The President's Stand

President Conant has at last clearly stated his position on the issue of the right of Communists to teach in American schools and colleges. Members of the Communist Party of the United States should not be employed as teachers. Such membership . . . involves adherence to doctrines and discipline completely inconsistent with the principles of freedom on which American education depends. Such membership, and the accompanying surrender of intellectual integrity, render an individual unfit to discharge the duties of a teacher in this country."

This is the statement President Conant made along with 19 other members of the Educational Policies Commission, a group sponsored jointly by the National Education Association and the American Association of School Administrators. Since the Commission statement was released yesterday, President Conant has made it plain that he stands behind that position, and that the takes exception to no part of it.

It is hard to believe. If President Conant himself had not personally confirmed his complete agreement with the Commission's policy statement, it would be almost impossible to believe. The CRIMSON respects and admires the President both as an individual and as a national figure. President Conant and his administration have fought the enemies of academic freedom. They have helped make the University one of the stronger positive forces in this country protecting the privileges of an unhampered search for knowledge and truth. It is therefore with regret and disappointment that the CRIMSON finds itself opposed to President Conant on an issue that is so vital to academic freedom.

The CRIMSON believes that membership in the Communist Party does not automatically "render an individual unfit to discharge the duties of a teacher." First, there is proof that many Communist card-holders are not required to follow the party line. In order to keep many "big names" in the party, the Communists do not demand blind obedience to party policies. Second, even if all Communists surrendered their "intellectual integrity," there are large areas of learning where politics is completely irrelevant. An ardent party-liner in the field of government is one thing--his dogma could well make him incompetent to teach objectively--but a party-liner in Spanish or psychology or Old English is an entirely different case.

The CRIMSON believes that competence along should be the standard for hiring or firing a teacher. A political standard is irrelevant; it is dangerous; it is a repudiation of the traditional American principle that in individual be judged for what he is, and not for what he belongs to. The communist Party is still a legal organization.

Communism is also a point of view. It is a point of view many intelligent men have honestly reached. And it is a point of view that President Conant and his colleagues on the Educational Policies Commission want studied in American schools and colleges. But the Commission would prevent intelligent Communists from teaching that point of view--not because they might be incompetent teachers, not because they might propagandize or exclude unfavorable textbooks, but because they might propagandize or exclude unfavorable textbooks, but because they would as communists automatically do these things. This is an attitude of fear. The Commission wants Communism studied, but evidently under unfavorable conditions.

The Commission's report is a policy statement. It does not discuss ways and means of preventing the employment of Communists as teachers. Yet such "implementation" is a logical second step. The Commission feels strongly that Communists should be kept out of education; the Commission also condemns the "unjust use of such words as 'Red' and 'Communist' to attack teachers and other persons who in point of fact are not communists, but who merely have views different from those of their accusers."

This statement in itself is commendable. There are innumerable cases where anti-Communist programs have ended up as assaults upon radicals and liberals. But how is the Commission's own policy to be carried out, and who is to carry it out? These are questions of the utmost importance, and yet the Commission has disregarded them. Are the agents to be state legislatures? This country has seen how consistently these "little dies Committees" have ignored the distinction between Communists and non-Communists. Are the agents to be college administrators or trustees or school superintendants? These people are often as sensitive to social pressure as legislators. And what man or group of men in America can be trusted to decide whether a teacher is a communist or not, if he chooses to hide his party card?

The Commission cannot afford to remain silent on the ways and means of its policy. The Commission cannot dismiss these problems with a statement deploring indiscriminate smears. There is no question of the sincerity and sober principle of President Conant and his fellow Commissioners. But on this issue they now stand with men of little principle and no discernment, men who are attempting to stifle ideas and change our constitutional guarantees of civil liberties to suit their purposes. So long as President Conant and his colleagues refuse to discuss implementation, these men will be able to say: we have on our side one of the most outstanding and respected scholars in America.

Every teacher and every student, and every citizen in the country has the right to ask: what does the Commission's policy mean? Does the Commission want every faculty and school staff in America investigated--thoroughly and completely--for Communists? Does the Commission want every professor and instructor required to state his political affiliation? To be plain, how much of our civil liberties are we expected to surrender?

The CRIMSON is convinced that any answer will be unsatisfactory. Even the most intelligent men in the country could not devise just and fair methods of carrying out this policy: for it is a dangerous policy, it is a policy base on fear, it is a policy that is subversive of the American tradition.