Undergraduate Page
THE NEW INQUISITORS
By ALAN E. THOMPSON (University of Edinburgh)
pERHAPS it would have been better if we had taken our war aims less seriously. We fought for so many ideals, so many " freedoms," that the aftermath was bound to be an anti- climax. My bookshelves are littered with old army pamphlets bearing the imprint of A.B.C.A. and British Way and Purpose ; already there is a certain pathos about their liberal-humanitarian optimism. On the subject of democratic education we of the Army educational service had a special axe to grind in our leadership of discussion groups. The freedom of the teacher in a democratic community was high on our list of values. In the democratic world education by the conflict of opinion was considered preferable to the imposition of standardised opinions from above. How con- temptuously could we refute such false dogmas of Fascist education as the centenary speech at the University of Gottingen in 1937:-
" We renounce international science. We renounce the international republic of learning. We renounce research for its own sake. We teach and learn medicine, not to increase the number of microbes, but to keep the German people strong and healthy. We teach and learn history, not to say how things actually happened but to instruct the German people from the past. We teach and learn the sciences, not to discover abstract laws, but to sharpen the implements of the German people in competition with other peoples."
We defeated Fascism, and we have now entered into a close North Atlantic entente to consolidate the hard-won gains of the democratic nations. Ten years ago A. N. Whitehead foresaw the trend. "For many generations," he wrote, " the North American continent will be the living centre of human civilisation. Thought and action will derive from it, and refer to it." If the Atlantic Pact has united our interests and aspirations, and if we are ever to be called upon to defend them, it is pertinent to examine the ideal and the reality, the precept and the practice.
The denial of civil liberties in American universities is conse- quently of grave concern to this country. Such denial makes a mockery of the speeches of democratic statesmen, and engenders cynicism among their followers. Let us then, before scrutinising recent trends in the United States, state our beliefs, as democrats, in the principle of academic freedom. We believe in the freedom of the teacher or research worker to investigate and discuss the problems of his science without interference from political or ecclesiastical authority. We are equally suspicious of "Nazi" physics and " proletarian" music. We acknowledge the class-influences on education in any society, but believe that the search for new truths will often mean—as history has proved—the undermining of widely accepted contemporary beliefs. It is emphatically not the purpose of a university to confine its teaching to the dissemination of opinions accepted by the general public, or by those who are financing the university. The student has the right to hear alternative opinions freely expounded. Although the professor is paid for the service he renders, none should dictate to him the nature of the service. Clearly he has certain obligations of personal and professional con- duct ; beyond that his security of tenure should be absolute.
The principles enumerated here are widely accepted in this country•, but partly because of the different structure of American universities and colleges, they are frequently violated on the other side of the Atlantic. It is little more than twenty years since the controversy over Darwinism was raging in Tennessee, Mississippi and Arkansas. Because of the clamour of those taxpayers who believed in the literal acceptance of the Bible, laws were passed prohibiting the teaching of the theory of evolution.
In the most recent abuses of academic liberty the emphasis has, of course, been political. Sometimes the agency of suppression has been the notorious Un-American Activities Committee. Under Scnator Thomas its policy was to present the victim with a list of carefully prepared questions, many of them of the " yes or no " variety. When, for instance, `).rofessor Lyman Bradley of New York University attempted to present a full, explanatory answer, he was silenced and threatened with jail if he failed to answer in the approved manner. Dr. Harlow Shapley of Harvard received even more summary treatment ; his papers were snatched from his hand. In the glare of nation-wide publicity, professors and teachers sus- pected of Socialist or liberal tendencies have seen their careers and reputations ruined. Sometimes the pressure is financial. The Dean of Queen's College (New York City) was informed that, unless he banned a left-wing student organisation in his college, a two-million dollar appropriation for a new science building would be withheld. The Dean (Dr. Harold Lenz) refused to comply, and immediately became the victim of a savage campaign of slander. The New York Daily Mirror spoke of a " Rats' Nest in Queens," and described academic freedom as a " silly old shibboleth dragged out . . . to shield intellectual dimwits and pedagogical fanatics."
The American Committee on Academic Freedom has demanded that mere membership of any legal political party should not be in itself ground for dismissal of a teacher. Nevertheless, the President of the University of Washington supported the action of university attorneys in asking for the dismissal of six members of the faculty because of their membership of the Communist Party (although it has since been proved that only two are in fact party members). In the President's words: " An important function of the university is to teach citizenship. For this teaching to be in the hands of men who secretly belong to an organisation advocating the complete over- throw of the American system should not be tolerated."
It should not be assumed that actual members of the Communist Party are the only victims of the purge. Under the formula of " guilt by association" a man may be condemned because of the books he reads, the people with whom he associates (or has associ- ated), or on the basis of chance remarks dropped in the presence of a hostile listener. A report of recent interrogation of two scientists at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, reads like an extract from an Arthur Koestler novel. Whilst security considerations place this case beyond the scope of academic rights, the methods involved are indefensible.
Chairman: " A close relative of yours is reported to have been a member of the book-shop association of , Inc. This association is reliably reported to be Communist-dominated and infiltrated."
"A former landlord of yours has reported that in 1943, after you moved from the premises in which you had been residing, certain magazines and pamphlets which may have been left on the premises by you may have included a copy of the magazine New Masses."
The foregoing examples of totalitarianism are but a few of the many which have been given prominence in the American Press. Indeed, the Press has been mobilised in the campaign to discredit progressive thinkers. Carefully selected items of "evidence," sensa- tional reporting and hysterical editorials have served to oust—and even imprison for "contempt of court "—the more courageous victims, whilst the more timid have been reduced to silence. A radical university professor may not be faced with the spectre of a concentration camp ; such a method would be crude and unpopular. But in the loss of standing in the community, the sacrifice of his job, and the label of "Corninform agent," he faces a future almost as dismal as that which the liberal intellectuals faced under the Nazi regime.
In any criticism of the witch-hunt in America we should avoid an overstatement of the case. Liberal sentiment is strong, and has been vociferous in condemning the threat to academic liberty. Nor has the United States the machinery for really ruthless and efficient suppression of opinion. America is not trembling on the brink of Fascism. There are nations in the world where academic freedom has been much more effectively killed than in America. In the methods of the police State she is still very much an amateur. But as partners in the Atlantic Pact we are entitled to criticise the disparity between what the American Government says and what it does. As undergraduates in a country where academic freedom is probably stronger than anywhere else in the world, we are entitled to ask our American colleagues: " What are you doing to preserve those liberties of thought and speech which, our leaders tell us, must be defended against totalitarianism ? "
Previous page
