IN THE NAME OF
Seymour Melman, a Professor of Industrial Engineering at
Melman immediately picked up on my hesitancy. He spoke about how the “left” had nearly
ruined the organization with which he had been identified for many years – The
National Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy, better known as just SANE. He
said he wanted no part of the “left” either.
He then described his plan.
He pulled out a small folder of about fifteen clippings that were from
the New York Times, the Wall Street
Journal and other mainline newspapers and periodicals. He asked if I would
read just a couple of the articles, which I did. They each described a
different atrocity in
Up until this point in the conversation, I was not clear as
to what
I liked the sound of “moral authority” and thought the idea
was at least worthy of consideration by the CALCAV Board. I asked
I called John Bennett, who chaired out board meetings (and
was President of Union Theological Seminary), and he overcame his somewhat
conservative tendencies because of his respect for Dr. Melman. John approved having Melman at the meeting
and his proposal on the board agenda for August.
The war crimes discussion dominated the entire board
meeting. How long would a study
take? Is there really enough material
that can be cited under specific laws of war, and how much would it cost, were
just some of the questions. For me, John Bennett and Rabbi Abraham Heschel
expressed the two most interesting concerns. At one point in the discussion
Bennett turned to me and asked, “But Dick, if we did this study and it took a
couple of years and cost several
thousands of dollars and the war ended before the study concluded, what we
would do?” Here was John, already agreeing to the idea of the study but being
caught up, as any CEO might, on its completion – or in this case, the cost and
timing of its completion. For me,
sometimes too cavalier for the moment, this was simple. “John, if the war ends
before we finish, we’ll be thankful and celebrate the end of the war.” While I
never did learn whether my simple response satisfied John, we were able to move
on.
Rabbi Abraham Heschel, another of the CALCAV Co-Chairs,
didn’t say much during the early part of the board’s discussion. After nearly
an hour of listening, Heschel said he didn’t think the project was a good idea
for the organization. His key concern was the way in which such a study of war
crimes, accusing the government and the young men and women in
Partly due to Heschel’s persuasiveness and also the hour,
the idea was tabled until the next board meeting, to be held in September.
Seymour Melman was a willful man. He was not going to be
deterred. He met with Heschel twice after the board meeting and, after the
second meeting, Heschel called me to say that
In September the CALCAV Board approved going ahead with
study. Over the next eighteen months Seymour and I were going to become very
close friends.
Following
As the weeks grew into months, and I was able to review
clippings that were being gathered by Baron and Ely, I became more and more
aware of how important the work was that
Fundraising for this project was not easy. Some would-be
donors resisted supporting the effort because it wouldn’t, in their view, help
end the war. Others didn’t believe there was enough “bad stuff” to actually
make a strong case that the
Baron and Dodge where zealots at their task. They put in
long hours reading and copying material from many sources. It was also the case
that Seymour Melman had to rein them in on more than one occasion, as they
wanted to include gory reports from sources too far to the left in the
political spectrum.
After about a year into the research, Seymour and I proposed
to the CALCAV board the steps we anticipated in producing and marketing the
book. Richard Falk, from an international law prospective, and Melman would
contribute introductory essays to the book. Up to fifty religious leaders from
around the country would be invited to sign the Commentary, the first essay in
the book that would outline the moral issues raised by the study and what could
be done. We explained to the board that we had a number of publishers that we
intended to approach to print the book. We assumed that the book would be
kicked-off in a national press conference somewhere in
It was March of 1967 when we began to look for a publisher.
We should have been, but were not, prepared for the responses we received from
the several publishers we approached. The book wouldn’t have an audience, it
would be too dense and complicated to appeal to readers, and it “didn’t fit into
the plans” of at least two companies we approached. The nation was a few years
away from turning against the war and the idea of a publisher producing a book
on American criminal activity in
After all of the hard work, were we going to have a study on
crimes of war that no one was going to see?
After some reflection, Seymour and I agreed that if the only
way to get the study published was to find our own private printer/publisher,
that is what we would need to do. In mid-June of 1967, as our researchers were
concluding their work and securing the necessary permissions for reprinting
copyrighted material, I was able to identify a possible printer in
With a publisher in hand, we tried to find a distribution
channel by approaching book-marketing consultants who worked in this field. We
were not successful for some of the same reasons that we were unable to find a
commercial book publishing company. Finally, in desperation, we made
arrangements to have the American Friends Service Committee, through its
network of fourteen offices, distribute the book (in addition to us selling the
book out of our office). The irony of this decision, after
In January of 1968, at a packed press conference at the
The press conference went well and the next day it was
front-page news in the New York Times and over a dozen other newspapers around
the country. Our office phone rang off the hook with book orders. In about six months we ordered another 10,000
copies of the book from
For me, the highlight of all this work came in a
conversation with anti-war friend Father Phillip Berrigan. Berrigan had been
involved early on in anti war protests. But in May of 1968, just months after
the study was released, Berrigan and a group of colleagues broke into the
selective service offices in
-- Rev. Richard Fernandez
No comments:
Post a Comment