Political Scare Hurts University, New York Times Survey claims

Current pressures limiting individual freedom of thought and expression have affected Harvard more than any other college or university in New England, according to a New York Times survey published yesterday.

When queried yesterday, those who researched the Times' article pointed out that Harvard had always had more political vitality than other New England schools, so that their conclusion was relative to those colleges that "had never had any life at all."

These effects were considered mild, however, compared to the widening tendency in the rest of the country "toward passive acceptance of the status quo, conformity, and a narrowing of the area of tolerance in which students, faculty and administrators feel free to speak, act, and think independently."

Students and faculty spokesmen questioned by the Times' survey here said "that organizations still were willing to speak out in a nonconformist vein, but individuals tended to be more reticent."

This was in line with the attitude found in the 72 other colleges studied throughout the country where the Times found that individuals are inhibited from speaking out on controversial issues by fear of: "1. Social disapproval; 2. A 'pink' or Communist label; 3. Criticism by regents, legislature and friends; 4. Rejection for further study at graduate schools; and 5. The spotlight of investigation by Government and private industry for post-graduate employment and service with the armed forces."

The last was especially significant in New England "with the chief sufferers seniors who are thinking of Government jobs after graduation."

The growing atmosphere of restricted thought and expression was found to be mostly self-censorship which took the forms of: 1. A reluctance to speak out on controversial issues in and out of class; 2. A reluctance to handle currently unpopular concepts even in classroom work where they may be part of the study program; 3. An unwillingness to join student political clubs; 4. Neglect of humanitarian causes because they may be suspect in the minds of politically unsophisticated officials."

Also, "5. An emphasis on lack of affiliations; 6. An unusual amount of seriocomic joking about this or that official investigating committee 'getting you'; 7. A shying away, both physically and intellectually from any association with the words, 'liberal,' 'peace,' 'freedom,' and from other classmates of a liberal stripe; 8. A sharp turning inward to local college problems, to the exclusion of broader current questions.