The Search

For well over a month, U.S. colleges & universities have been waiting for the day when the new Congress would begin its search for campus subversives. Last week the day finally arrived. First target for Indiana's Senator William E. Jenner, chairman of a special internal security subcommittee: New York City. First witnesses: two professors and two minor officials from Queens, Brooklyn, and City Colleges.

The hearing proved to be even messier than expected. On the ground that his answer might incriminate him, each of the four witnesses refused to say whether or not he had ever been a Communist, but each had quite a bit to say about the investigation itself. In a prepared statement, full of sound & fury, Oscar H. Shaftel, of the Queens English department, called it an "inquisition ... a bludgeon against academic freedom . . . I am sick." said he, "of teachers huddling ... in fear, hoping maybe a McCarran, a McCarthy or a Velde committee may overlook the bad thing they once said about fascism, or the time they chose to teach The Grapes of Wrath in class . . ."

Slander & Innuendo. Furthermore, added Shaftel at the hearing, "I cannot imagine an academic administrator of any sense and magnitude and dignity saying to Sean O'Casey. . . : 'You may not teach the drama,' or telling Picasso: 'You cannot teach art in the United States.'" But, asked Jenner, what if a teacher "slants his teaching toward the Communist Party, which party's avowed purpose is the overthrow of this Government?" That, replied Shaftel, is something that "must be settled by the academic profession . . . This line of questioning is improper and does harm to the teaching profession."

At week's end, the New York City colleges were still trying to decide whether to suspend the four witnesses for defying the Senate, and other colleges across the nation were still trying to decide what attitude to take toward the investigations now getting under way.

More than one U.S. educator felt he had good reason for fear. "You have today," said President Henry M. Wriston of Brown, "a bullying of the intellectuals of the United States which is intolerable . . . Whenever by slander, by innuendo, by rumor, investigators start to throw mud at the colleges, then every alumnus in every institution of the United States should rise up and say, this has got to stop.

"Every alumnus ought to look at every investigation of colleges with a jaundiced eye and say to the man: ' What is your particular capacity to determine the intellectual content of the modern world?'. . . But to call everyone who doesn't think just as we do a Socialist, and then to say there is no difference between a Socialist and a Communist, will destroy higher education in America."

Wisdom & Good Citizenship. President Wriston's strong words were undoubtedly justified. However well-intentioned the investigators might be, they are bound to seem like bullies to a profession that is already much harassed. Nevertheless, U.S. educators could be sure of one thing: the bellicose attitudes of Jenner's first four witnesses would hardly help their cause. Last week, in the Harvard Alumni Bulletin, two Harvard law school professors--Zechariah Chafee Jr. and Arthur E. Sutherland--gave their colleagues some wise advice on the ground rules of being a witness:

In deciding whether or not to answer a question, said the professors, "the underlying principle to remember ... is the duty of the citizen to cooperate in government. He has no option to say: 'I do not approve of this grand jury or that congressional committee; I dislike its members and its objectives; therefore, I will not tell it what I know.'

"There are several current misconceptions about the testimonial privilege to remain silent. The witness is not the ultimate judge of the tendency of an answer to incriminate him . . . Mere embarrassment is not an excuse: the witness must be subjecting himself to some degree of danger of conviction of a criminal offense . . . The fact that disclosure of present or past association with the Communist Party will cause trouble for the witness with his church, his lodge, his union, his employer or his university does not excuse him from answering questions about it when subpoenaed before a competent body ... It is not only a legal requirement but also a principle of wisdom and good citizenship for an individual ... to answer questions frankly and honestly."

This file is automatically generated by a robot program, so reader's discretion is required.