Second Year Law student Jonathan Lubell yesterday attacked the Harvard Law Review for its decision not in elect him this term.
Expanding on a letter to the CRIMSON today, Lubell charged that the Review's action was "indicative of the current state of out time."
I didn't want to comment at first," the Cornell Graduate said, "but since the original decision so much has been said both by the CRIMSON and others and unless I comment, certain charges which have been brought against me might give a completely false impression if not answered now."
Different Outcome in 1948
"This whole issue--the Review's decision--indicates the current state of affairs. If this had happened in 1948 or 1949, the result would have been completely different," he said.
"And of all the Law School organizations, I would expect a great deal more from the Law Review," he added. "They never even gave any reason for the decision. I don't know how close the vote was, the only information I got was from the newspapers."
"And of course, I never asked anyone about it," he added.
Lubell attacked the CRIMSON editorial which argued that he was more than a political risk, but a possible subversive. Claiming that he was willing to answer questions anytime about any possible subversive activities, Lubell said he was questioned by the Jenner Committee for only one purpose, to find my alleged political ideas and activities."
No Question of Espionage
"There was no question of espionage and conspiracy to advocate the overthrow of the government by force or violence. I was ready to answer and am now ready to answer these under oath. The 'sensational' investigation concerned only political views and activities," Lubell said.
"I am not in the least bit ashamed of anything I have done or though. But to give information is to aid and abet a political trend which has the characteristic of a national inquisition and which is repugnant to the spirit of the Fifth Amendment. The practical effect of such a trend is to make freedom of speech and association subject to the approval, or surveillance at least, of a group with a narrow set of ideas," Lubell said.
Lubell asserted that he used the Fifth Amendment because "the privilege in its broad scope, including answers which might tend to incriminate one of a federal prosecution of which might tend to form a link in a chain which would tend to incrimination, is available to the innocent as well as the guilty."