Cold war on the campus

C

C

<u

_l

-H °

_i h-

— co
CO _ "o

0) .52 w
(0 <u to

00
C CM

c
o
o
to

CO
CO

o

CM

I

Borrower: TXI

Lending String:

ZYU,ZYU,*WIH,CUV,CUI

Patron: Wright, Jonathan

Journal Title: Cold war on the campus /
Martinson, Robert.

Volume: Issue:

Month/Year: Pages:

Article Author:

Article Title:

OCLC Number: 47934249

ILL Number

WIH

III

Location: Hist

Call #: 04-638-pam

Request Date: 20100207

Need By:

Shipping Address:

Albert B. Alkek Library, ILL

64 SATvia TEXpress

AlkekLibrary

Interlibrary Loan

Texas State University-San Marcos 601 Un

Fax: 512-245-3002/Ariel 147.26
Ariel: 147.26.108.32

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll
PDF:

MaxCost: 50.00IFM

Borrowing Notes:

Copyright Compliance:

ARIEL

Wisconsin Library Services (WiLS)
Please Report all Document Delivery Problems within 48 hours of Receipt.

Return this sheet via- Ariel: 144:92.126.152 email: gzmlend@wils.wisc.edu

Briefly state the problem with the Document:

This material may be protected by
copyright law (Title 17 U.S. Code),

h HlS7Qt

*>V OF WIS'

fhe reactionary invasion of the American
University threatens the continued existence of
free centers of thought in the United States.
Ihe Berkeley Socialist Youth League offers this
pamphlet as an aid to defeating the inquisition.

She author was a key participant in the
tragic oath fight at the University of Califor-
nia, and his conclusions attempt to clarify the
reasons for the failure of the students and
faculty to defeat the Regents.

Although the exact conditions of the oath
struggle will not he reproduced elsewhere, the
general dimensions will he similar. Every Uni-
versity stands in danger,

This pamphlet is dedicated to those stu-
dents and faculty members of the University of
California who have had the honor of "being
casualties of the Cold War on the Campus.

H

1

0UW-

OM - hS%

Cold War
on the Camnu

is

i,

Bos Martinson

D

URIUG- the last few years the peaceful reverie
of American University life has "been inter-
rupted "by an unprecedented series of attacks.

In college after college from California to
Hew York the invasion wreaks havoc with the tra-
ditional rights of students and professors, and
is only hampered, now and again, "by valiant "but
sporadic opposition. To chart its progress is
"but to name some of America's most distinguished
Universities.

Three professors were fired from the Univer-
sity of Washington for holding Communist views.
A chemistry teacher was summarily dismissed from
the University of Oregon for publishing a mild
defense of the Russian "biologist, Lysenko. The
Illinois State legislature stepped up its attacks
on the University of Chicago. University admin-
istrations throughout the country arbitrarily
discharged professors who publicly supported the
Progressive Party. A student strike at Olivet
College failed to prevent the forced departure of
an entire section of the faculty. Students at
the University of Wisconsin were placed on proba-
tion for demonstrating against ROTC. The imposi-
tion of a loyaltjr oath on the professors of the
University of California created chaos for over
eighteen months and today threatens the Univer-
sity with academic dismemberment. President

_1_

«w

G-ideonse of Brooklyn College currently imposes a
reign of terror on his students by shutting down
the college newspaper and threatening to remove
the draft exemption from those who disobey his
arbitrary commands. These are "but some of the
high lights of the reactionary attack.

Such cases only describe part of the damage,
however, for this invasion penetrates every re-
cess of University life. The daily fare of leg-
islative investigations, lurid headlines, loyalty
checks and irresponsible witch-hunting produces
an atmosphere of fear and hysteria. Professors
are frightened into silence by social ostracism
and economic pressure; the administration simply
refuses to renew certain contracts. Students
with unpopular opinions find it impossible to ob-
tain economic aid or scholarships. The curricu-
lum is changed ever so slightly; a lecture here
and there is revised to accord with the new state
of things; a speech is cancelled or a footnote is
inserted. Academic sterility, like the submerged
section of an iceberg, is nonetheless dangerous
for being invisible.

T he University Comes of Age

"Hostility toward 'intellectual activity' is
characteristic of American culture." True but
irrelevant. The orthodox philistine always sus-
pected the seething, democratic questioning spir-
it of the free University. Bigoted attacks on
Darwin's "monkey-theory," "atheistic materialism"
and youthful i: immorality" sjieckle the pages of
American history. In the past, however, the in-
tellectual always returned blow for blow and his
blue-nosed critics were usually tossed out of
court .

The University has only recently become a
decisive institution in American life. In the

past its victory was predicated on the over-all
usefulness of its scientific production to an ex-
panding economy. The general stability of bour-
geois society insured a wide latitude for critics,
iconoclasts and muckrakers. Thus attacks on the
University were ephemeral, inconclusive and usu-
ally spent themselves in impotent rage or ridicu-
lous abuse.

The tremendous growth of modern industry and
the increasing importance of the state bureauc-
racy produce a huge demand for administrators,
trained technicians and semi-skilled specialists
of many varieties. The University is no longer a
cloistered playhouse for the sons and daughters
of the idle rich. It is a necessary component of
the advance of modern technology.

As the campus comes of age, the struggle to
reduce its independence and to control its intel-
lectual production becomes more acute. With the
American nation attaining the status of a world
power the isolated character of the University is
increasingly viewed with alarm. Attempts to re-
duce or to modify academic freedom become more
frequent .

Coming in the midst of a war scare, the
present campaign is no more nor less than an ef-
fort to reduce the campus to an impotent defender
of the status quo. The prolonged and insistent
character of the attack reflects both the impor-
tance of the University and the power of its op-
ponents. Although the self-appointed inquisitors
advance upon academic freedom flying the flag of
"scientific objectivity, " they feel no anxiety
about the orbit of Mars, the pre-hi story of Ire-
land or the theory of natural selection. Par from
serving the real needs of scientific endeavor,
their crude intervention merely expresses the in-
satiable demands of the Garrison State.

-3-

Today the American University, despite its
lack of sophistication, despite its rallies,
football games and political naivete, is critical
enough, to threaten the politically and ideologi-
cally imposed unification required by the ap-
proaching Third World War. But the student hesi-
tates. He refuses to be embroiled in the anti-
subversive frenzy and in the fierce drive for
orthodoxy which have seized the ruling summits of
American society. He examines uneasily the
purges, the police measures, the hysteria and
mud-slinging and for the life of him, cannot par-
ticipate. As the University comes of age, the
demands of the American ruling class have become
more insistent that the student be crushed and
battered into submission for his hesitation.

Academic Freedom or Intellectu a l Sui cide

In spite of its intellectual prestige, the
University community meets the bewildering attach
in e, disorganized, almost instinctive manner.
The time has come for an assessment of damages, a
critical analysis of mistakes in strategy, and
firm and realistic measures to combat this dan-
gerous trend. Passivity or cynicism will not
help, for it is impossible to dodge the issue by
withdrawing into the deceptive security of aca-
demic life. The intentions of the attackers are
unmistakable, and the only alternative to a vig-
orous and clear-sighted defense invites intellec-
tual suicide.

To those who would sacrifice academic free-
dom to the insistent demands of a spurious war-
time unity, the case cannot be put too strongly.
Intellectual freedom is not merely an ideal; it
is an absolute necessity to the advance of
science and the enrichment of American culture.
A barracks discipline, a regime of fear mil dis-
trust cripples an educational institution. Yet

why not,, if thought control is necessary?

Fascist . Germany and Stalinist
Russia present pertinent examples,
for they encased their artists, sci-
entists and intellectuals in uniforms
and forced them to subordinate their
ideas to the demands of the totali-
tarian state. Under such conditions,
thought is replaced by apologia., po-
lice literature and the frightful
rituals of obeisance which have be-
come so common. It is time to heed
the lessons of the destruction of
science in Germany, Italy, Russia and
Spain, for the shadow of George
Orwell's 19 8^ hangs like a pall over
the future of American education.

The Cold War and the Campus

The attack on the University is an inevita-
ble response to the cold war. ilo one worried
about the danger of Stalinism to the University
while America and Russia were allies. Liberal
apologists for scientific objectivity like Sidney
Hook are strangely mute concerning the circum-
stances under which the "cleansing" of the educa-
tional profession is taking place. To consider
academic freedom in the abstract is to proceed
with eyes closed, but then this is, perhaps, the
only method left to those who consider the war to
be the overriding consideration.

The general atmosphere produced by the cold
war can most aptly be described as "organized
hysteria." Star chamber proceedings, juicy spy
trials and loyalty investigations provide a back-
drop to the introduction of the Taft-Hartley Act,
the Ober and Feinberg Laws and the IlcCarran Bill.
The arbitrary hand of the FBI touches more and

more citizens with, its semi-legal i^olice measures.
War in the name of democracy increasingly pro-
vides the rationale for the liquidation of democ-
racy.

The preparation for imperialist war proceeds
as usual under the slogan of strengthening the
peace. But the tenuous nature of this peace
smokescreen permits preventive war advocates to
arise in the highest echelons of the government
and the military. Wars for the partial redi vision
of the earth are over; the coming war will decide
whether Russia or the United States is to control
and exploit the entire world. The enormity of
this conflict demands unprecedented military and
economic expenditures and presupposes a servile
and obedient citizenry. Bat in this the Russians
have a twenty. year head start!

To really prosecute the struggle, the Ameri-
can government must impress the population with
the hoot and the knout. The authorities must
prove, contrary to obvious facts, that they in-
tervene in the affairs of half the world on he-
half of democracy and freedom, and, most difficult
of all, they must provide the youth of America
with efficient reasons for laying down their
lives on battlefields.

To generate enthusiasm for the coming war,
then, is a mammoth task. The absence of a Pearl
Harbor and the failure of American foreign policy
to contain Stalinism breeds panic and uncertainty
among the war-makers. Despite the dubious vic-
tory in Korea, the world appears to be slipping
from their grasp. To fight Stalinism they are
forced to rely on odious and backward regimes
hated by the peoples. The names Chiang Eai Shek,
Bao Dai, Synghman Bhee, Quirino, spell oppression
and misery to the Asiatics and thus, as in G-er-

-6-

many, Japan, Austria, Korea, American military
might is everywhere.. .and is nowhere effective.

1"

Every step taken
perialism lends new
ism; this is the les
of cold war. When
less, force decide
lesson of history,
intervention into Ko
sion that the stage
passed.

by American im-
support to Stalin-
son of five years
ideas appear use-
s; this is the

American armed
rea is the admis-

of argument has

But an unpopular war lends itself to criti-
cism, doubts and finally, anti-war activity. The
student meets American military moves with an im-
placable passivity. Fired with no enthusiasm to
give up his life in the farthest reaches of Asia,
his faith in the ability of capitalism runs thin
as soon as he is offered a uniform.

Since serious problems admit bold solutions
the student expresses his dissatisfaction by
turning to pacifism, World Federalism or social-
ism. Even Stalinism, which can gain few adher-
ents in its own name, attracts many students with
its demagogic peace appeals.

But a critical, thinking student body be-
comes more and more dangerous to the progress of
the war. In a war to "get the C-ooks" cannon-
fodder, not intelligence, is mandatory. To save
the world MacArthur must have at his command mil-
lions of America's youth, armed to the teeth and
ready to fight. Thus the preparation for the war
with Russia calls forth a twofold response: anti-
war activity and the draft. The purpose of the
prolonged assault on civil liberties and academic
freedom is the repression of this contradiction
by a forceful invasion of the American campus.

Should Conraunists Be Allowed to Teach?

"Oust the Communists from our Universities. 11
This is tha slogan v;hich covers the drive for
thought control. Many students and professors
embrace this formula without examining its real
function, for on first glance it might appear
reasonable .

"The Stalinists are totalitarian; to allow
them to teach in our free Universities is to sub-
vert democracy." It is true that the reactionary
social aims and totalitarian methods of Stalinism
present serious dangers to the democratic process,
hut it does not follow from this that Stalinists
should he expelled from the Universities.

The C.P.'ers cannot "be defined as espionage
agents of Russia. The Communist Party is a po-
litical organization, "based on certain ideas no
matter how odious they may "be and supported by
thousands of ordinary Americans.

To defeat ideas requires "better ideas. Re-
pression may drive the Stalinists underground,
"but it will never defeat Stalinism as a social
movement. The detectives of subversion fear
critical discussion and the open, democratic com-
petition of ideas and turn in desperation to loy-
alty oaths, expulsions and purges. Those who
have failed so miserably to defeat Stalinism
abroad are making it impossible for the students
to combat democratically the ideas and power of
Stalinism in the University.

All supporters of the present virtual ille-
galization of the Communist Party start from the
same false assumption: that the C.P. is a "clear
and present danger" to American democracy. Such
is the justification for the HcCarran Bill, the
trial of the eleven Communist leaders and a whole

-o—

raft of dangerous and reactionary legislation.

But one look at the facts and the assumption
tumbles to the ground. Before Hurray decided
bureaucrat! cally to expel them from the C.I.O.,
the Stalinists suffered a wave of defeats in the
labor movement. They lost the huge U.A.lf. in a
prolonged, democratic trade union fight. They
had begun to lose the U.E. before the expulsion
and were thrown out of power in the 1T.M.U. Gen-
erally, the more open and democratic the fight,
the, more complete the defeat of the C.P.

Hie cold war against civil liberties has
hurt the C.P., but it has not defeated its ideas.
To expel Stalinist professors from the Universi-
ties on the grounds of their membership alone is
to repeat false and dangerous methods. Paradoxi-
cally, in order to defeat Stalinism completely,
it is necessary to defend the right of the C.P.
to exist legally while carrying on a bitter
struggle against its ideas.

In any case the Communist Party today is
underground. Its leaders are in jail, its power
lias been broken and its members are threatened
with arrest and detention. It is a small, dis-
organized, pariah group. Uhy, then, does the
holy crusade against civil liberties and freedom
of thought continue?

UhQ-Jg-.a C lear and Present Danger ?

The rulers of America are gripped at their
bowels with a persistent and deadly fear. They
s.trike out blindly at any criticism, any opposi-
tion to their war plans. The Stalinists, small
and discredited as they are, oppose the war (since
they favor the victory of Russia) and must be
crushed along with ail other opponents of the ad-
ministration.

In order to silence honest and justified
opinion, the "bogey of Communism is evoked. To
win an election, Communism is made the issue. To
prepare the population for war, Communist spies
are discovered. Under the "banner of fighting
Communism the illegal "subversive" list is com-
piled, government workers are terrified, and the
McCarran "concentration camp" Bill is shoved
through Congress.

The conclusion is unmistakable.
The gentlemen are hysterical, and in
their frenzied attempt to force the
American people into the strait jack-
et of the Garrison State, they are
undermining and subverting the long-
established freedoms and liberties in
whose name they speak. They, not the
Stalinists are the clear and present
danger to American democracy'.

The Liberal Inquisition

Enemies of academic freedom justify their
actions, of course, "by a long series of intricate
and subtile arguments taken mostly from the lit-
eral lexicon. Moves against democracy must "be
embellished x/ith democratic phraseology.

"If we are to maintain our traditional edu-
cational system, the student must "be protected
from the wily, clever, prejudiced teachers who
are trained to sneak their viewpoint into their
lectures." Such a statement may "be harsh, "but it
fairly presents the argument for paternalistic
education, which assumes that the student is too
immature to think and choose for himself, and
must therefore "be guided in the right direction.

The average student, of course, trusts to
his own intelligence and would "be only too happy

-10-

to try his teeth on a real live subversive. As a
young adult, he should have the right to test his
political "beliefs against all comers, and he
rightly suspects his paternalistic protectors of
grinding their own political axes.

The most imposing arguments for removing
Stalinists from the schools come from Sidney Hook,
teacher of philosophy at lew York University. He
should "be happy to discover that his name was in-
voked tine and again to justify the Regents' po-
litical test at the University of California.

Professor Hook's viewpoint can "be para-
phrased as follows: "A teacher, "by joining the
Communist Party, commits an act which destroys
his ability to function as a free intellectual.
He cannot honestly consider ideas opposed to the
party line which 'is laid down in every area of
thought from art to zoology' but must turn the
classroom into a forum for propagating the ideas
and program of Stalinism. As a dangerous oppo-
nent of democracy and the scientific method, he
should be dismissed from his post." Hook dis-
cards the argument that teachers should be judged
by their performance in the classroom alone, on
the doubtful ground that a system of spying might
be set up, and insists on applying a political
criterion for hiring and firing. Finally he pro-
poses that action against Stalinist teachers be
decided by faculties and not administrations or
regents.

Hook merely offers an up-to-date, "liberal"
version of the paternalistic theme. tilth the
witch-hunters (not the Stalinists) subverting
freedom of thought, Hook calmly proposes certain
"safeguards" while virtually supporting by his
silence the general implications of the attack.

The pundits of American education are not
-11-

the paragons of impartiality assumed "by- his argu-
ments. Hor are all Stalinists cloak- -a.nd-da.-gger
def ilers of the Truth. A University is an intel-
lectualized mirror of the outside world and would
"become a dead, useless institution if "one-sided-
ness" (different viewpoints) were suppressed.
Hook's arguments are ex post facto rationaliza-
tions for the atta.ck on academic freedom, not
proposals for the strengthening of academic ob-
jectivity.

This "liberal" inquisition is a
new phenomenon in our intellectual
heritage. Stalinism has forced an
entire generation of liberals into
using police-state methods to fight
its ideas. Today there seems to be a
"crisis of overproduction" in the
liberal's "free market place of
ideas . " Just as the Americans for
Democratic Action helped to produce
the HcGarran Bill in the field of
civil liberties, so the educational
crisis is to be solved by the well
known expedient of plowing under the
surplus .

The Year of the Oath

Unfortunately for the purveyors of abstract
formulae, arguments eventually come home to roost
in the real world. The now infamous case of the
long, "bitter struggle "between the professors and
the Regents of the University of California over
tbe imposition of a special non-Conmunist loya-lty
oath, presents the most striking example of the
damage produced by the invasion of the campus.

In fear of
the California
President Sproul

in attack on the University "by
igislature's Tenney Committee,
proposed that all University

-12-

employees sign a special non-Communist oath. -■ The
Regents passed the oath measure on June Zh, 19^9,
and immediately imposed it on the unprepared
faculty.

The intervention of summer vacation cut
short any effective opposition, and many faculty
members, either through fear for their jobs or
through lack of information, signed the oath. A
large minority (the non-signers) refused to be
coerced, and the key to the entire subsequent
fight lay in an adamant refusal to comply. This
stalwart band of scholars was whittled down by a
-series of betrayals and compromises from hundreds
to a tiny group of ten, who are today fighting
the issue in the courts.

The struggle opened quietly enough, for at
first the area of agreement was so great that the
official faculty negotiating committee accepted
the oath on principle, but demanded that it be
r eworded so as not to "insult" the "loyal and
patriotic" faculty. Thus a lack of clarity was
introduced from the very start . The faculty im-
plicitly agreed that Communists should not be al-
lowed to teach, but disliked the oath as a method
of removing Communists. The non- signers, mean-
while, vociferously demanded the complete revoca-
tion of the Regents' action.

The Regents' ultimatum of February 2-'+, 1950,
finally cut short the futile and endless negotia-
tions between them and the faculty committee
(with its- compromisist majority). Sign the oath
or get out! The deadline for signing was set for
April 30. '

The ultimatum immediately sprang into na-
tional prominence. The campus rocked with charges

and

countercharges as University

after University^

sent messages of support and promises of finan-f: 1

-13-

cial aid. Classroom activity somehow continued
amid denunciations, resolutions and faculty and
student meetings. The faculty, not daring to
make a real fight, passed resolutions endorsing
the Regents' anti-Communist policy" in the hope
that the oath would "be removed, "but the Regents
refused to trudge although the dismissal of the
hundreds of non-signers threatened the University
with virtual dismemoerment .

The temperature of the campus reached white
heat as April 30 approached. Student groups, led
"by the Berkeley Socialist Youth League, organized
into a committee and held a series of demonstra-
tions and meetings in preparation for a possible
student walkout in support of the faculty. The
academic world, finally aroused to the danger,
deluged the University with protests, resolutions
of support and promises of financial aid to the
non-signers .

The "compromise" of April 21, proposed "by
the Alumni Association, and accepted "by the fac-
ulty Committee and the Regents, cut short all
activity. The special oath was replaced "by its
equivalent in the professors' employment contract
while the faculty committee on tenure was given
the power to investigate the political "beliefs of
the non-signers and to make recommendations to
the Regents. The faculty committee traded aca-
demic freedom for the right of the faculty to
police its own members within the rules set down
hy the Regents .

Thinking the issue was over, the faculty set
up a committee and rather sheepishly examined the
"loyalty" of the non-signers. But even this ab-
ject capitulation failed, for the Regents refused
to accept the recommendations of the tenure com-
mittee and after surveying the wreckage, reintro-
duced the ultimatum. By this time, the long

-14-

series of "betrayals and equivocations had cut the
non-signers down to a snail impotent group and
the. fight was over. The Regents disrupted Uni-
versity life for over eighteen months, forced
every employee to sign the oath, and finally even
removed tenure decisions from the hands of the
faculty.

The results have "been disastrous.
I-iore than eighty teaching assistants
and lecturers resigned or were fired.
Twenty-one faculty non-signers (many
with over twenty years of service)
cannot teach forty-three scheduled
courses during the Fall semester. The
Psychology department is dismembered,
graduate students are leaving en
masse, and various professional asso-
ciations have blacklisted the Univer-
sity.

The issue of Communism proved to "be a smoke-
screen, for only two persons were ever dismissed
for membership in the Communist Party. The suc-
cess of the invasion of the campus is complete,
for a free University litis "been reduced to an aca-
demic shambles.

Ho w to Def e nd Academic Freedom

Uhat can "be done at other Universities to
hinder the spreading inauisition?

In the first place, the mistakes made during
previous fights must not "be repeated! The student
"body must actively intervene in defending the
campus from its enemies, for their right to an
education lies in the "balance. The faculty will
attempt to convert the issue of academic freedom
into a power struggle over tenure, and it will
hesitate to stand squarely for the ri ; :ht of

-1 ••?„

Stalinists and other political dissidents to
teach. At the University of California, this led
to the sacrifice of teaching assistants and non-
signers as a compromise measure which in turn
produced complete collapse.

The following program, distilled from the
many struggles vrhich have already taken place, is
essential to a successful defense of academic
freedom today: (l) no political tests for teach-
ers, (2) the only test for hiring and firing
should "be individual competency in the classroom,
and (3) the right to judge competency must rest
with the faculty, not the regents, administration
or legislature.

By combining these principles with a deter-
mined mass effort of faculty and students, the
voice of free thought can "be raised against the
witch-hunters. Timidity and compromise have al-
ready failed! Faculty reticence should not tie
the hands of the students who should step f orward
and take open and decisive action. Meetings,
demonstrations and protests can provide support
to the faculty and can convince them that any
compromise is a death blow to both academic free-
dom and tenure.

In the last analysis, only gener-
al hints are possible. A convinced
and conscious student body will dis-
cover its own tactics in the heat of
the struggle, as proved by the magni-
ficent efforts of the students of Oli-
vet, the University of California and
Brooklyn College. What is important
is a firm determination to defend the
University from its enemies ... to
drive the cold war off the campus. #

November 15, 1950

a^aaiassbbD

-1b-

b8908 1252660a

r~

(jet -Acquainted!

Socialist Youth League
114 w. 14* si, new york city

LJ I want information Local Address:
about the SYL.

LJ I want to Join
the SYL.

Hame _

Address

School (if student)

"\

.City

y