original testimony that this was a terrible thing that had happened. I am trying to determine, in your view, what was the terrible part. Was it the suggestion that you violate the law? That brings in the distinction between whether Mr. Missett suggested this to you, or whether a friend would suggest it to you.

Apparently this is not the area of concern. The next part of my question is whether or not you feel the terrible part was an alleged misrepresentation of either his views, the views of his station, or the views of his network in your exchange.

Mr. SPECTOR. Let me say this then. From a legal point of view there may be no difference. I don't know. Anybody who offers or tries to get somebody else to do this may be legally responsible.

I think there is a difference between being at a person's house in the evening and him saying would you like to smoke marihuana. I happen to have a little. Rather than a guy coming in representing one of the three major television networks who wants you to put on a show for him so he can use you for his own devices.

Right? Mr. Missett came in and he did not want to just sit down and have a smoke with me. It was part of his job. He was going to use me. The fact that he misrepresented himself in terms of what his product finally was perhaps gives a kind of conman aspect to it. Mr. BROWN. You feel he did misrepresent himself regarding the results of the program?

Mr. SPECTOR. I don't thing there is any doubt. I saw the program. Mr. BROWN. Would you elaborate on that and tell me in what way? Mr. SPECTOR. I sure will. According to what he said to me about the aims of that program, none of those were fulfilled by the program. First of all, his first two sessions were the most sensationalistic, stereotyped, kinds of trash you could ever see. Then what does he do? He says what are the views of the members of the community?

He interviews a narcotics agent who thinks the laws are fine and what we ought to do is to go out and get more of those buzzards. He interviewed two experts. None of the experts said anything about the marihuana laws being liberalized.

His so-called documentation of the fact that marihuana is not harmful or anything was very ambiguous. What he showed essentially were some very kind of young, immature people, who by almost anybody's standards, no matter how experienced they were, had a very naive and adolescent attitude toward the whole matter.

Mr. BROWN. Were they a clean-cut type?

Mr. SPECTOR. I guess they were. You could not see their faces; right? But most of them-those of them who looked closely and saw them could decide. I was kind of back on my heels. But I think definitely they misrepresented. Also I think there is much difference—a tremendous difference, when a person offers you in a social setting if you would like to join him in a kind of activity like this, it is tremendously different than somebody coming in trying to con you into doing it so he can use you for his own ends. Whether or not the law distinguishes between those two in terms of what laws were violated, I don't know, but I distinguish quite clearly between them. Mr. BROWN. Do you see a distinction between Mr. Missett suggesting this act as a representative of the network, as an individual, or as a friend?

Mr. SPECTOR. He certainly was not suggesting it as a friend. I hadn't ever seen him before. He certainly was not asking me to join him in a social situation in which we sat down and smoked and talked to one another and became buddies.

He wanted to use me. When my friends-when I am sitting with my friends and he asks me if I want to smoke, he is not using me for his own ends. We are doing something together. It is like playing golf.

Mr. BROWN. My question relates to the difference between Mr. Misset as an individual and a representative of the network. Is there a distinction in your mind between these two things, between the network or the station wanting this and Mr. Missett just wanting it on his own?

Mr. SPECTOR. If Mr. Missett just wanted it on his own, I don't know. It seems to me if that were the case he was the only person at CBS that had any interest in doing this, it would never have gotten on TV on the other hand, it got on TV. It came across the CBS thing. I don't have the information to judge whether it was a corporate decision or whether it was an erratic act of an individual.

Mr. BROWN. I have just two other questions, Mr. Chairman, if I may ask them quickly.

First, was your education financed by your family, yourself or a scholarship?

Mr. SPECTOR. My graduate education was financed by my family and by my own resources. My graduate education was financed by a fellowship from the Russell Sage Foundation for the study of sociology of law, the sociology of law and social science.

Mr. BROWN. With reference to your oath, you do believe in God, don't you, Mr. Spector?

Mr. SPECTOR. I beg your pardon?

Mr. BROWN. You do believe in God, don't you?

Mr. SPECTOR. Which oath was that?

Mr. BROWN. The oath that you took when you were sworn by the chairman ?

Mr. SPECTOR. Of course.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you.

Mr. Moss (presiding). Mr. Keith.

Mr. KEITH. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Do I understand that what concerns you about this situation is the attempt to get you to violate the law?

Mr. SPECTOR. They certainly did do that, didn't they?

Mr. KEITH. Yes, I think they did. But in your view, as a sociologist, that is one of the things that you find most disturbing?

Mr. SPECTOR. I find it not as a sociologist, as a person, as a citizen of a community. The thing that I find most disturbing is not that just any individual would come off the street and try and induce me to commit any crime.

Mr. KEITH. I see, I think in his view you were not just an individual off the streets. By your own admission

Mr. SPECTOR. He was an individual off the street. If he were, it would not have bothered to. There are guys who try and sell you some proposition all the time.

Mr. KEITH. But he, in the relationship spoke to you as a news reporter for a local station with national affiliates. But in his view, it seems to me, from this discussion, he did not think of you as a naive, young, innocent individual. He thought of you as one who was not above partaking of marihuana.

Mr. SPECTOR. He found out differently, didn't he, in terms of being willing to do it in television.

Mr. KEITH. Yes. But certainly as he looked for someone who he could use on his program to show that there was marihuana available on the site or nearby the site of the university, he went to someone who was knowledgeable of that situation.

Mr. SPECTOR. Who was that?

Mr. KEITH. You.

Mr. SPECTOR. No. Did you ask him? Or why don't you ask me how it is he came to see me?

Mr. KEITH. I don't know.

Mr. SPECTOR. That is what you are trying to find out.

Mr. KEITH. But apparently you just told us here you did occasionally use this?

Mr. SPECTOR. That is right.

Mr. KEITH. Therefore, it is not as though he was inducing you to commit a crime of which you were not already guilty. Is it a question of degree?

Mr. SPECTOR. I am sorry, I am not a lawyer.

Mr. KEITH. I am not a lawyer either. But it does seem to me that it is a little different in going to you. This is not the main point but I felt in fairness to him, of whom you have been somewhat criticalbecause you say he represents a corporate entity and speaks for CBS locally. You, too, speak for the educational world.

Mr. SPECTOR. No I don't. I often speak against it.

Mr. KEITH. Pardon?

Mr. SPECTOR. I speak only for myself.

Mr. KEITH. But you are one that I look at-well just a moment ago, you told me your salary when you went full time would be in the vicinity of $9,600 a year so to me you have not only an identity as an individual, but you are part of a very honorable, highly regarded educational institution.

I feel-I just feel that you are the one, if I were going to have my daughter go to McGill, instead of to Smith, I would like to feel that members of the faculty were not ones who would, having once assumed the role of an instructor, continue to let the public know, and particularly the student body know, they were using marihuana occasionally any more than I think CBS should have its people going out and trying to show as a news program or as part of a news program something which they have sort of indirectly staged and put on because they think something needs to be done about it.

I think there are sociological problems in each of these situations. Mr. SPECTOR. I would suggest that, as you have indicated, there are different matters under discussion; right?

That is if you someday sit on a subcommittee that is investigating marihuana use among faculty members at universities in the United States then you and I would have something to talk about, about my

participating in drug use. Then I might here very well refuse to talk to you about it.

When you say what is the terrible thing that happened, that is, is my friend who offers me a smoke any less guilty of inducing me to smoke than Jack Missett, or when you say what difference does it make, he is not introducing him to a life of crime, the guy has already broken the law-OK?

That is what you are saying. You are saying you have already smoked. What are you getting upset about? The guy tells you he wants you to smoke? You smoked before. OK, big deal.

Suppose I got arrested when he asked me to do it. Then it is a big deal; right? Suppose those kids get in trouble, those kids whose names have not been brought up here and who have, from what little I know, gone through a lot of anxiety.

Whose fault is that? Is it their fault because they broke the law? Is it somebody else's fault because he conned them into it?

He did not just offer them. From what he told me, he tried to coerce me by appealing to my sense of letting down because if I didn't do it. He said to me you are against the laws; aren't you? Why don't you do it?

Mr. KEITH. I don't intend to pursue it any longer. We could have a discussion about this. I agree with your protests concerning the possibility that he might have taken others and encouraged them to do this when they might not have otherwise done it, incidentally. I think that is rather despicable.

Mr. SPECTOR. Would you also agree

Mr. KEITH. I don't think it is quite as fraught with social and moral implications in this instance. There are legal implications, but there are not the social or moral implications there could have been had he taken some naive, innocent person.

Mr. SPECTOR. Í disagree with you. He subjected those people by his own hand at the risk of subjected them to the risk of being punished. OK? It does not matter whether they have been in that position before. He placed them in the position of jeopardy. I think there are tremendous questions of responsibility and morality involved.

I disagree with you entirely.

Mr. KEITH. That is your privilege. I think you have a point.
Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moss. The gentleman from Florida.

Mr. ROGERS. As I understood it, this witness came of his own volition to try to be helpful to this committee. It is my understanding from the testimony, the conclusions I draw from the testimony, that there is a direct conflict of testimony.

Mr. Missett maintains he did not ask or try to set up a party for filming, and of course the witness before us gives testimony to the contrary.

It is my understanding that in the committee files from hearings held in Chicago, although I was not present, that there is additional evidence from other witnesses whose names have not been made available but who were participants, which corroborates the testimony of this witness?

Mr. Moss. The Chair would prefer the gentleman to raise the question in connection with an executive session. There has been an agree

ment made as to the current status of the transcripts made in Chicago. Mr. ROGERS. Thank

you.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I wonder if you might have patience with me for a minute to make an observation, if I might.

Mr. Moss. Yes.

Mr. BROWN. I would certainly like to see some committee of the U.S. Congress accept the suggestion made by Mr. Spector, the present witness, and make some exploratory inquiries into the extent of faculty participation in marihuana usage on campus.

I think we have every right to do this, not just from the standpoint of the health of the students in America, but also from the standpoint that many of these faculty members and many of these universities are now the beneficiaries of considerable amounts of Federal funds for support of their educational programs.

As a representative of a half million people in Ohio who are expected to pay taxes to support this kind of program for which we just voted a substantial appropriation earlier this week, I am a little disturbed at the thought that any faculty members, supported by Federal funds, and any institutions supported by Federal funds, would tolerate faculty members who feel that the casual violation of the law is significantly different from the violation of the law as a result of inducement by an individual or a business corporation.

I would hope that such a hearing might at some time in the future be held by this Congress. At that time, perhaps Mr. Spector would have the opportunity to extend his views a little further on this subject. Mr. ROGERS. Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Moss. I would say to the gentleman from Ohio I think he serves on the committee that has jurisdiction to make such a study. In fact, he serves on two committees that would, in my judgment, have the necessary jurisdiction; this committee and the Committee on Government Operations. I think the views expressed ought to be brought to the attention of those two committees.

I would add this, however, I think the point of concern here is the fact that a broadcaster enjoys a unique role in our society. We regulate, at public expense, the use of the broadcast spectrum, whether it is for television or for radio.

At no charge, we regulate them in the public interest. That should be the guiding principle behind the operator of a station at all times. It is my judgment that it is difficult, indeed, to place "Pot Party at a University" if it was arranged, as has been indicated by Mr. Spector, in the category of public interest or public service.

I cannot conceive of a public interest that is served by soliciting people, whatever their past practices, to deliberately violate a law in order to produce a commercially marketable product.

That appears to be what occurred here. It is so alleged by Mr. Spector in his statement. Certainly the fact of the production cannot be challenged. I think every member of this committee has seen the programs. The fact that normal methods of exploiting that product were utilized cannot be challenged, because it was advertised in major media in the viewing area.

That question is before this committee. That question together with the responsible regulation and policing by the agency to which we have