being threatened by the current buildup of Soviet naval power.” Packard says the balance of naval power need not swing towards the Soviets, but he cautions that the matter “deserves a very high priority.” He sees this need for a favorable naval balance as critical as the strategic nuclear balance.
4. “The role of tactical nuclear weapons as an element of the military balance has never been resolved in a satisfactory way and must be re-examined in light of the changing situation.
5. “There will continue to be many factors, including technological improvements in non-nuclear weapons, which influence the military balance.” Packard points out that “evaluating the balance of conventional (non-nuclear) forces by simply adding up the men, the guns, the tanks, the planes, and the ships on each side and expressing them as ratios, …serves no useful purpose. There are many other factors which counter-balance an apparent advantage in numbers. Technology is and will continue to be an important factor – probably one of the most important factors – in the future.”
6. Packard says that the Sino-Soviet split has already, “and will continue to influence the balance of forces in the European theatre.
7. “There have been political changes of great significance. Increased trade and a strengthening of communication between the free world and the two major Communist countries are examples. This changing political climate will influence what needs to be done, as well as what can be done, about the future military balance.
8. “The very significant economic progress of all nations in the Atlantic Community makes it quite feasible to do what is needed to maintain an adequate military balance in the future with an equitable distribution of the load.

 

 

The Changed Strategic Nuclear Balance

 

Packard sees the “decisive and irreversible” change in the balance of nuclear forces between NATO and WARSAW PACT countries as the most important element of  their military balance.

 

“In the early years of NATO the military balance was strongly in favor of the West because of the vast superiority of United States Strategic Nuclear power. Conventional NATO forces in Europe had no need to be capable of handling alone a massive Soviet thrust into Western Europe. As long as these forces contained a reasonable number of U.S. military personnel, they would serve as a ‘trip wire’ to bring forth American nuclear might should any expansionist venture be attempted….Although the Alliance worked hard to maintain an effective conventional military force through this period, there was always the satisfaction that the nuclear umbrella was there should it be needed.

 

“There is no doubt the leaders of the Soviet Union felt this U.S. nuclear superiority to be a serious constraint to their freedom of action, and that it was in their national interest to change the situation….This they have now done, and what exists is a nuclear balance. Both the Soviet Union and the United States are now very effectively deterred from using their nuclear capability against each other for any reason short of a dire threat to their very national survival.

 

“With the strategic nuclear forces now in place on each side, it is almost certain that neither nation could survive as a viable society after an all-out nuclear exchange. This is a very sobering fact which I hope is reasonably understood by our friends in Europe. This nuclear balance means that both sides are now effectively constrained to the use of non-nuclear force in nearly every conceivable situation in which force may be needed.”

 

“The SALT negotiations can in no way change this fundamental situation….It can be assumed that this stalemate will not be changed. Neither side can agree to a reduction which would bring into question the effectiveness of its nuclear deterrent. Neither side can do anything with present technology which would break this stalemate.”

 

Packard says in the “…1960s it was recognized that the nuclear balance was changing and that the massive retaliation strategy had become much less credible. Thus there was the ill fated attempt to strengthen the NATO nuclear capability with a multi-lateral force. This was followed with an alternate strategy based around a flexible response, including the use of tactical nuclear weapons.

 

“These strategies of the 1960s assumed that the so-called nuclear umbrella provided by the United States was either a credible deterrent or a possible course of action of last resource. Most of the thinking about conventional forces involved escalation to nuclear forces in one way or another, and that conflicts which resorted to force would ultimately be resolved at the nuclear level.”

 

With the current situation of approximate equality of nuclear power forces between the U.S. and the Soviet Union, Packard says, “the strategy from now on must be designed to minimize the possibility of escalation of a conventional force conflict to nuclear forces. This requires that conventional forces be adequate to handle the range of all probable confrontations without the use of nuclear weapons.

 

“Such a strategy is consistent with the Nixon Doctrine to resolve future conflicts with negotiation rather than confrontation; it is consistent with the aims of arms control, SALT and MBFR; and is the most realistic strategy for the Alliance to follow in the decade of the 1970s and beyond.

 

“Thus the Atlantic Community is faced with the need to support a more effective conventional military capability in the future than it has had in the past. This need to reorient emphasis to conventional forces is already accepted by military planners. You may recall that Secretary Laird made this point very clear at the NATO meeting in Brussels last fall.”

 

In this regard Packard says “…naval power can play an increasing role. Specifically, if NATO can maintain worldwide naval superiority, this can add a great deal of realism to the credibility of the NATO conventional force deterrence….”

 

“The increase in the level of nuclear forces is also relevant to the utility of third party nuclear forces in the European theatre. The present level of nuclear forces of France and Great Britain, even if they could be combined and placed under effective command and control, would have very little deterrent or war fighting capability against the Soviet Union except as an addition to U.S. nuclear forces. “

 

“It is difficult to postulate any situation in which these third country nuclear forces will have much independent impact on the NATO military balance.”

 

“These European nuclear forces do add somewhat to the overall NATO nuclear capability even though they have very limited capability standing alone. Until there is a better understanding of and a confidence in what is meant by the United States commitment to provide the nuclear umbrella for the Atlantic Community in the era of the new nuclear balance, it would not be desirable, however, to propose a reduction in these indigenous nuclear forces. In the long run, the resources which are now used to support these indigenous nuclear forces might be more effective if applied to the NATO conventional force capability.”

 

“I have said that I believe the United States will remain firm in its nuclear commitment to the Atlantic Community. I have also said that with the present nuclear balance the United States would not use its nuclear forces against the Soviet Union short of a dire threat to the survival of the United States. These statements taken together imply my faith that there will be a strong and continuing interdependence between the United States and the European nations of the Atlantic Community. To encourage cooperation toward this goal is what this conference here in Amsterdam is all about. This impact of interdependence on the credibility of the United States nuclear umbrella is one of the reasons why what happens to the Atlantic community in the future is so important to all of the member states, including the United States.”

 

“The Naval Problem”

 

As with nuclear power, Packard explains that, although NATO forces essentially did rule the seas, the Soviet Union “…has been taking steps to redress this balance….and seems intent on developing a navy capable of challenging hostile forces anywhere on the oceans of the world.”

 

“This Soviet naval build-up must be viewed with great concern by the Atlantic Alliance. I do not see how the Alliance can survive unless it has effective control of at least the Atlantic Ocean and Mediterranean. If the alliance can maintain a superior world with naval capability, this can be a strong factor in maintaining an acceptable conventional force balance in the future. NATO naval superiority could be a major factor in limiting or dealing with low level confrontations. This need not be a difficult job, because the only barrier to an adequate naval superiority through the foreseeable future would be the lack of a determination in the Alliance to take the necessary action.”

 

“Looking to the decade of the 1980s, a superior NATO naval force may be the most important element in the military balance….The most visible factor is the dependence of Europe on middle-Eastern oil today, and the projection that the United States will be in the same situation by 1980, or shortly thereafter, when about half of U.S. oil and gas requirements will have to be imported. No known source other than the middle-East can meet these requirements. This lifeline must be kept secure for the Atlantic community and this consideration alone dictates a strong naval superiority continuing into the future.”

 

“The Tactical Nuclear Situation”

 

“In the early years of NATO, when it appeared difficult to counter the considerable Soviet ground force capability with non-nuclear weapons, tactical nuclear weapons were introduced into the theatre. They were thought to be a way of greatly increasing the fire power and, therefore, the effectiveness of NATO forces in Europe. These tactical nuclear weapons included warheads for artillery, for rockets, for bombs, and demolition weapons. A nuclear warhead on a tactical weapon does increase the probability that a given military target can be destroyed. If the enemy cooperates by massing his forces – his tanks, for example – tactical nuclear weapons would be very effective. If tactical nuclear weapons were used to attack bridges or airfields near cities, the bridges and airfields would be destroyed. But so, in all probability, would the cities, unless very small warheads and very accurate delivery systems were used, in which case there would be much less need to go to nuclear fire power.

 

“The devastating argument against the use of tactical nuclear weapons is that those which both the United States and the Soviet Union now have in place would create vast destruction of civilian population and non-military installations, and the destruction would be very severe in NATO countries, although there would also be much damage in the Warsaw Pact area, particularly those countries close to the front. If both sides agreed to limit themselves to very small nuclear warheads with accurate delivery systems, and agreed there would be no escalation to strategic weapons, tactical nuclear weapons could have some utility. These are, clearly, improbable conditions to postulate.”

 

“Packard says he has never heard a satisfactory description as to how tactical nuclear weapons might be used. “Probably the very uncertainty about their use makes them somewhat effective as an element of deterrence.” He says “they should be maintained and taken seriously if they are to remain an element of deterrence.” But in his view he says, “They should not… be considered simply as an extension of non-nuclear military capability.

 

Packard does not agree with the argument some people advance that tactical nuclear weapons can act as a coupling between conventional forces and strategic nuclear weapons. “If ever this were ever the case it is less so now, and a conventional force will be a more realistic deterrent if it can be adequate to control a confrontation without the need for tactical nuclear weapons.”

 

“The Role of Conventional Forces”

 

Packard feels that the nuclear stalemate that exists between the Soviet Union and the United States must be maintained. “Fortunately,” he says, “it can be preserved without much, if any, higher cost and probably at a lower cost through tough and realistic negotiations in SALT. This essential stand-off cannot be preserved under any course of unilateral disarmament. Tactical nuclear weapons must, in my view, be considered an important part of the nuclear stalemate. These weapons cannot be neglected, although as I have pointed out, they cannot be thought of as simply a useful extension of conventional theatre forces.

 

“The result of this situation is that the essential national security priority for the Alliance is to maintain an acceptable balance of conventional military force in Europe, and a superior naval force in the Mediterranean and the Atlantic – and preferable worldwide. This security priority must be addressed in the atmosphere of the growing détente and in the environment of discussions to limit or reduce the level of military forces. One goal is to reduce the burden of military arms on the member states on both sides. This is not the only goal, nor even the most important goal of arms control. If the stability of mutual deterrence is lost in the course of arms control or n the core of détente, both will have failed. I am convinced there can be smaller forces on both sides in a stable balance, and to the extent the smaller forces are strong force, stability will be enhanced. I have said on a number of occasions the United States can safely have smaller forces, but it cannot safely have both smaller forces and inferior weapons. The same applies to NATO, and this brings me to the role of technology.”

 

The Contribution of Technology

 

Packard says “It is not necessary to match forces man-for-man, tank-for-tank, plane-for-plane to maintain an effective military balance. Some of the so-called ‘smart’ weapons which have been used recently in Vietnam are from ten to a hundred times more effective than the weapons now in the inventory of either the Pact or NATO. It is probable that modern anti-tank weapons can, to a large degree, neutralize the effectiveness of a massive tank force. Air-to-air and surface-to-air missiles now in the inventory of both sides are primitive in terms of what can be done with the latest technology.”

 

“This means that the military balance of the future will be determined even less by the number of men, planes or ships on each side. It will be determined by how effectively each side applies the latest technology to the weapons those men, planes or ships carry”

 

“To maximize the potential of technology will require understanding by both military and political leaders. Weapons involving advanced technology often appear to be very expensive. It may be difficult to convince both the political and the military leaders that a ‘smart’ bomb which might cost $50,000 is more desirable because it is much more effective in destroying a military target than 100 ‘dumb’ bombs costing $500 each. There is uncertainty about the new; there is safety in numbers. But in the end, it is relative effectiveness that must determine the choice. With the ‘smart’ weapons comes a very great bonus – as the probability that these kinds of weapons will destroy a military target goes up, the probability that they will kill civilians and destroy non-military targets goes down.”

 

Packard also points out that “Research and development on military equipment has great potential for fallout of technology useful in non-military fields….I would go so far as to say that the great progress made by the United States in technology since World War II is to a very large degree the result of the extensive military research and development programs during this period. This is clearly the case in my field of electronics, as well as the more obvious ones of aeronautics and space.”

 

“The Atlantic Community can more than match the Warsaw Pact in economic strength. The Atlantic Community has a tremendous advantage in technology and in the ability to put technology into practical use. This is where the effort must be directed. This is both the least costly and the most certain way to maintain an adequate military balance in the future.”

 

Packard warns against letting the Soviet Union take the initiative in the area of technological warfare and says, “We are standing on the threshold of a major breakthrough in military capability through technology. this will be the factor second in importance in determining whether the Free World can maintain a viable military balance into the years ahead. I say second because the most important factor is the desire and determination of the Free World States to do so.

 

“There are, of course, many problems involved in doing what will be needed to meet the future security requirements of the Atlantic Community and its member nations. There will even be problems in reaching a consensus as to what should be done. There are conflicting interests of the member States – but only to the extent the member States perceive and maintain a common purpose will it be possible to agree on a common security plan. The United States alone has the capability of providing a substantial share of the security of the Alliance without requiring the full effort of the other member States. It is not reasonable to expect the United States to do this in the future. The United States will maintain the nuclear stalemate which, of course it must do in its own self interest. At the same time, no individual European nation can alone match the military might of the Soviet Union. This, then, is the national security imperative that must continue to help cement the Atlantic Community into a viable organization in the decades ahead.”

 

Packard says statistical data on NATO-Warsaw Pact forces is available for those who wish to study it. “Some of these considerations tend to weigh on the side of the Warsaw Pact , some on the side of NATO. In my view, the most important intangible factor of all is one hard to define and impossible to qualify. That factor is the resolve of one side versus the resolve of the other. It is the territorial imperative that strengthens the defense of the homeland. To the extent the Atlantic Community can continue to progress toward common goals and develop strong common interests, it can and will maintain the resolve to defend itself. That is the essential ingredient of military strength. To the extent the Atlantic Community deteriorates into a loose coalition of nations with cross purposes and without a unifying spirit, to the extent the Community is carried away on the euphoria of détente, it will be very difficult to achieve and maintain an adequate balance of conventional military forces and unrealistic to expect the United States nuclear commitment to remain firm. In these terms, and adequate military balance is essential for the survival of the Atlantic Community and a strong and cohesive Atlantic Community is essential to build and support a military balance adequate to assure the generation of peace which is now finally within reach of this troubled world.”

 

Packard’s notes, written at the end of the text are as follows:

 

“Key Elements of Nixon Doctrine

 

First – The United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.

 

Second – We shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.

 

Third – In cases of other types of aggression we will help as appropriate but look to the nation directly threatened to provide primary responsibility.”

 

“National Security Strategy for the 70s

 

Preserve adequate nuclear capability as cornerstone of Free World’s nuclear deterrent.

 

Develop Free World forces that are effective and that minimize the likelihood of requiring the employment of strategic nuclear forces.”

 

 

3/26-28/73,  Copy of typewritten Programme for the Europe-America Conference

3/26-28/73,  Copy  of typewritten list of delegates to the conference

3/26-28/73, Copy of typewritten list of members of the United States delegation

1/20/73 Letter to Packard from Albert Wohlstetter, University of Chicago, giving a critique of a draft of Packard’s address that Packard had sent to him

1/22/73, Letter to Packard from Theodore C. Achilles, the Atlantic Council, thanking Packard for his donation of $5000 to help with the budget of the conference

1/29/73, Letter to Packard from Eugene Rostow, Yale University, thanking him for his support and saying he believes the conference is urgently needed

2/26/73, Letter to Packard from Caroline de Courcy Ireland of the Europe-America staff asking Packard’s wishes for a car and hotel

2/26/73, Note to Packard from Gene Rostow saying he had read the draft of Packard’s address and was much pleased. He enclosed a copy of a letter he has sent to delegates giving conference plans, also a copy of a letter to Rostow from Henry Kissenger accepting the invitation to speak at the conference

 

3/3/73, Letter to Packard from John H. Morse, Assistant Secretary of Defense, giving his very comprehensive comments on the draft of Packard’s speech

3/7/73, Typewritten accounting, on Packard’s letterhead, of contributions received for the conference budget

3/9/73, Copy of teletype to Mrs. Caroline Ireland from Margaret Paull giving Packard’s arrival time in Amsterdam and asking that she reserve a chauffeur driven car and hotel

3/10/73, Letter to Packard from Elliiot L. Richardson, Secretary of Defense, commenting on the draft of his address Packard had sent him

3/15/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Eugene Rostow talking about contributions he had received

3/21/73, Copy of a letter to John Morse from Packard thanking him for his comments of Packard’s speech draft

3/28/73, Copy of a Report by Group B – Changes in the Field of Security, highlighting the major issues identified by this group

3/28/73, Copy of a ‘Draft Resolution’ giving conclusions reached by the delegates to the conference

3/29/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen saying he was sorry not to have been able to say goodbye to Packard when he left Amsterdam, and enclosing a copy of his report of a trip to China

6/13/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen saying he had recently visited the eastern U.S and he encloses his notes on the trip

6/20/73, Copy of a letter to Mr. E. H. van Eeghen  from Packard saying he enjoyed meeting in Amsterdam and thanking him for the report of his trip to China

8/20/73, Copy of a memo from Eugene Rostow to members of the U.S. delegation giving plans for further follow-up meetings to discuss Conference agreements

11/23/73, Letter to Packard from Constant van Eeghen giving another ‘follow-up’ of his notes on the aforementioned U. S. trip

11/29/73, Letter to Packard from Richard Mayne, Commission of European Communities, asking for a two line description of his contribution to the Conference in Amsterdam which will appear in a forthcoming book, A New Atlantic Challenge

12/11/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Richard Mayne saying that the description of his contribution in the book could be: “Neither the US nor the USSR can now risk a nuclear war. Future NATO defense strategy must therefore be built around non-nuclear forces. NATO has both the resources and the capability to do so if it has the will.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 39 – General Speeches

 

May 1, 1973, Business Statesman of the Year Award, The Harvard Business School Club of Northern California

 

5/1/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s address on receiving this award

 

Packard says he was thinking of possible subjects for his comments and got to thinking about why he was here tonight. And he felt “…it probably had something to do with the fact that I have spent 30 of the last 33 years of my life in a very exciting period of history and in a very exciting business. That took me back to 1940.

 

“In 1940 the United States was just one of the modestly important nations of the world, teetering on the brink of isolationism. We had decided not to become involved in Europe and the Japanese thought they could attack Pearl Harbor with impunity. December 7, 1941 changed all that and in the period from then until this year, 1973, our country has become the greatest nation this world has ever seen.”

 

“We have made unbelievable progress in science and technology since 1940. So much that we forget what things were like just three decades ago. Then the DC-3 was the best flying machine we had. Aircraft like the 747 were only a dream in the realm of science fiction.”

 

Packard reviews other signs of great progress: landing on the moon, computers, education, plentiful food production at reasonable prices, conquering diseases, transplanting organs. He says the support from the federal government has resulted in fallout benefiting such activities as space travel and jet aircraft travel; but in other areas such as computers, education, medicine, agriculture, as well as others,  it has been private enterprise that was responsible “for the great and exciting progress we have seen.”

 

“The three years I spent in Washington has greatly reinforced my conviction that the federal government is not equipped to deal effectively with many of our domestic problems. And I believe the record of the past three decades amply supports this view.

 

“The problems and opportunities of the future will be no less challenging and exciting than those of the past.” And Packard gives several examples of these future challenges: inflation, balance of payments, international monetary values, potential energy shortages, health, education, environment, poverty, and innumerous domestic problems.

 

“If we are to accellerate [sic] our progress in solving these crucial problems, as indeed we must, perhaps the most important step we can take is to safeguard the freedom and strengthen the integrity and capability of private business and industry.

 

“These great challenges which lie ahead will not be solved by you taxpayers sending more of your money to Washington, or for that matter to Sacramento, so the people there can take their cut and send some of it back to you with instructions as to how it is to be spent.

 

“The federal government has a number of important jobs to do that can only be done in Washington. One of these is national security. With our continuing responsibility for world leadership it is essential that we remain the strongest, most powerful nation in the world. As I said here in San Francisco just a few weeks ago, this will be a better world if the United States is the strongest, most powerful and, therefore, the most influential nation in the world than it will be if the Soviet Union is the strongest, most powerful and, therefore, the most influential nation.

 

“The resources that we can allocate to national security are not unlimited and these funds must be managed wisely.

 

“The members of the Congress, both the Senate and the House, agree with this principle – until it comes to an expenditure in the individual Senator’s or Representative’s State of district.”

 

Packard gives the example of Hunters Point shipyard which should, he says, be shut down. “Our sixth fleet is based in European waters and our seventh fleet is based in Asian waters. That is where they need to be to support our foreign policy, at least at this time. It is much less costly to provide repairs and support in areas where our ships operate. Some politicians have proposed to introduce legislation to keep Hunters Point open so long as we are spending money for naval support overseas.

 

“I would like to remind those politicians that the charter of the Navy is national security – not domestic welfare. I believe business and industry working with the local community can find appropriate jobs elsewhere for these fine people who are working at Hunters Point.

 

“There are areas where only the federal government can do what needs to be done. There are also areas where the federal government can not do effectively what needs to be done. I hope the private sector and local and regional governments will continue to step up and join forces to accept responsibility for those things which in fact they can do best.

 

“Both the private sector and local governments are represented in the Harvard Business School Club of Northern California. You, who are members of this fine club, have a great opportunity to show the way here in the Bay Area. I hope you will do so.”

 

5/11/73, Copy of the printed program for the Award dinner

5/11/73, Copy of the printed invitation to the dinner

4/25/73, Clipping from the San Francisco Chronicle saying Packard will receive the Award

5/5/73, Letter to Packard from Jeanne C. Robinson, Club President, thanking Packard for accepting the Award and speaking to them

5/8/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Mrs. Robinson saying the affair was a pleasure for both he and Mrs. Packard

 

 

Box 3, Folder 40 – General speeches

 

May 30, 1973, Testimony on Behalf of WEMA  before the Committee on Ways and Means, on H.R. 6767, The Trade Reform Act of 1973, Washington D. C.

 

5/30/73, Copy of the text of Packard’s presentation to the Committee

 

Packard introduces himself and explains he is here on behalf of the members of WEMA. He describes the technical products made and the markets served by WEMA companies including the high portion of international sales by most of them. He makes the point that at HP, as an example, “one of out every three U.S. manufacturing jobs exists to support our exports.”

 

As further background he tells the Committee that for “several years, the sale of high technology products abroad, such as those manufactured by WEMA  member companies, has been one of the prime areas in which the U.S. has continued to hold its own in the world marketplace.” And he quotes some figures from the Department of Commerce showing the favorable balance of high technology exports over imports.

“Our industry’s involvement in international trade,” he says, “has made WEMA member companies acutely aware of the need for a cohesive national trade policy which will improve our ability to compete abroad with U.S. exports and, when required, by local production. To accomplish this, we believe that legislation should be enacted which would permit the United States to; (1)  negotiate reductions of tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers; (2) take strong action against inequitable foreign trade practices; (3) respond to serious difficulties caused by imports, and (4) increase trade with the developing countries and with those areas of the world which presently lack Most-Favored-Nation status.

 

“The future of U.S. trade is one of the most important matters currently before the Congress. We are well aware that the recommendations of this Committee will have a great effect on U.S. foreign trade activities for many years to come”

 

“WEMA supports the concept and most of the specific provisions of H.R. 6767…as introduced. In our view, enactment of this legislation will improve the ability of companies within the high technology, electronics and information technology industries to sell their products in existing and in new markets abroad, while, at the same time, permit the government to deal effectively with inequitable foreign trade practices and serious import problems.”

 

Packard then goes through a detailed review of the bill with their recommendations in several areas. He concludes with this summary: “In conclusion, Mr. Chairman,

I would simply say that WEMA supports the concept and most of the provisions contained in H.R. 6767. We believe that this legislation will put the United States on much the same footing as our major competitors and thus enable the President to deal more effectively with our trading partners around the world. We have offered a number of suggestions—additional advice, hearings, retention of Tariff Items 806.30 and 807.00, adjustment assistance for firms, etc.—which we believe will strengthen the bill. We hope you will consider these suggestions carefully in executive session.

 

“With respect to the various tax proposals before your committee, WEMA urges the Congress not  to enact tax rules and regulations which would handicap U.S. firms operating abroad, and permit our foreign competitors to seize market opportunities to the ultimate detriment of U.S. industry and labor. The United States has a responsibility to the developing countries of the world. It is in this context that I particularly object to the ‘tax holiday’ provisions of the Treasury Department’s proposals.

 

“WEMA believes that any changes in our tax laws affecting U.S. trade and U.S. firms operating abroad should be made with the objectives of increasing the export of U.S.-made products, parts and components and permitting U.S. companies to operate abroad on the same basis as their foreign competitors. Action along these lines in the tax area would be consistent with the objectives of H.R. 6767.

 

“This concludes our formal presentation, we will be pleased to respond to any questions the committee may have.”

 

 

Box 3, Folder 41 – General Speeches

 

June 8, 1973, Commencement Address, Southern Colorado State College, Pueblo, CO

 

6/8/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard tells his audience a short story about his trip back to Pueblo after he graduated from Stanford in 1934. He describes driving alone through Reno, Nevada about two in the morning and getting stopped for speeding. He says the policeman took him back to the station where Packard explained he had only a couple of dollars with him to get to Pueblo. So the police let him go without a fine, but with a warning to drive a little slower. He says he tells them this story “to suggest that my financial situation…was not much different from the financial situation of a great many young men and young women in the graduating classes across America in 1973, probably, on a relative basis, not as good as most of you in this class here today.

 

“It was almost forty years ago when I was a member of a graduating class, listening as you are here today to a commencement speaker.

 

“ I do not even remember who my commencement speaker was – much less what he said. And I don’t really expect any more of you.”

 

Packard says that “Had my commencement speaker been able to predict accurately and describe to my graduating class what was to happen in this world from 1934 until 1973 no one would have believed him.”

 

And he runs through several of the things this hypothetical commencement speaker would have had to describe happening in the next forty years:  color TV, satellites, nuclear power and bombs, antibiotics, organ transplants, increase in life expectancy, jet aircraft, moon walks.

 

So Packard says that even if he could accurately predict what was going to happen in the next forty years no one would believe him – so he won’t  attempt it.

 

“What I can say with great assurance is that there will be at least as much exciting progress in all aspects of human affairs in the next forty years as there has been in the past. In all probability there will be more.

 

“There will probably be more because it is a basic law of nature that the rate of change is proportional to the level of activity. As the base from which change is generated grows larger, there is a higher likelihood of change becoming even more rapid and more significant.”

 

However Packard says “…some thoughtful people are beginning to question the value of the kind of progress we have seen in the world since 1934. There are clearly limits to the physical growth of our civilization at some point. This has been recognized already in the aspect of population growth in relation to economic growth. Population control is essential if we want to assure real material progress for the individual in the future. We can at some time run out of raw materials and of energy, and to an increasing degree changes which are in the nature of growth will have to be constrained by concerted effort.”

 

Packard says there can be progress and change in the area of ideas too, and “Perhaps as we find that we must consciously restrain physical growth in some areas, we will find ways to accellerate [sic] growth in areas which will contribute to the quality of our civilization – not just to the growth of its physical aspects..

 

Whatever the changes ahead Packard predicts “…they will be, whatever their nature, just as challenging and just as exciting for your generation as they have been for mine.

 

“There are also some important things which will remain the same. The essential stabilizing influence in our society, of a high moral law, expressed most often through religion or a widespread personal commitment to a common code of ethics or morality, is no less important today than it has been for centuries in the past. When this commitment is strong and widespread the society as a whole is strong and healthy. When there is a reduction in the commitment to high moral standards, whether expressed through formal religion or commonly accepted personal standards, the society as a whole suffers. There have been many examples of such lapses throughout history, and that is what our country is suffering from today in the Watergate affair.

 

“Fortunately, the reaction of the society to a lapse in morality can be in the form of a recommitment to high moral standards, and I am convinced that is the way Watergate must come out.”

 

“I am convinced that Watergate is a last aberration of the decade of the 1960s and our nation will rebound with a stronger commitment to the need for a high level of moral law.

 

“The importance of knowledge is another invariant in a world of change. You men and women in this graduation class are being honored today because you have completed a significant step in acquiring the knowledge that will turn out to be one of your most valuable possessions.

 

“You will come to realize that it is not the degree or certificate you have received that is important. What is important is whether you have, in fact, acquired useful knowledge during your course of study and whether you have learned that it is essential to continue to acquire knowledge throughout your lifetime. Some of you may become scholars and the pursuit of knowledge will be the objective of your life work. Others, perhaps most, will use their knowledge to accomplish their life work in practical ways.

 

“A very important ingredient of success and satisfaction in life has, for me at least, been in being able to do something useful. The pursuit of knowledge for me has always been to be able to do something useful. I am sure many of you will have the same experience – and it will bring you much satisfaction, if in whatever you do you do it well. That requires that you know as much as possible about your field of endeavor, whatever it may be. This community is indeed fortunate to have this fine College here, not only because of the broad range of courses available for the full time students, but also because of the excellent opportunity this school provides for a continuing education in a great variety of important subjects.

 

“As each of you step on in your life adventure you will find the same kind of an exciting, rapidly changing world that I found after my graduation in 1934. You will find the knowledge you have acquired will serve you well and you must add to it whenever you can.

 

“I would like to leave you with a thought of David Starr Jordan that made a great impression on me when I was a college student. Dr. Jordan expressed it this way – ‘the most important commitment that every young person can have is to the person he or she will become in the future’, in the next ten, twenty, thirty, forty or more years.

 

“Thank you again for asking me to be with you today. Good luck and God bless you, each and every one.”

 

6/8/73, audio tape recording of Packard giving this speech

6/8/73, Printed program of the Commencement exercise

Fall 1973, Publication of SCSC with picture of Packard on the cover and a review of his speech inside along with other articles related to the school

 

 

Box 3, Folder 42 – General Speeches

 

August 25, 1973, Silver Helmet Defense Award, AMVETS 29^th National Convention, St. Louis, MO

 

8/25/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard’s speech is about Watergate. He calls it “this terrible problem we’re having here in America….Our government in Washington has been almost at a standstill because of Watergate. Our great country is being paralyzed by the emotional, irrational response to this tragic event.

 

“It is most unfortunate that this trouble has come at a time when the leadership of the United States is sorely needed throughout the world – in Europe, in the Mid-East, and in Asia. No country in the world except the United States is able to provide the strong enlightened leadership so necessary to assure a generation of peace, prosperity and progress throughout the world, for the remainder of the twentieth century and on into the twenty-first.,

 

“President Nixon, in his first four years, moved our country into this great opportunity, and he has already taken the first bold and important steps into the future. The United States has never in recent decades commanded the respect throughout the world it holds today – we have never had a better opportunity to lead the way – we may never have it again if we fail to grasp this opportunity.”

 

Calling Watergate a “tragedy,” Packard says “It is, indeed, a sad drama to see this attempt on the part of so many to discredit and even destroy President Nixon – and for what? To satisfy a pang of personal vanity before a TV camera? To develop a political image for the future? To openly vent, to a mass audience, personal feelings, personal bitterness – all disguised under a thin veneer of political courtesy?”

 

Granting that some may be operating under well meaning intentions, “…it is not good for America. The sooner we bring this tragicomedy to an end, the better it will be for our country. I do not deny that there are lessons to be learned from Watergate, and people to be punished – but we do not need to destroy the United States in the process. And that is what I believe can happen if we don’t stop these nonsensical hearings and self-dealing recriminations, and get on with the important jobs that need to be done.”

 

Packard urges everyone in his audience to write or wire Senator Ervin and his committee members and tell them you believe that no good will be served by continuing these hearings – that there are sufficient and capable judicial avenues to conduct the investigation and dispense justice. Tell them that you feel there is much more important Senate work to occupy their time and efforts….And encourage your friends to do the same.

 

“The future of America is in jeopardy. You who have dedicated your lives to the security of America have a great stake in this issue. You must step out and be heard. You who have built the strength and respect that makes the United States the greatest, the most powerful, and the most influential country the world has ever seen must not let politics and propaganda and bias in some elements of the press destroy your President and your country.”

 

“Strength means military strength as well as economic and moral strength. It will be no small task to maintain the military strength we must have for the future with the continuing anti-military bias in many segments of the country. The practical problems of all volunteer forces, and limited funds for procurement, will make the job difficult. It will require new thinking to achieve more effective use of personnel and money. It will require that we maintain our lead in military technology. But it can be done. I am convinced that none of the problems involved maintaining the military strength we need to assure world leadership of the United States are insurmountable.

 

“But, we must put Watergate aside if we are to direct our energies to the critical foreign and domestic issues that face our nation. Let’s bring the select Senate committee hearings nonsense to an end. Let’s put America first, and politics last.

 

“Thank you for this opportunity to be with you tonight – and thank you for the Silver Helmet Award.”

 

 

8/25/73, Printed program for the Awards Banquet

3/27/71, Printed copy of the program for the 26^th National Convention in 1971

10/30/72, Letter to Packard from Joseph R. Sanson, National Commander, Amvets, saying they would like to present Packard with the Silver Helmet Award

11/6/72, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Sanson saying he will accept the award

2/2/73, Letter to Packard from Joseph Sanson giving details of the Banquet and asking for biographical information

6/28/73, Letter to Packard from Lean Sanchez, Amvets, giving details of the Award Banquet

8/27/73, Copy of a letter from Packard to Joseph Sanson  saying it was a pleasure for he and Mrs. Packard to attend the Award Banquet and thanking them for the Award

Undated, Copy of printed page from unnamed publication covering Packard’s speech

 

 

 

Box 3, Folder 43 – General Speeches

 

Oct. 17, 1973, Corporate Support of the Private Universities, University Club, New York City

 

10/17/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

 

Packard says he is pleased to be here and to talk about corporations and private universities – a subject with which he has been involved, both as a corporate giver and as a university trustee, for nearly two decades. He adds that he would like to point out that his views on the subject of corporate support of private universities have been somewhat modified since those he held in the 1950s. And it is this change that he talks about in this speech.

 

Packard tells of his first joining the Committee for Corporate Support of American Universities during its formative years some fifteen years prior. “I must say I was more than a slightly awed to be asked to join the distinguished group of founding members. I knew most of the men by name and reputation only. They had wanted another member from the W3st Coast, and they were willing to accept me on the recommendation of one of their members, Mr. James B. Black, chairman of PG&E, and a Stanford trustee with me at the time.”

 

“Each member [of the committee] had two essential qualifications – a strong personal interest in one or more of the major private universities, and a personal acquaintanceship with many of the directors and officers of the major corporations of America.

 

“I think it is a great tribute to the work that was done by those founding members that the committee is still very much alive, active, and effective.”

 

Packard says he is not sure how the committee got started. He presumes the private universities were facing “a major financial crisis. This was not a difficult situation to establish, for there has been no time in the last three decades when the private universities could not claim a major financial crisis –and they will probably continue to do so throughout the foreseeable future.

 

“ In addition, each member was well aware of the very many ways in which the universities, both public and private, had contributed to the growth and prosperity of American business and industry over the years – and they all believed a special case could be made for increased support of private universities by American companies.”

 

Packard suspects that a third reason for the formation of the committee might have been the thought that “…it just might be more effective working for the cause of the private universities together, rather than each working only for his own alma mater….Just because the Chairman of Corporation X was a Harvard man did not necessarily make a good case [to contribute only to Harvard]. A better case was needed, and that was what the committee set out to develop.”

 

“By the late 1950s …corporate support of education – in one form or another – had become reasonably common, reasonably well accepted by stockholders, and generally expected by the general public – at least by those who were college and university graduates. Estimates of the amount of corporate money going to colleges and universities throughout America in 1958 was in the range of $10 million.

 

“Thus, there was broad and increasing corporate support for higher education, but could a special case be made for the major private universities? This was the challenge that faced the committee.

 

“It was quickly apparent that one of the first problems to be encountered would be to decide which universities should be included on the recommended list. Deliberations on this questions brought about some guidelines which were carefully thought out. With one exception, which I will discuss in more detail, the guidelines have stood the test of time very well.”

 

Packard reviews these guidelines – the first being that the university to be supported should be a private university. “It was recognized that many state universities met the same standards of excellence as the leading private universities, but corporations were already doing their part through payment of taxes and should not be expected to provide additional support.”

 

“Second, the private university to be supported should have graduate schools of distinction covering a broad range of studies. Graduate schools were considered especially important to corporations for four reasons:

 

“They were a major source of professional people who would be needed by the corporation.

“They were the centers of important research.

“They were a major source of the PhDs and professors for all levels of higher education in America and their influence was thus greatly magnified.

“[The] major private universities gave important leadership to all of higher education in America in terms of educational policy and behavior as well as in knowledge and in men and women to fill the professorial chairs. These were the ‘bell cow’ universities, and the lesser institutions all across the country would do well to follow the lead of these distinguished institutions. Corporations then, by supporting these ‘bell cow’ universities, could help raise the standards of all the colleges and universities in America, a role clearly well justified for the corporate dollar.”

 

Packard says the committee added three other stipulations to these guidelines:

 

“…the aid to these select private universities should be over and above what the corporation was already doing for education.

 

“…the corporation should select the recipients for support, and [thirdly] give the money directly to the universities, not through the committee.

 

“The committee recommended that the amount given to any of the universities should be substantial, and that it should be continuous over a period of years.”

 

And another recommendation was that “the corporate gifts to these universities should have no restriction on the use of the funds.”

 

Packard says these policies and guidelines are still in effect and he can recommend them – with one exception. “The only exception I would make,” he says, “is the guideline stating that corporate funds given to private universities should be unrestricted in their use by the university.

 

“I supported that proposition ten years ago because I, like the other members of the committee, was a university trustee – and I thought trustees knew best how a corporate contribution should be used and that trustees had substantial control over how funds were used. In retrospect, that point was probably debatable then It seems to me that it is even more so today.

 

“I recognize that for the university, unrestricted money is most valuable. It allows the trustees, or the administration, or the faculty to undertake programs which might otherwise not attract financial support from the outside. It does not necessarily follow, however, that unrestricted money, used as it has been used, is always in the interest of the corporation.

 

“That, however, is precisely what the corporate officer considering a contribution to a university should be thinking about. Should our corporation make an unrestricted contribution and leave it to the trustees or the administration or the faculty to decide how the money should be used, or do we have a responsibility to our stockholders to be sure the money contributed will, in some defensible way, benefit our corporation? “

 

Packard say that “Fifteen or twenty years ago the trustees of the major private universities could and did play a role in university policy. Most trustees were also corporate officers. It is quite understandable then that we all felt comfortable in recommending that corporate funds be unrestricted.

 

“The situation is vastly different today. Almost every board of trustees must have its members selected from a wide array of constituents: students, faculty, alumni, various ethnic groups, etc. Moreover, much of the power has gone to the faculty, and too often faculty decisions are determined by a militant minority of the faculty.

 

“All this may be good for our private universities. I do not believe so, but that is not the point I want to make with you today. I believe the case for a corporation giving unrestricted funds to a private university can no longer be supported.

 

Packard goes back to the committee’s guidelines to see how they are applied in practice. “First we have said these universities are a major source of the professional people our corporations will need for their future growth and progress. The problem with the unrestricted gift here is that it is not likely to be used to help a professional school.” Packard says the Graduate School of Business at Stanford gets no funds from unrestricted gifts – and he believes the same situation exists at Harvard Business School.

 

“To the extent a corporate contribution is to be justified on the basis that it helps assure a continuing supply of professional people, the funds must be designated specifically for the professional schools you want to support if you want to be certain.

 

“A second premise to justify corporate support for universities is that they are in the business of generating new knowledge through research. Here again, very little unrestricted money is directed to support the many excellent research programs one finds at our private universities. Most of the research at these universities is supported by the government or by large foundations. I happen to believe these universities would be better off if more of their research was supported by business and less by the government. If you should happen to agree, take time to find an area of research you believe to be important to your company, and support it on a specific basis.

 

“The third guideline has to do with the fact that these major universities are an important source of professors for all of higher education. This is of courses true, and this greatly magnifies the impact of these great private schools.

 

“Because of this magnifying factor I believe the corporation executive has a double responsibility to make sure his dollars are constructive rather than destructive – and there is no way to do this with unrestricted money.”

 

Packard cites a 1969 statement by a professor Richard Flacks, who he says is“…a top intellectual figure in the Students for a Democratic Society.” Packard says the professor describes how the distribution of the student protest movement started with the ‘prestigious private universities’ and then trickled on down to ‘schools of lower prestige and quality.’

 

Packard advises the “If  you want to be sure your funds do not have this kind of multiplying effect, restrict them to those areas you believe are educating the right kind of professors.

 

“The fourth premise, and the only one so far which might possibly be used to justify unrestricted corporate gifts, is that the great private universities give distinctive leadership to all of higher education in America – the ‘bell cow’ theory. This premise sounded very convincing to me in 1959. In 1973 I’m much less sure.

 

“Is kicking ROTC programs off the campus the kind of leadership we need?

“Is prohibiting business from recruiting on the campus the kind of leadership we need?

“Should these universities serve as haven for radicals who want to destroy the free enterprise system?

“Should students be taught that American corporations are evil and deserve to be brought under government control?

“Should a board of trustees sit as sole judge of the social responsibility of each American corporation – and use this as a basis for deciding whether its stock should be held in the university portfolio?”

 

“I say to you today, thank God most of the colleges and universities over this great country of ours have not blindly followed the lead of some of the ‘bell cows’ we touted ten or fifteen years ago.

 

“Clearly then, unrestricted corporate contributions cannot be supported on the basis of the other guidelines this committee has adopted. I do not believe there is any way they can be justified.”

 

Packard recognizes that some of those who argue for unrestricted grants say that universities should be ‘ivory towers’ outside the affairs of the world. He examines this point:

 

“These same people like to call a university a community of scholars which, of course, it should be. In a university these scholars are grouped together in Schools and Departments. Sometimes we find groupings of scholars with the university who are hostile to business and the free enterprise system. All too often these groupings tend to perpetuate themselves because they attract professors in the same mold. Departments of Economics are particularly vulnerable, as are Departments of Religion and other areas of Humanities. I happen to believe that such hostile groups of scholars are, to a large degree, responsible for the anti-business bias of many of our young people today. And I do not believe it is in the corporate interest to support them – which is what we do to a greater or a lesser degreed with unrestricted funds.

 

“I believe we will do more in the interest of our corporations and just as much for the universities by being specific in designating where our funds go.

 

“A university is strong to the extent its schools and departments are strong. In the future, let’s focus our m0jey and our energy on those schools and departments which are strong and which also contribute in some specific way to our individual companies, or to the general welfare of our free enterprise system. On this basis I believe more corporate support for these great private universities can be justified 8n the future. I commend this to you as a wise and productive basis for future corporate policy in relation to the major private universities of America.”

 

10/17/73, Printed copy of Packard’s speech in pamphlet format

5/25/73, Copy of a letter to Roger Lewis, President of AMTRAK from Alfred Blum, University of Chicago, giving him some materials to talk to Packard about in preparation of his forthcoming speech

5/31/73, Letter to Packard from Roger Lewis giving him some background material and urging him to agree to give the speech

 

Copy of list of nominees for the CCSAU membership

Copy of description of CCSAU history and purpose

Copy of list of some Students for a Democratic Society leaders

 

August 1970, Copy of printed pamphlet from the Committee for Corporate Support of American Universities giving their philosophy

2/25-27/73, Copy of typewritten paper titled “Highlights from the 1973 Business & society Seminar at the California State University, San Francisco

10/25/73, Copy of a letter and article by Calvin Wood supporting Packard

10/25/73, Letter to Packard from Jon Sheehan saying he agrees with Packard

October 1973, Copy of printed booklet titled, The Management and Financing of Colleges

Nov/Dec 1973, Copy of page from Pacific Business with an editorial by Packard giving some guidelines for management’s role in protecting our free enterprise system

March 1974, Reprint of article in Financial Executive covering Packard’s speech. Also included is an article by McGeorge Bundy disagreeing with Packard’s conclusions

 

Press Clippings

10/17/73, Clipping from Palo Alto Times covering Packard’ speech

10/18/73, Clipping from unnamed paper covering speech

10/18/73, Copy of clipping from New York Times covering speech

10/26/73, Letter to Packard from Glenn Campbell enclosing a clipping from the 10/23/73 issue of the New York Times covering Packard’s speech

10/30/73, Letter to Margaret Paull from Wallace Bates sending a copy of an article in the 10/29/73 issue of the New York times covering Packard’s speech

11/5/73, Letter to Packard from William Decker enclosing a clipping from the Pittsburgh Press of 11/4/73 referencing Packard’s speech

11/14/73, Letter to Packard from Mack Braly, enclosing a copy of the publication Editorial Projects for Education which covers the speech

11/17/73, Copy of page from Human Events containing excerpts from Packard’s speech

11/19/73, Note from Dick Capen to Packard sending a page from the San Diego Union of 11/18/73 covering speech

11/20/73, Copy of page from Palo Alto Times with article by James J. Kilpatrick discussing Packard’s ideas on the question of management and society

 

 

Box 3, Folder 44 – General Speeches

 

Nov. 12, 1973, Scientific Apparatus Makers Association, Litchfield Park, AZ

 

This is a speech about protecting the free enterprise system against those who would sponsor the incursions of more and more government control.

 

11/12/73, Typewritten text of Packard’s speech

Packard says he recently read again the “sage comments of that great poet-philosopher Robert Frost in which he said ‘there are only two things which are certain in this world – there will be conflict and there will be change.’

 

Continuing with this aphorism Packard says “We are members of an industry based on technology, and change is an important part of our business….We in this industry are doing things which would have been unbelievable a decade or two ago.”

 

He tells his audience that during the three years he was with the Department of Defense he scrupulously avoided contact with the Hewlett-Packard Company – not even stepping into his old office. “When I did return to the company in 1972 I was tremendously impressed with the progress – with the change – which had occurred in this span of three years.”

 

And he specifically mentions integrated circuit technology which “has made it possible to have computational capability in a package you can hold in your hand – a capability that would have required a room full of equipment and kilowatts of power only a decade ago.”

 

In a similar vein he mentions the accuracy of measurement and computational power; and he says, “As I have thought about the enormity of these achievements – this impressive record of performance of our industry – it came home clearly to me that change is the result of a kind of conflict which we call competition.

 

“The progress of the Hewlett-Packard Company has been brought about because we have been striving with all our might to get ahead of each of your companies. And the converse is also true.”

 

“This is what this competitive free enterprise system of ours is all about. Its driving force is the conflict of competition, in an environment of freedom of action. It has produced greater scientific progress than any other economic system. It has produced more benefits for more people than any other economic system. I do not believe a better economic system can be devised. Yet this free enterprise economic system is under pressure, under criticism and attack here in America despite its demonstrated record of performance.

 

“The criticism and pressure for change comes from a substantial number of people, in and out of the government, who sincerely believe the government should have a larger role in managing the economy – people who sincerely believe socialism is preferable to private free enterprise. In another form the attack comes from people who believe in the system but want to add constraint after constraint seemingly with no end.”

 

Packard refers to a thought expressed by Paul McCracken, a member of the President’s Council of Economic Advisors. Packard says McCracken pointed out the “economic philosophy of America is moving rapidly from one based on equality of opportunity to one based on equality of results “ And he gives a quote from McCracken: saying he pointed out that there is ‘a growing conviction on the part of some that differences in the material emoluments of life may not after all, as the Protestant Ethic assured us, reflect the rewards for different degrees of diligence and effort and virtue.’

 

Still referring to comments by McCracken, Packard says “He points out that in the minds of many that race and religion, instead of being irrelevant, have come to be quite relevant. This has resulted in quotas for employment and for entrance to our universities and for our clubs.

 

“We see pressures on pricing and tax policy because of the ‘presumed perverse effect on lower-income people.”

 

Packard says that when he and Bill Hewlett started their company all they expected was “an equality of opportunity. We worked hard to do a better job than our competitors, just as our competitors worked hard to do a better job than we could do. I can think of no instance in which governmental intervention, whether Federal, State or Local, contributed one iota to the progress of our company over the past three decades. I can think of no way in which governmental intervention has contributed to either the security, or the opportunity, of any of the 28,000 of our employees I believe governmental intervention into your business and mine has greatly reduced the probability that the next three decades will produce anywhere near the economic progress that America has enjoyed since the 1940s.”

 

Advocating a return “as quickly as possible to a full, free market economy,” Packard says “There are… strong forces against this course. There are those in the Congress who do not believe that equality of opportunity is enough. They believe that all people should be assured equality of results – that the wealth of this nation should be spread equally among its citizens.

 

“We all see a drift from a true free enterprise economy in a never ending increase of government rules and regulations – more and more people looking over our shoulders.”

 

And he mentions bills requiring reports to the FTC by product line, federal regulation on pension plans; environmental regulations which have “tied up our atomic energy programs and forced the worst kind of a smog control… on the automotive industry. Wage and price controls have been in place for some time now, and a significant number of our Congressmen believe the income tax should serve to redistribute the wealth.”

 

Saying that business has already lost considerable freedom of action, Packard sees some things which can be done to help reverse the trend.

 

“Much of the drive which is behind the stream of anti-business actions which come from the Congress stems from some ultra liberal staff members, encouraged by a few ultra liberal Congressmen. Those congressmen who are generally sympathetic to business and free enterprise do not realize the dangers in a proposed piece of legislature unless someone explains the situation to them.

 

“This is what congressional hearings are for. I am convinced you and I can and should do more than we have in the past in communicating our wishes on pending legislation which may affect our business.”

 

Packard gives an example of a trade bill “which would have been very troublesome for a large sector of American business. A number of businessmen, including myself, testified and the final bill, while not yet passed, is much better. All too often our Congressmen simply do not understand the problems they are creating and they will almost all listen if we only take the time to talk to them.”

 

Packard quotes himself from an editorial he wrote. In part it reads: ‘The need for greatly expanded political action is now so self-evident that I earnestly believe it is time to end the debate about whether businessmen belong in politics and turn our attention to how to effectively participate in order to maximize the benefits such participation will bring to society.’

 

Packard quotes some guidelines from the editorial:

‘Develop effective good citizenship programs that encourage informed and effective political participation by every member of your employee body.’

 

‘Extensive programs to involve our employees in politics are not an extracurricular job of management; they go to the very heart of the question of whether or not our businesses will survive in a form that will continue to serve the best interests of the American people.

 

‘We must expand programs of economic education. As we should know by now, economic decisions of government are more often determined by what is politic rather than what is right. We must improve the economic understanding of our entire citizenry so that good economics also becomes good politics, with the electorate responding to those candidates whole economic judgments make sense.

 

‘Improve our lobbying efforts. Elective politics will never fully supplant our need for legislative action where our positions can be more fully and rationally presented away from the emotionalism of the stump where slogans are remembered and complex explanations go unheard.

 

‘Yet, even these efforts can measurably be improved if we begin delegating more of our political responsibility to the rank and file of our employee bodies.’

 

‘The challenge before is no easy task. American business leadership has traditionally shared an instinctive desire ‘to be left alone.’

 

‘But. Today, our society will not let us alone and, like it or not, we must respond.

 

‘If we are truly right in our belief that the way we want business to operate is in the long-term best interests of all our nation’s people; if we then do our job in educating the majority of the people to the correctness of our position; and if we finally assure that the opinion of all people is expressed and heard by those who hold the reins of government’s power, we cannot fail.

 

‘If, however, we fail to do these things, we will surly reap the whirlwind and rightfully be condemned by generations to come for our failure to pass on intact the American enterprise system which we have been given as our heritage and charged with the responsibility to preserve.’

 

11/11/73, Copy of the program for the SAMA meeting

7/31/73, SAMA announcement of the meeting sent to members

9/4/73, Letter to N. E. Porter of  HP from Paul F. Peters of SAMA asking for the title of Packard’s speech. He also asks Porter’s help in continuing HP participation in a SAMA program.

9/7/73, Letter to Margaret Paull, from Paul F. Peters of SAMA discussing the speech title and asking for biographical information

11/19/73, Letter to Packard from Paul F. Peters thanking him for participating in their meeting

Oct. 1972, Notice from hotel giving information of interest for those who fly in