Harvard Hit as Nest of Reds at H442 Hearing

Harvard was labeled a hotbed of communism and revolutionary thought yesterday during hearings on the Sullivan Bill before the Education Committee of the General Court.

On at least six occasions, the name of the University crept into testimony, for and against the proposed measure to prevent the employment by Massachusetts educational institution of faculty members who "advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States of America by force or violence."

Nalls Saltonstall

Thomas A. Dorgan, clerk of the Suffolk Superior Court and the first speaker in favor of the bill, promptly teed off against Harvard and Harvard men in general. He censured Senator Leverett Saltonstall '14 for minimizing the danger of communist influence in this country in a speech before the Harvard Club of New Jersey.

"How can he call communism a bugaboo when ten countries with a population of over 300 million people have been overrun by the Commies," Dorgan cried. "I can't understand why we haven't got more Americans," he went on, pounding the table. "Look at men like Alger Hiss, a bright boy from Harvard Law School who turned more than 60 State Department documents over to the Russians."

All Colleges Threatened

When questioned as to whether he (Dorgan) was concerned about communist activity only in Harvard, Dorgan replied that he felt all colleges were threatened by communist infiltration.

Discussions about the threat of communism dominated the hearing in spite of the fact that Sullivan had eliminated the phrase referring to "atheistic communism" in a revision of the original H442. The change in the wording of the bill confused the testimony of many of the witnesses.

When he proposed his legislation at the start of the hearing, Sullivan felt that no institution would be affected by the bill at present, but that he wanted the bill passed as a warning to boards of trustees of college and universities to take care in choosing their staffs.

A member of the Committee of Education, Representative Putnam, asked Sullivan who would determine when a teacher was advocating overthrow of the government by force or violence. He quoted a Harvard professor, whom he did not name, as saying, "I like the spirit of rebellion." Putnam asked Sullivan whether Harvard could be penalized for such a statement under the terms of H442.

Sullivan replied that the courts would decide when H442 should be brought into play on "a clear and present danger basis." He added that he felt the professor's remark in this case did not seem to constitute a clear and present danger.

Shattuck Opposes Bill

Henry Leo Shattuck '01, a member of the Corporation, spoke in opposition to H442 as a private citizen. He argued that the Bill would be an unnecessary law clumsily supplementing measures such as the Anti-Anarcy Law, the Teachers' Oath Law, and the Smith Act which are already on the books.

He argued that the suggested bill represents "weakness and a lack of faith in the United States and the people of the United States."

"This is a witch hunt bill," asserted Daniel B. Schirmer '37, who spoke on behalf of the Communist Party. He called an outright lie a charge made earlier in the hearing, that the Communist Party is promoting and directing atomic research.

Bill Called Unconstitutional

Leonard W. Schroetor IL blasted H442 as a measure "clearly unconstitutional under federal law and judicial decisions and completely antagonistic to statues of long standing on the books of the Commonwealth."

He charged that the Sullivan Bill would intimidate and silence every teacher who feared that something he said might be construed as being atheistic or communistic, and thus "caution would replace innovation, and conformity would supplant controversy."

Schroeter noted that H442 could harm whole universities and their students for the political opinion of one person on the faculty. He pointed out that the Attorney-General has not had to prosecute a single person under loyalty laws currently extant.

The Student Council made known its opinion on H442 through Frederic D. Houghteling '50, who said "the trouble with all purges and all censorship . . . is that they tend to fall into the hands of those who are willing to agree with anything they do not agree with."

Chandler C. Davis 3L put the Graduate Student Council on record as opposed to H442