HISC Hasn't Heard From Harvard, But It's Keeping Busy

When Congress opens its mail this week, it will find a letter with some local signatures on it, but probably not the ones it expected.

Last week Harvard received a letter from the House Internal Security Committee (HISC)-the successor to the House Un-American Activities Committee-and was requested to send a list of all speakers who had appeared at Harvard recently, the amount of money they had received from their speaking engagement, and the source of the funds.

As of Monday, Harvard had neither sent a reply nor indicated what its reply might be, but in the meantime both HISC and local law professors had their minds on other things.

The House of Representatives has already passed an HISC-sponsored bill that would enable the government to set up a commission which would fire and blacklist those government employees judged "security risks" and pressure other institutions to do the same.

The bill is called the Defense Facilities and Industrial Security Bill (HR=14864) and is sponsored in the Senate by the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security.

Vern Countryman, professor of Law is one of 150 law professors who have signed a letter urging the Senate to vote down the bill.

Joe's Back

Opponents of the bill claim that it would in effect revitalize the Subversive Activities Control Board of the McCarthy era.

Countryman said last night that the bill's vague terminology poses grave dangers to civil liberties in at least three areas:

It allows a broad interpretation of the term "defense-related facilities"-an interpretation that would includeeducational as well as research institutions.

The standards of judging who poses a "security risk" to the government are vague.

Those employees who are called "security risks" are given no recourse to legal action.

What all this means to Harvard is not entirely clear, but, according to Countryman, if the bill passes Congress as it is worded now, it will be the first "loyalty" legislation to affect students. The bill includes not only those who are employed by "defense-related facilities," but also those who have access to them.

Opponents of the bill charge that professors, employees-anyone who has access to defense-related facilities-could be harassed if judged a security risk.

Opponents also say that part of the bill-what they call the "guilt by association clause"-is broad enough so that almost anyone in the country could be indicted.