Reveille for Liberals

Back in the thirties, when communism meant waving a flag for Loyalist, Spain and damning fascism, when, Russia was bravely engaged in a government experiment, the American communist party may have been an intellectual and emotional gymnasium for the professors who jointed its ranks. Today, the clean battle of ideas has turned into a muddy wrestling match for survival. The grand experiment has fizzled; Russia is clearly an enemy and the communist party line no longer encloses the liberal camp. All this should be obvious to anyone who has been reading the newspapers during the past few years; it seems quite puzzling that Wendell Furry has not realized it.

We have read Furry's testimony before the House Un-American Activities Committee and before Boston reporters. Each time, when questioned about communists, their activities and political purposes, Furry has acted like a Rip Van Winkle, who has been mentally asleep for the past decade and a half. Asked about his activities with a front group in 1948, Furry kept talking about Loyalist Spain. To the Congressmen, he insisted that American propaganda was distorting Soviet actions and he accused this government of persecuting communists for their political beliefs.

Furry's testimony was riddled with inconsistencies. At times, he made short speeches about the rights of governmental bodies to inquire into beliefs. Yet, he answered all questions concerning his beliefs against Fascism, his beliefs about justice, his beliefs about Loyalist Spain; he only clutched his constitutional rights when asked about possible communist connections.

Furry should be no here to America's liberals. His testimony was a model of poor judgment and naivete. His ambiguity has been the foundation for towering conjecture by committee members and newspapers alike, both of whom have visions of dank communist calls still functioning here. After reading all the information, one wonders whether they are correct. At no time, did Furry make a positive statement to dispell this idea. Throughout, it has been a case of saving his skin at the expense of Harvard.

We have stated our belief that Furry should not be fired. Although throughout the past week he has been both ignorant and ill-advised, there is no proof of misconduct nor neglect of duty. Until this guilt can be legally established, we believe Furry should neither be ousted not temporarily suspended.

No Blanket Rule

We take this position, not because we admire Furry's conduct, but because the principle involved is essential to American education. Furry's case, and that of any other professor who refuses to testify, must be judged on its merits, rather than on some banket rule that expels a man who falls back on the first and fifth amendments.

Like it or not, the University must hold to this principle. Not knowing just why Furry refused to testify, one can condemn him only for his shabby logic, not for any imagined crimes. In short, the University has been the unwitting victim of both Furry's speech and silence; now, it must take a double beating by refusing to throw him out to satisfy public opinion.

The testimony by Furry as well as the other professors before the Un-American Activities Committee in no way assuaged fears about Congressional investigation. We commend the committee for its fair treatment of its witness, but that is a small part of the whole investigation. The investigation, itself, has done more harm to American education than the dubious information has helped. The Committee uncovered a history of communist infiltration into education all right, but the narrative comes to an abrupt halt in the 40's. Besides Furry and one professor at Temple who may or may not be communist, the Committee found no one who is in the party today.

Regrettably, the press, especially in this area, has taken testimony of the 30's and discussed it without references to time. Not a single newspaper has run stories about the remarkably small number of communists in education during the 30's. Rather, they all try to create the impression that there are still many active in universities, an impression commanding no supporting evidence. We believe the Committee must have realized their work would be reported in this manner; that they went ahead is an indication that headlines are more important to them than a sane climate in American universities.

The past few weeks have been difficult for education. For Harvard, the situation has and will continue to be even more difficult; the University must stand by a man who in testimony and interview has ignored its welfare.