Fearful Colleges Ban Debate On Recognition of Red China

The roadblocks of censorship suddenly appeared on the normally safe college debating circuit during the past academic year, Obstruction begin soon after the National intercollegiate Committee on Debate and Discussion selected the number one topic for argumentation: "Resolved--That the United States should attend diplomatic recognition to the Communist Government of China."

Over 900 colleges and universities began preparation on the issue, but the proceedings were disrupted by the news that several mid-western colleges, as well as both U.S. military academies, would not allow students to uphold the affirmative side of the topic.

Herbert L. Cushing, President of Kearney, spoke for the group--four Nebraska teachers college--when he declared they were opposed the having debaters "spend half their time . . . arguing the Communist side." If added that someone "is trying to indoctrinate a few thousand American college youths with what I consider to be a dangerous philosophy."

The ban, however, was not without opposition. Debate clubs and instructors joined in asking that the restriction be removed. At nearby Northwestern University associate professor of Public Speaking Glen Mills declared, "it is a ridiculous assumption to feel that students will be hurt by examining the affirmative side of the question."

Both of the military academics were next to throttle debaters, although no one wanted to take the responsibility for the ban. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles publicly denied he had any part in the censorship, as did Secretary of Defense Charles E. Wilson.

Rear Admiral W. F. Boone, Superintendent of the Navel Academy, finally declared he was acting on "his own interpretation of existing directives," and the head of West Point issued a similar statement. The situation was particularly touchy since West Point is annually the location of the national collegiate debate tournament.

In late November, President Eisenhower responded to the mounting protests by stating that debaters should be allowed to argue any question troubling the world, including United States recognition of Communist China.

Rear Admiral Boone rejoined by saying he would lift the ban with a "cheerful naval aye, aye" if directed by a higher authority. But no such authority exerted itself, and the ban remained. West Point informed the public that it would allow no debate on "a controversial subject on which . . . national policy has already been established." It then went ahead to argue the advisability of agricultural subsidies, which the government has approved for over a hundred years. And the Naval Academy maintained that anyone arguing for recognition of Peking was upholding "the Communist Philosophy and party line" at the same time Prime Minister Churchill was attempting to convince the United States to recognize the Peking government.

The element of fear entered, too, at the annual forensic tournament in Virginia. Roanoke College refused to debate the affirmative side, but it was only one of eight schools to decline. The debate director for Reanoke, Mr. J. F. Prufer, stated that the team members were afraid they would be investigated in later life.

But after a lengthy meeting, the National Speech Association group refused to after the topic. The appeal for free debate was also bolstered by a special Edward R. Marrow "See it Now" television program. Harvard and Princeton debating teams both sent special messages to the Academies and to the President asking for removal of the restrictions.

Although the censorship continued for the academic year, it served to underline the fact that restriction on freedom of debate dressed in the clock of "our interests" were no more valuable than the Emperor's clothes.

In his article in the New York Times Magazine, James MacGregor Burns, professor of Political Science at Williams, concluded that "Formal debating still sets standards of argumentation in a day when questions are often dismissed with wisecracks, smears, half-truths, and the big lie."