The Professor's Visa

The case of Professor Glen Shortliffe, a Canadian who has been denied permission to enter this country by immigration officials, should give the U. S. people cause for uneasiness. Shortliffe accepted last April an appointment to the faculty of Washington University in St. Louis. He received his American visa in June--yet only four days later that visa was invalidated by a peremptory exclusion order. The order said Shortliffe was "a person whose entry is deemed to be prejudicial to the public interests of the United States."

The reasons why this conclusion was reached have never been brought out, although Washington University officials have asked time and again for an explanation. Such an explanation is certainly called for,--to the university, to Shortliffe, and to the public,; for all the evidence seems to show that the exclusion order was issued because of the professor's political beliefs-- not because he would be a threat to the country as a gangster or dope peddler or bomb thrower would be.

Shortliffe has supported a minor leftist Canadian political party. He has called himself "a liberal socialist," and friends have described him "as sort of a New Dealer." On many occasions he has heartily subscribed to the principles of democratic society. So long as the immigration service, and the Department of Justice, remain silent, this outline of Shortliffe's politics must be considered to be completely correct.

And so long as the authorities remain silent, these political beliefs can be taken as the basis for the exclusion order. One striking indication that this is true is Shortliffe's story of how he was sharply questioned last May in the consular office in Toronto. What did he think about Indo-China? Would he prefer De Gaulle or the Communists to rule France? Did he believe in the overthrow of government by force?

This degrading treatment has never been explained. Is that all the immigration service has against Shortliffe? Very possibly not, for the visa was approved on June 20--after that experience. Sometime in the next four days (the exclusion order was dated June 24) the authorities changed their minds. Why they changed their minds is important to know. Unless strong evidence is made public, the only reasonable conclusion is that Shortliffe was barred by whim and small-minded officiousness.