The Mail

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The June 4, 1949 issue of the Harvard CRIMSON, containing two articles by Mr. William S. Fairfield, has been called to my attention.

Mr. Fairfield's references to the Federal Bureau of investigation are inaccurate, distorted and untrue. Since it is only fair that you give this communication the same prominence which you afforded the statements of Mr. Fairfield, I shall necessarily be brief in my comments concerning his articles.

The Federal Bureau of Investigation has not "moved in on Yale University," as alleged by Mr. Fairfield. Special Agents of the FBI do, of necessity, in making investigations into the qualifications of applicants for employment in various capacities in the Federal Government, contact officials of educational institutions from time to time. In many instances the names of such officials are given as references by the persons seeking employment. In other types of cases investigated by the FBI it is, of course, necessary at times to contact officials and representatives of educational institutions.

The statement by Mr. Fairfield that "New Haven Agents wander in and out of Provost Edgar S. Furniss' office 'every day,'" is typical of the author's inability either to accurately secure or report facts. Actually Provost Furniss is contacted only a few thues during the course of a year by the Special Agents of the FBI and then only in the course of official business growing out of the responsibilities placed upon this Bureau by law or Presidential Directive.

The author's statement that "for every known Agent of the FBI, there are several undercover agents and general informants in the area" is entirely fallacious, as is his following statement that "These are the men they suspect of watching their homes and in one case of opening their mail." These statements are entirely inaccurate.

Two of the individuals mentioned in the story by Mr. Fairfield on page three of the Harvard CRIMSON have advised that they were mis-quoted.

The weakness of Mr. Fairfield's statements is proven by the number of times he employs such subterfuges as "probably based on FBI files;" "From the remarks . . . it is evident . . . that the informant had some connection with the FBI;" "the Provost implies;" and so forth.

The files of the FBI have not been opened to Yale or any other educational institution. The FBI has not influenced Yale academic and political activities. The FBI does not have undercover agents at Yale University. The FBI does not sanction and is unaware of "scare" tactics, as alleged. The FBI does not investigate applicants for teaching positions in Yale or any other college or university.

In view of the inaccuracies and unfairness of the Fairfield articles, it will be appreciated if a suitable retraction can be carried in the next issue of the Harvard CRIMSON. J. Edgar Hoover,   Director, Federal Bureau of Investigation.

Despite Mr. Hoover's letter, the CRIMSON stands by its two stories on FBI activity at Yale. The following paragraph by paragraph analysis of Mr. Hoover's letter shows wherein we believe Mr. Hoover errs:

Paragraph 3: The articles specifically stated that this kind of investigation was not under attack: "no one had objections to the FBI's loyalty checks on men who had apphed for government jobs. These checks are made in the open by the known FBI agents."

Paragraph 4: Provost Furniss' exact statement, as he sat in his office, was: "These gum-shoes are in and out of here every day." At the time, the conversation was concerned strictly with the FBI. The "every day" was placed in quotes purposely to indicate that it was not the author's report of a fact, but his repetition of what had been told him, in this case by the man most qualified to make such a statement.

Paragraph 5: The first statement was based on the opinions of such men as Provost Furniss, Professor of Philosophy Paul Weiss, Robert S. Cohen, and in fact most of the 30-odd men with whom the author spoke at Yale. Moreover, the FBI documents made public at the Judith Coplon trial last week prove that the FBI does use a large number of "confidential informants."

Mr. Hoover has absolutely no basis for attacking the second statement. The names of the frightened and suspicious young men were omitted to protect them. Since Mr. Hoover does not know who they are, how can he claim to know their suspicions?

Paragraph 6: Since Mr. Hoover has declined to name these individuals or to state in what manner they were misquoted, his statement cannot be answered.

Paragraph 7: Mr. Hoover here refers to the Cohen case, the one case in which FBI interference could not be proved. In his entire letter he never mentions the other two cases reported, in each of which FBI involvement was definitely stated. In the Cohen case, all the evidence did, and still does point to the FBI. A New Haven FBI spokesman himself said that he knew of no organization besides the FBI which could have made the secret report on Mr. Cohen. The only further evidence we could possibly obtain would be either confessions by FBI agents that they had violated their own code of ethics or identification of the informant by Provost Furniss. And the Provest would have to break an oath to do the latter.

Paragraph 8: Mr. Hoover's first statement here was neither mentioned nor implied in either of the articles. As for his second statement, even if Mr. Hoover could disprove any part of the two articles, the prevalent fear at Yale would still indicate that the FBI is influencing academic and political activities.

The heart of Mr. Hoover's misunderstanding, as demonstrated in the rest of paragraph eight, lies in his statement that "The FBI does not sanction and is unaware of 'scare' tactics, as alleged." This was, in fact, one of the primary lessons for writing the story. The CRIMSON had hoped that Mr. Hoover would severly spank his errant agents, not rash to their defense.   Williams S. Fairfield,   (For the Editors.)