Struik Reconsidered

A Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling last week opened the way to ending the ordeal of legal limbo in which M.I.T. Mathematics professor Dirk Struik has been suspended since 1951. Neatly ducking the issue of hiring an alleged Communist faculty member, the Institute removed Struik from his teaching duties five years ago on the grounds that he had a civil suit pending against him. But now, with dismissal of his indictment for conspiracy against the State imminent, M.I.T. must either restore him to his full position or discover new grounds for preventing his return.

After five years under indictment, Struik will probably be released from State prosecution in the near future, following last week's decision in the case Commonwealth v. Gilbert. The ruling, first lower court interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court's recent findings in Pennsylvania v. Nelson, decreed that Congressional legislation on security matters had superceded state anti-sedition laws. The Nelson decision found that a state act such as the 1919 "Prohibition of Anarchy Law," under which Struik was indicted, was clearly contravened by Congressional action in the field--specifically, the Smith Act, the Internal Security Act, and the Communist Control Act. The decision, according to Ephraim Martin, the Middlesex Country District Attorney prosecuting Struik, "indicates an intent on the part of Congress to occupy exclusively the field of sedition, at least where the offense charged is a Federal crime."

With Struik's indictment on invalid grounds about to be dismissed, M.I.T.'s basis for continuing his suspension will be upset. The Institute must either hire him now that his case is settled, as implied by the conditions of its original suspension decree, or fire him on new grounds. In fairness, his suspension cannot be continued pending expected appeals of the invalidating decisions, for the only three alternatives open to anti-Struik zealots seem doomed to failure from the start.

First, Struik could be reindicted if the State Attorney General successfully appeals the Gilbert decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, but the high tribunal would be unlikely to accept the case after its contrary Nelson ruling. Second, Congress itself could broaden the intent of Federal Communist control acts to tolerate existing state laws. But such an interpretation would be valid for the 84th Congress only, and could not legally be held to apply retroactively to a case like Struik's. And, finally, in response to the petition of 42 state Attorneys General, the Federal court could hear re-argument of the Nelson case, but there is little precedent to expect the same men to reverse their earlier decision on the same issue.

With the three alternatives removed for justifying continued delay, the Institute must either reverse its suspension of Struik, or finally take an open stand on the issue of employing a suspected subversive. M.I.T., with $28 million in vital government research contracts, may well expect sharp public criticism for rehiring a man who has invoked privileges against self-incrimination. But if the Institute choses to ban Struik now solely on the grounds of his political beliefs, its academic freedom will have become what local Struik-baiter and Suffolk Court Clerk Thomas J. Dorgan once called "a hackeyed phrase, anyway."