ALGER HISS

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The saint-sinner dichotomy in your article "The News from Nassau" is grossly oversimplified and indiscriminate. "Among people who understand the meaning of academic freedom, Princeton's uncompromising attitude won added respect," you say; and futher: "Among those unaware of the issue's significance, the 'University's hands-off policy' was seriously detrimental."

Father Hugh Halton, "fiery" Princeton chaplain to Roman Catholic students, is presented in your editorial as "probably the biggest loser in the whole row," because he delivered "near-fanatic harangues" and received "his first public rebuke--from undergraduates at large." Not only is "at large" left unelaborated, but "near-fanaticism" is not evident in Father Halton's speech or, surprisingly, that of Alger Hiss, both appearing in the May 4th issue of U.S. News and World Report.

Father Halton actually said much worth pondering. For example: "Academic freedom at Princeton was founded on the postulate that there is a universal spiritual moral foundation on which the university rests. Within that agreement on the fundamental principles it was safe to permit and it was desirable to encourage dissent and dispute. Indeed, dissent is intelligible only when the framework of assent is sound."

Academic freedom, weighted with difficulties (particularly of definition), hastily invoked upon the least provocation to justify any whim or action, is a term recklessly vulgarized and deserves better treatment. Academic freedom can be defined as that right which aids scholars in the pursuit of truth. This freedom ceases to be a right and becomes a revocable privilege when the student or teacher loses truth as the end and substitutes mere expression of opinion. If human fulfillment, to which the academy is devoted, is to be realized, an immutable truth, observed as the mind may comprehend it and confirmed by conscience, must be recognized.

It is difficult to conceive of reasons, or even of excuses (other than sensational publicity), to justify the invitation of Hiss, a convicted perjurer, to address an institution dedicated to the pursuit of truth. To find truth is hard enough without adding to its elusiveness. Alger Hiss was convicted of a moral as well as a legal crime. Precedent assures us that it is not likely that Hiss would have anything to say to searchers for the truth in a repository of the truth. Law and conscience tell us that he is outside of the tradition. If we were to deny this, as Father Halton observed, what would prevent unreconstructed prostitutes and embezzlers from lecturing on virtue and business ethics in the academy? That Hiss was given the prestige and respectability of the Princeton invitation is a disheartening testimony of the lengths to which immature and undisciplined freedom will take us. Our attitude as students toward this invitation should not be stubbornness or self-righteousness; it ought to be horror. Unfortunately, the Princeton administration, having admonished the Whig-Cliosophic Society, did not act with the courage of its convictions or with a recognition of its responsibilities to the whole University. Students without proper appreciation of their institution are in need of guidance, not flattery, from those in authority.

The Battle (your punctuation) reflected in many ways the difficulty of appreciating academic freedom, and it is a sad revelation that Princeton, despite enormous pressure, was unwilling to clarify the meaning of the idea. William C. Brady '57   A. LeRoy Ellison '58   Bruce A. Heck '56   James H. Manahan '58   Frank R. Rossiter '59

(As the Crimson article pointed out, few at Princeton did not find Whig-Cilo's initial irresponsibility unfortunate. The Princeton administration and Trustees showed courage in asserting confidence that undergraduates ultimately have sufficient responsibility to allow them to make mistakes. The principle of academic freedom demanded non-interference.)--Editor.