FREEDOM OF SILENCE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The major struggle in America today is between those who would require conformity of the people to the prevailing orthodoxies of government, and who would thus destroy democracy, and those who work to expand government of the people, by the people, and for the people. In the decision on the job status of the four faculty members who invoked the Fifth Amendment in refusing to testify before Congressional investigating committees, the Harvard Corporation will inescapably take sides in this struggle.

As Mr. Justice Moody of the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled, the right to refuse to bear witness against oneself is "a privilege of great value, a protection to the innocent, though a shelter to the guilty, and a safeguard against heedless, unfounded or tyrannical persecutions." Historically, the struggles of the Puritans against ecclesiastical inquisitions, which resulted in the Fifth Amendment, established that religious and political heresy is not a crime, but it is rather the right, if not the duty, of the citizen in a democracy; and that freedom of speech becomes meaningless without the corollary right to keep silent.

The apparent purpose of the Congressional committees investigating Communism is not to investigate but to silence criticism of government by means of intimidation. Senator Jenner virtually admitted this when he publicly endorsed the firing of Boston teachers who exercised their constitutional privilege before his committee.

Section Three of the McCarran Law defines "Communist front" organizations so loosely as to include any group that advocates an idea disapproved of by the government. It is difficult to think of any proposal for social reform that has not received the Red label. The McCarran Law spells out the dangerous equation: Change=Communism=Russia. The same equation is apparent in the questions and behavior of Senator Jenner, Congressman Velde, and Senator McCarthy, who joined with Senator McCarran to make his anti-democratic and un-American act into law.

I believe that in denying the right of these inquisitorial committees to pry into a person's beliefs and associations the four faculty members did the American people a great service.

As a citizen and a father, I want my children to have free and unintimidated teachers. Also, I want to continue to be free to choose the best medical care for my family, and I demand the same right for everyone. For the government to establish a political screen for doctors is to endanger the health of the people. I am sure that Harvard and Peter Bent Brigham Hospital hired Dr. Fine for his medical abilities and with no political considerations.

I call upon my college to lead the way in maintaining and expanding our tradition of academic freedom. The choice is simple and inescapable: are Congressional investigating committees to dictate the employment policies, and thereby the educational policies, of Harvard University and of our other universities and schools? For Harvard to stand fast now against the undemocratic pressures to fire her four courageous faculty members will be to strengthen and advance academic freedom and democracy. Rev. Amos C. Barstow Murphy '41