NYC Board Charges Reds Hurt Academic Liberties

The New York City Board of Education has discovered a new definition of academic freedom--one which has enabled it to suspend 40-odd public school teachers this year after investigations which all sides have conceded to be scrupulously fair.

In what is a turnabout of the standard procedure, Superintendent of Schools William Jansen, in opposing reticent and Fifth Amendment witnesses charged that "academic freedom means freedom to search for the truth and such freedom is not exercised by persons who are bound to a certain ideology or who belong to a conspiracy that justifies lying as a means of accomplishing its result. Academic freedom," he added criticising insubordinate teachers who have given ambiguous testimony, "is a right that belongs to people of integrity."

There are three ways under existing New York statues by which teachers may be fired: (1) active membership in the Communist party or any other group that advocates the overthrow of democratic government by force (including Fascist and Klan groups), (2) insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher in refusing to answer or answering falsely questions asked by the Superintendent of Schools or his representative, (3) refusal to answer questions asked by legislative committee on the ground of self-incrimination.

New York offers more incentive to witnesses than most municipalities: "Former members of the Communist Party who have severed their connections in good faith have nothing to fear if they tell the truth," Jansen continues. "A number of persons who were called in for questioning and gave straightforward answers about past membership are now teaching in our school system." Teachers in this category are believed to number 41.

Saul Moskoff, Assistant Corporation Counsel, who is conducting the present inquiry in behalf of the Superintendent, referred to a 1939 law for legal precedent. The Devany Law required all applicants for employment and promotion in the school system to answer questions about Communist, Fascist and Nazi ties.

According to Moskoff the major problem of the investigators is the kind of subversive being sought and dismissed; "It is plain that any person who actively supports a totalitarian government or who seeks to impose a totalitarian government on the United States by membership . . . in such organization, is unfit to teach in our schools. It is recognized that in our democracy individual citizens are free to believe as they wish, even in Communism, Fascism, the Ku Klux Klan, or Nazism, but it is not conceded that such right to such belief includes the right to crystallize these beliefs into action by way of the formations of . . . conspiracies to advocate and to take steps in an attempt to replace our democratic form of government with a totalitarian state."

Before determining disciplinary action, Moskoff attempted to discover not only past membership in subversive organizations but also the extent and duration of such membership and whether the severance was complete, final, and in good faith.

Not A Trial

"Recognizing that the interview before me is not a trial or hearing and that a teacher participating . . . is not under charges of any kind, every effort is made to keep from the public generally and even from other employees of the Board (of Education) the fact that a teacher is so summoned," Moskoff said. And the evidence bears out the great secrecy of the interviews at which a lawyer may accompany the summoned teacher. If any charges are levied against a teacher he has the right to a public trial, to counsel, to confront and cross-examine accusers and to testify in his own defense. He cannot be fired until his guilt has been proven before a court of law with rights of appeal and reinstatement should dismissal be held improper.

A question often asked of Moskoff is why a teacher does not have a right to refuse to give evidence against himself when interrogated by the school authorities. In a recent edition of Strengthening Democracy, a Board of Education publication, Moskoff answers:

"It must be remembered that the relationship between the Superintendent of Schools and a teacher is that of a supervisor and subordinate, not that of judge and defendent, or legislative inquirer and a subpoenaed witness. As an employee, a teacher owes a broader obligation to his employer to make revelation of the facts when his conduct is questioned than does a witness in a trial or before a Congressional committee.

"The Superintendent, acting for the employer, is entitled to the truth from the employee so that he may determine whether the employee's conduct justifies his continued employment."