In January 2015, when Northwestern University announced a $101 million donation from Roberta “Bertie” Buffett Elliott—a 1954 graduate of the school and     investment guru Warren Buffett’s younger sister—there were a lot of happy folks on campus.



                              For those most closely associated with the institute, the bonanza had turned into a problem. It looked to them like their proudly independent research     center was about to be co-opted by the federal government’s military and foreign policy establishment.



                                              Among their objections: Eikenberry’s lack of traditional academic and research credentials (He has two master’s degrees but no PhD, and, though he teaches     at Stanford, they said, he is not a “regular member” of the faculty there.) But their most serious concern was about Eikenberry’s apparent view of the     humanities as a tool. Citing an appearance he made at a 2014 Chicago Humanities Festival event, they wrote that he “advocates instrumentalizing the     humanities and social sciences research to advance U.S. soft power.”

—Forty-six Northwestern University faculty members in a letter to the administration­

                                              That speech is up on YouTube, so you can still see Eikenberry explaining “soft power” as the ability to “attract and co-opt, as opposed to coerce.”



                                              “Soft power is about culture, values, and smart, nuanced foreign policy,” the former general says. “Its fount is the magnetic potential of the arts and     humanities.” He adds that it’s a lot cheaper than “hard power,” which in Afghanistan was costing about a million dollars a year for each soldier or marine.



                                              Eikenberry’s controversial stint as military leader turned ambassador ended after his classified complaints to Washington about the inadequacies of     then-president Hamid Karzai were leaked to the New York Times. He didn’t return the Reader‘s calls for comment.



                                              In their February letter, faculty explained their stand this way: “We believe that it would be irresponsible to remain silent while the university’s core     mission of independent research and teaching becomes identified with U.S. military and foreign policy.”



                                              But it looks like that might be exactly what the administration has in mind. In their own “open letter” response, Schapiro and Linzer said Eikenberry stood     out among the other candidates for his “access to a broad array of scholars, government officials, and world leaders,” and that he will “broaden access”     for NU faculty and students.



                                              Eikenberry is scheduled to begin work at NU in September; his appointment was on the agenda at a faculty senate meeting earlier this month. Linzer, who was     there to discuss it, said the idea behind the appointment was not to add another faculty researcher, but to “search for a director that would allow us to     have a global impact. . . . At the end of the day, Morty and I decided Karl Eikenberry was the person. . . . The goal was to expand what we do, not     replicate.”



                                              Which prompted this question from Spanish professor Jorge Coronado: “You’re saying he’s a great guy, and he’s got all these contacts. Is this the criteria     for new positions going forward?”

An online petition at change.org seeks withdrawal of Eikenberry’s appointment and the establishment of a new, faculty-approved search committee. v