that the Vekhi authors were simply morernmoderate socialists than the Bolsheviks,rnthat perhaps they were like the Mensheviksrnor the Social Revolutionaries. Notrnso: Vekhi rejected not just Bolshevism,rnbut all forms of revolutionary Marxismrnand populism. In 1918, after the fullrnhorror of Leninist rule had becomernmanifest, one Vekhi contributor wroternthat “the Russian socialists, had theyrnfound themselves in power, would eitherrnhave had to remain simple chatterers,rndoing nothing to put their ideas intornpractice, or else to have done from Arnto Z everything that the Bolsheviks did.”rnSome of the most fascinating passagesrnin Vekhi are about economics.rnBoth Nikolai Berdiaev the philosopherrnand Semen Frank the economist sawrneconomic production as analogous tornspiritual and cultural creativity; bothrnsaw production as more valuable thanrndistribution; and both rebuked the socialistsrnfor reversing this priority.rnBerdiaev said that “in the thoughts andrnfeelings of the Russian intelligentsia, thernclaims of distribution and equalizationrnalways outweighed the claims of productionrnand creation. This appliesrnequally to the material and the spiritualrnrealms.”rnFrank said that “distribution . . . is arnmechanical rearrangement of readymadernelements, in contrast to production,rnthe creative formation of the new.rnAnd socialism is a world view in whichrnthe idea of distribution has replaced thernidea of production. . . . The intelligentsiarnis almost as unconcerned aboutrnspiritual production, the accumulationrnof ideal values, as it is about materialrnproduction; the development of science,rnliterature, art, and culture in general arernmuch less dear to it than the distributionrnof ready-made spiritual goods tornthe masses. . . . It is not the . . . scholar,rnartist, inventor or philosopher who earnsrnthe honorable title of cultural worker,rnbut. . . the teacher, popularizer or propagandist.”rnUnlike socialism, the Vekhi paradigmrnis quite hospitable to entrepreneurshiprnand private property rights. Unlike eitherrnthe socialists or the Slavophile reactionaries,rnthe Vekhi authors explicitlyrnopposed the traditional peasant communesrnin favor of individual ownershiprnof land. In fact, one reason to readrnVekhi today is as an antidote to the tendencyrnto classify all Russian thinkers asrneither Westernizers or Slavophiles—withrnthe latter usually cast as the bad guys.rnThe Vekhi authors don’t fit neatly intorneither of these categories. They sawrnthemselves as Russian nationalists, butrnthey rejected the Slavophiles’ deliberaternisolation from Western culture.rnThey were eager to learn from Westernrnexamples such as the English constitutionalrntradition or the German universityrnsystem. In fact, they accused the revolutionariesrnof being too narrow in theirrnborrowings from the West, of crudelyrnimitating the Utopian socialism of thernearly 19th century and ignoring everythingrnelse.rnWithin their own lifetimes, the authorsrnof Vekhi failed in just about everythingrnthey were trying to do. Theyrnfailed to steer the moderate wing of thernKadet Party away from its fatal alliancernwith the hard left. They failed to persuadernthe alienated intelligentsia to workrnfor constitutional reform within thernczarist system. They failed to inoculaterntheir country against the epidemic thatrnthey saw coming. On the other hand,rnthey were vindicated by the fulfillmentrnof their darkest prophecies.rnBut in the long run, the Vekhi grouprnmay experience the same fate as one ofrnthe Western writers who influencedrnthem, like them an early opponent of arnseemingly irresistible revolution: EdmundrnBurke. In the I790’s it seemedrnthat Burke’s ideas were also doomed forrnthe trash-bin of history. But it turnedrnout that his Reflections on the Revolutionrnin France enjoyed its greatest influencernnot in the I790’s but manyrndecades after his death. In the 21st centuryrnRussia may see a similar resurrection:rnthat of a moral and social visionrnbased on Orthodox Christian humanism.rnLawrence A. Uzzell is vice-presidentrnof the Jamestown Foundationrnin Washington, D.C. He writesrnfrom Moscow, where he is openingrna branch of the foundation.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnAFFIRMATIVE-ACTION SOUPrnThe University of Wisconsin’s so-called “Madison Plan” has come under attack in recent months for proving to result in what it wasrnintended to result in all along: preferential treatment of minorities in admissions, financial aid, and hiring.rnAs reported by the Wisconsin State Journal last April, a 1981 graduate of the UW-Madison Law School has filed a lawsuit againstrnthe school’s hiring practices. E. H. Reise, who graduated in the top five percent of his class and who has had a “lifelong ambition” tornteach at Madison, has asked that the university be ordered to hire him and to pay him millions of dollars in damages for illegally discriminatingrnagainst white men by hiring only women and minorities as full-time professors for its law school since 1986. “Under thernMadison Plan,” said Reise’s attorney to the federal court jury hearing the case, “no white Caucasian male could be hired. The fundsrnwere only available for minorities and, in some cases, women.” Law school Dean Daniel Bernstine acknowledged in previous testimonyrnthat the school has received $640,750 to hire women and minorities since the Madison Plan was introduced in 1988—moneyrnwhich, as Bernstine admitted in court, would not have been granted to hire white men.rnThe university’s student recruitment policy, “Design for Diversity,” has also come under attack. As reported last April in Madison’srnCapital Times, UW regent Phyllis Krutsch has questioned whether “Instead of recruiting qualified students, [we are] recruitingrnstudents who are unprepared?” James Sulton, special assistant to the UW president on minority affairs, claims such students arernadmitted “only if the university has in place support services” for them. Krutsch also expressed concern about the fact that 50 percentrnof the aid earmarked for minority or disadvantaged students is awarded to out-of-state residents rather than Wisconsin residents,rnwho are supposed to have first dibs on the money. Katherine Lyall, UW System President, replied that the “Design for Diversity” planrn”isn’t soup yet, but we’re going to persist until it is.”rn44/CHRONICLESrnrnrn