News

Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction

News

‘Gender-Affirming Slay Fest’: Harvard College QSA Hosts Annual Queer Prom

News

‘Not Being Nerds’: Harvard Students Dance to Tinashe at Yardfest

News

Wrongful Death Trial Against CAMHS Employee Over 2015 Student Suicide To Begin Tuesday

News

Cornel West, Harvard Affiliates Call for University to Divest from ‘Israeli Apartheid’ at Rally

A Defeat for Paranoia

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

Sunday at noon Willard Uphaus was freed from jail and from the political paranoia of the state that imprisoned him. By subjecting Uphaus and his organization to "exposure for exposure's sake," the New Hampshire legislature and Attorney-General Wyman denied them the right of group association that is essential to freedom of assembly. Obsessed with a suspicion of "out-of-state" ideas and people, state authorities arbitrarily limited the number and length of visits to the 70-year-old pacifist. Now, the Superior Court has finally refused to keep him in jail any longer.

The list of welcome changes does not end here. Attorney-General Wyman has rejected another term after his present one ends on Friday. For the last seven years he has used the power of his office and of public opinion to persecute dissent in a manner not only contemptuous of civil liberties but also amusingly destructive of New Hampshire's favorite shibboleth: meddlesome government is evil. That adage seems a ludicrous antique.

But no one has heard the last of the Uphaus case. World Fellowship, Uphaus' group, is growing, and Wyman will remain in Concord as an adviser to the Governor. Wyman stated enigmatically last week that "[Uphaus] and the organization known as World Fellowship will continue to be the object of very careful investigation." The thought of a life term for Uphaus is improbable, but not inconceivable. With the new Attorney-General will rest the decision whether to keep alive a case that relates about as much to the state's security as kindergarten pranks.

Moreover, the inconsistencies of the Supreme Court's 1959 decision with its opinions on segregation seem likely to become more and more conspicuous. At the same time, supporters of civil disobedience such as Uphaus will have to adjust their news to the idea that this defiance of the Court rests on the same grounds as that of many segregationists. Finally, if New Hampshire is not to repeat the story of Willard Uphaus, to its own national and perhaps international discredit, its leaders and people must cure themselves of their stultifying suspicion of the foreign and unfamiliar.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags