In our present program of higher education the student is by and large the odd man out. This holds particularly in the larger university complexes where the iron law is that the student is made for the system. The symptoms of the student's discontent with this predicament are obvious enough: restlessness, estrangement, apathy and, increasingly, outright rebellion. According to a report by the National Student Association there were 221 major demonstrations at 101 campuses in the first six months of this year.

I welcome an opportunity to briefly examine Walt Rostow's contention that we are at a watershed. I am inclined to accept the generic proposition, although it will become apparent that the premises with which we support the conclusion differ.

Vietnam can well be the last great confrontation of the postwar era if we learn the lessons of Vietnam as well as others of recent years. Vietnam is providing an excellent modern example of the limitations of enormous military power. In another area, the Kennedy round, which was completed some months ago, there is also provided a classic example of the limitations of enormous economic power. If the people of the United States and especially its leadership can profit from the experiences of recent months on the military and economic fronts, then Mr. Rostow's thesis that we are at a watershed should prove valid. If we fail to understand or misinterpret what is happening, then it is possible that Mr. Washburn and the new generation are in for the kind of difficulties that could arise from a major decline in the affluence and influence of the United States. Naturally, every American might selfishly view such a prospect with great concern; I am sufficiently chauvinistic about our nation's potential for good that I view it with alarm for the world as a whole.

When churches speak to their own people and to the nations on matters of international affairs, how much do their pronouncements reflect the political policies of various countries and power blocs? Is the voice of a national or regional church body likely to be very different from that of an international ecclesiastical organization? A single example will, admittedly, yield onlv partial answers, but they may suggest what a fuller studv would disclose.

Consider the ways in which churches have dealt with the question of disarmament and arms control. Statements have been made by three representative groups: (1) The Christian Peace Conference centered in Prague. Czechoslovakia: (2) the National Council of Churches in the U.S.A. and one of its member churches, the United Church of Christ: and (3) the World Council of Churches. These are representative church bodies from both sides of the iron curtain and an international body which has member churches in virtually all parts of the world.

Three historic patterns can be discerned in the relations America has established with the outside world. America has offered itself as a model to the world, it has entered the world as a missionary, and it has confronted the world as a crusader. In recent years a fourth pattern has been added: America bestrides the world as an imperial power with global responsibilities. In the Spring of 1965, when I endeavored to define this new pattern of American foreign policy under the heading of “globalism,” a national newspaper refused to print my article with the explanation that there was no such tiling. In the meantime the ideologues of the Johnson Administration, such as Professors Brzezinski and Rostow, have confirmed my view. They have proclaimed “the American decade,” “a decade of opportunity and responsibility for the United States.”