The Mail

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

It is evident that the actions of Senator McCarthy have been in the past, and are continuing to be, too rashly considered by the press, and consequently, by Americans in general. The two contrasting opinions, the one condoning him, the other condemning him, omit any sort of rational criteria. The former attaches its validity to the fact that the senator in question is most assertively anti-communist. Therefore, they reason, he is right, and they seem to evade any ethical or moral judgment, as irrelevant to the asumption that he is essentially good. The latter, meanwhile, attacks him from the opposite standpoint: from claims that the senator violates the 5th amendment, its damnation extends to the point of accusations of violation of the entire Bill of Rights. This, in a nutshell, is the opinion of the Harvard CRIMSON; although succeeding as an instrument of influence, it fails well as an instrument of Harvard's motto, "Veritas." The extreme bias of its presentation, regardless of its content, has, I regret, only alienated a few; it intrigues most. The chief device employed by the CRIMSON to further its causes is the non-recognition of fair criticism, as well as of letters to the editors, unless they coincide with the doctrines of CRIMSONism." Concerning McCarthy, its stand refuses to admit of any honesty or sincerity on the part of the accused, assuming that he is somewhat of a glorious revolutionist.

J. B. S. Haldane's definition of liberty presents itself as an adequate starting point: "Liberty is the practical recognition of human polymorphism." Human polymorphism indicates various forms of differences; assumedly, these may be physical, mental, spiritual, technical, psychological, or political. Hence its implication is that variation in human achievement must not be surpressed; its goal is a successful integration. From a political standpoint, the question now arises: how can dissenting, irreconcilable theories of government be dealt with? Since the two under our consideration, democracy and communism, cannot be dually recognized, this necessitates a conflict, tying in with the "practicality" of the recognition. Now, we may generalize, the greater percentage of Russians are suffering under the severe oppression of a smaller percentage of communists. Aside from the obvious moral implication here, it is evident that the tyrannical smaller group is denying, or at least controlling, the liberty of its masses; yet are we not, in denouncing the communists, denying their liberty to do this? It would seem therefore that we merely befriend liberty in a relative way; i.e. by granting the liberty (within the limits of law) to all in accord with us; Thus, in opposing communism as such, we are also a tyranny, and thus cannot pretend to represent true liberty in the first place (e.g. in being as supra-liberal minded; as the CRIMSON, so as to exclude opposed views).

It is here that Senator McCarthy fits in. It would seem that those who unthinkingly or sneeringly damn him should consider more fully the relativity of liberty. Complete liberty is impossible today; unrestrained, it could only produce chaos. Thus Senator McCarthy's actions may be legitimatize in consideration of his purpose. Tyrannically enforcing a democracy, his ethics may often be questionable, although they are essentially adapted to a useful end. This not only requires, but insists on, the harnessing of certain liberties, if they stray beyond their bounds. Yet this must not be taken to mean that every action of the Senator's is of unquestioned standing; I merely suggest that "he" not be considered with a biased opinion, either all good or all bad, but I plead with the press in general, particularly the CRIMSON, to judge him more in the light of each action, as a valid attempt, directed either toward a useful or arbitrary end. Perhaps this will lead to a recognition of his non-attempt to inflict the injury known as "McCarthyism," and the positive attempt at safeguarding democracy, regardless of whether a good is morally acceptable if achieved through invalid means.

I submit this letter to your liberal-minded scrutiny. Christiane Gaugler   Radcliffe '55