News
Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search
News
First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni
News
Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend
News
Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library
News
Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty
Refusing to accept Federal funds under a "loyalty oath" provision while mouthing platitudes on academic freedom, the Trustees of Amherst College last week rejected a $1340 grant received under the student loan program of the National Defense Education Act. Their action dramatizes wide-spread objection to the clause requiring every loan applicant to file an affidavit that he "does not believe in, and is not a member of and does not support any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the U.S. government by force or violence or by any illegal or unconstitutional means."
Though defenders of liberal education are as strongly opposed to subversion as Senator Mundt, who introduced this provision, the "loyalty oath" remains an unattractive monument to misguided patriotism. In the first place, a genuine subversive would have no compunctions about signing such an oath, thereby rendering the provision powerless to fight "overthrow" of our Constitution.
But, if the "loyalty oath" were merely ineffective, a growing list of major colleges--including Bryn Mawr, Harvard, Haverford, Princeton, Sarah Lawrence, Swarthmore and Yale--would not have protested so strongly. The real danger is that the required affidavit constitutes an inquiry into vaguely defined associations and beliefs. To secure his loan, an applicant must swear that he does not "believe in" any organization that "believes in" certain programs. But the Act provides no objective criteria, nor can it, for judging what beliefs are "subversive." In its most dangerous implication, the "loyalty oath" requires a blanket rejection of participation, or belief, in any organized activity that tomorrow or someday may fall under official suspicion.
Such a loosely defined prohibition can only stiffle the spirit of free inquiry and discussion; it can only lead to fear and hesitancy in the academic community. This is not to say that professors and others should not take care to support only groups that work for what they believe in. The "loyalty oath" provision, however, must not be allowed to interfere with the right to believe and to teach, freely and honestly.
The affidavit requirement is not only ineffective. It is invidious, and Congress should repeal it without delay.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.