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
At a meeting prolonged for two hours by continual bickering over parliamentary procedure, the Harvard Young Democratic Club last night passed a resolution calling for abolition of the House Un-American Activities Committee, and for legislative action to ensure fair treatment of witnesses called before all Congressional committees.
A relatively calm debate over the resolution turned into chaos, when attendance proved one short of the 34 members required for a quorum. At one point, supporters of the resolution desperately asked the CRIMSON reporter on the scene to join the HYDC.
But during a five minute recess just before the final vote, several additional young Democrats mysteriously appeared in the room, and the resolution, originally proposed by Joseph B. Kadane '62, was passed with only one dissenting vote.
In a separate resolution, the HYDC stated its reasons for wishing to eliminate HUAC. It accused the Committee of "violating civil liberties" and placing "undue emphasis on defaming witnesses, and noted the film "Operation Abolition" as an example of HUAC's "propaganda."
Amendment to Amendment
Before the Democrats could approve the abolishment of HUAC, however, they had to consider not only an "amendment to the resolution," but also an "amendment to the amendment to the resolution."
The first amendment, proposed by Edwin McC. Martin, Jr. '63, asked Congress to "re-examine the structure and operation" of HUAC, instead of abolishing it. Martin claimed that it would be extremely difficult for Congress to abolish the Committee, and added that a re-evaluation of HUAC's goals would be possible if Congressman Frances Walter did not run for re-election.
But in a quick parliamentary move, Peter J. Sharfman '63, cancelled out Martin's amendment with a new amendment which reduced the resolution practically to its original form. After many "points of order" and "points of information," Sharfman's effort was passed by a 16-12 vote, only to have the revised amendment rejected overwhalmingly.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.