Frozen Assets

By its refusal to administer federal funds for educational assistance until policy on the required "loyalty oaths" is thoroughly reconsidered, the University has acted wisely and honorably. Harvard is wealthy enough to be principled; and there is strong justification for its stand against the affidavit which every recipient of the federal funds must affirm.

What is primarily objectionable is not the required oath to support the Constitution, but rather the accompanying affidavit that the borrower does not belong to, "support," or "believe in" a subversive organization.

First, the affidavit is excessively vague and its prohibitions could be interpreted by over-zealous federal officials as applying to activities they considered politically objectionable. It is not unimaginable to conceive of Southern officials deciding that to criticize segregation showed belief in the Communist conspiracy.

Second, the affidavit requirement demands that the student swear that he is, in effect, not a conspirator. It thus treats academic personnel as a prima facie suspect group.

Third, and perhaps most important, is the possibility that the affidavit requirement could serve as a precedent for ever stricter federal control over education. Because of the continuing increase in students, federal aid may become almost a staple for smaller schools and it is vital that such aid not force a school into bowing to political requirements and control.

With the failure of Senator Kennedy's bill to remove the loyalty oath provision, there is no prospect until next session that it will be repealed. For its provisional refusal to use the federal monies, the University deserves much credit.