Search results

Several reasons for the welcome growth in serious public discussion of military affairs are apparent. Americans are increasingly realizing that we are terribly vulnerable. Military preparations can no longer be deferred until after the onset of hostilities, making it more important that we analyze carefully in peacetime what our preparations should be. The magnitude of our defense effort has so increased that it naturally draws more critical scrutiny. Above all, what we do in defense interacts crucially with our foreign policy. To these considerations that obviously stimulate discussion, we must add another that weakens an inhibition against it. Critics need defer far less than formerly to military expertise.

Interviews with legislators in 4 US states indicate that some of them become specialists in important subject-matter fields. The member-specialist functions as a communication channel to the society: he simplifies for his fellows the complexities of admin've, sci'ific, educ'al, legal & fiscal problems. This informal expertise system develops alongside the standing committee system despite the difficulty experienced by an elective body in recruiting, training & retaining specialists. It persists apparently because the members need the assistance of someone who (1) has a greater knowledge than they of the matters they regulate but (2) is one of their ingroup & subject to pressures they experience & understand. The appearance of this informal division of labor throws into question the theory that the legislator in a system of separation of powers should & does act primarily as the generalist, the layman & the omnicompetent representative. AA-IPSA.

A subject like race relations (RR) has no pure theory of its own, but exists to bring together all that other sci's can contribute to the solution of problems within its own special field.' The central sociol'al problem in the study of RR is that of SD. The observance of SD is a form of discrimination consisting in the failure to admit strangers to particular relationships, & is characterized chiefly by avoidance. Where racial distinctions are more rigid, patterns of SD also reflect pol'al & psychol'al influences to a marked extent & it is more difficult to isolate the purely sociol'al factors. 'Sociol does not attempt to provide any inclusive account of the myriad influences upon HB. In one region sociol'al factors may be of major relevance to an understanding of the total/sum position; in another, they may be relatively insignif compared with pol'al or psychol'al ones. It is the specialist in RR studies who has to develop an expertise in applying these contributions & assessing their relevance to the complex problems with which he is confronted.' E. Weiman.

During the annual sessions of the General Assembly of the United Nations the policy and budget of the Office of Public Information (OPI) of the organization have been the perennial center of a complex debate. Instructions first given the Secretariat in 1946 provide some elements of this debate, while others depend on the professional expertise of the international civil service and on its influence and support in a General Assembly divided several ways. As a whole, the outcome demonstrates once more both the durable force of an attractive idea and the truth of the maxim that secretariats have great weight in the policy processes of international, as of other, organizations. For despite repeated debate and attack OPI has proved enduring and resilient.During the last 15 years the many-faceted program of the agency has shrunk somewhat, to be sure, under the economizer's knife. In particular, it was under unusually severe criticism in 1957, when the General Assembly established an expert committee to investigate UN public information activities, and also in 1958, when the results of the inquiry were discussed. This committee, appointed with the unenthusiastic concurrence of the Secretary General, and made up of six governmental nominees not all of whom had experience with public information, directly challenged some of the working assumptions of OPI and called attention to difficulties with others. Their report struck a blow, too, at the internal balance of OPI, accused it of substantive failures and urged it to design new programs.