Other formats

    Adobe Portable Document Format file (facsimile images)   TEI XML file   ePub eBook file  

Connect

    mail icontwitter iconBlogspot iconrss icon

Salient. An Organ of Student Opinion at Victoria College, Wellington, N.Z. Vol. 14, No. 3. April 5, 1951

The United States . . . — A Case of Divergent Opinions

page 6

The United States . . .

A Case of Divergent Opinions

Fascism and Anti-Fascism

Much of the argument centring round the I.U.S. and its constitution involves this question of fascism and what it is. Why is this? The sections of the constitution which we have already quoted in our previous section, and indeed the whole tenor of the constitution, confirm that the I.U.S. directly owes its origin to the unity that was forged between the peoples of the victorious allied nations in the 1939-45 war. The student sections of these peoples came together in 1946 and formed the I.U.S: with the declared objective of continuing, in student circles at least, for the future peace of the world and the development and wellbeing of humanity, that unity which had so successfully, though not without many difficulties and differences, been created to win the war.

Of course there was then, and there still are, many for whom fascism means little more than something foreign with flags, and for whom that war was just another struggle between two great blocs of nations of which the one on which they happened to find themselves was animated by vaguely good, and the enemy by vaguely bad, motives. But, for the vast majority of students at this and other I.U.S. assemblies, most of them are still living with the aftermath of war and enemy-occupation, that war was fought besically against a welldefined type of political and economic organisation rather than against a group of nations or peoples. That organisation they know as "fascism," of which a typical definition is that given by President Roosevelt in his message to Congress on the 29th April, 1938. He said: "Unhappy truths abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That, in its essence, is fascism—ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or by any other controlling private power . . . Among us to day, a concentration of private power without equal in history is growing . . . "

The views of the majority of delegates and of the I.U.S. Executive at this Congress were: that fascism in this sense did not altogether die with the defeat of Germany, Italy and Japan in 1945; that, apart from countries like Spain where it has openly continued to exist throughout, there is grave danger of its rebirth in several countries to-day, particularly in the U.S.A. itself; and that such a state of affairs involves many grave dangers for the rest of the world, including the strong possibility of a suicidal third total war.

Speakers from the minority group, and particularly the observers for the National Students Association of America, dismissed with scorn any suggestion that fascism was even possible in the U.S.A.

Mr. West, the leader of the group of observers for the N.S.A. of America (which, as far as we know, has never been affiliated to the I.U.S.), made two speeches. He mentioned that, like a number of other students present, he was a veteran of the Second World" War, and his speeches seemed to express substantial agreement with the opinions of the I.U.S. Executive and the majority present. His statement on Korea, for instance, was sympathetic to people of that country in the agonies which they fee now suffering, and included several concrete suggestions substantially along the lines envisaged by the majority of delegates for the settlement of the armed conflict there. (See later under Korea).

In his main intervention, claiming to speak on behalf of a membership of 800,000 in the United States, Mr. West gave a speech which impressed your observers by its apparent reasonableness and sincerity. Unlike Mr. Jenkins of B.N.U.S., he did not engage in bitter recriminations against the I.U.S. Executive. His organisation, he said, endorsed the principles and aims of the I.U.S. constitution, re-affirmed its support and solidarity with students struggling against colonisation, and firmly supported any action likely to contribute to the maintenance of world peace. Their attitude, he said, was not that of Marxism-Leninism, but of Democratic Liberalism. They were, for instance, strongly opposed to the Kuo Min Tang regime in China and welcomed the liberation of the Chinese people from Chiang Kai Shek. He claimed that the I.U.S, should not necessarily be a political in outlook, but rather non-political, making purely student problems the centre of its activities and taking political actions only to the extent that those problems demanded it.

Turning to the question of peace, he said that U.S. students to-day were veterans of the fight against fascism and believe that war is needless and avoidable, claiming that peace can and will be achieved. His organisation strongly supported U.N.O. and had turned its full energies to the work of U.N.E.S.C.O. He expressed the strongest possible support for the statement of the Bureau of the World Committee of the Defenders of Peace which had been read from the tribune the previous day (see later under Peace). He also stated that the opinions of this Congress on the Stockholm Appeal would be carried back and presented in all sincerity to the students of the United States.

Turning to the quetsion of civil liberties in the United States, with reference to educational institutions, he referred with some pride to his organisation's Students Bill of Rights and claimed that the N.S.A. has lost support in the Southern Universities due to their attitude on these questions. He fully endorsed what had been said by Dr. Ralph Spitzer, an American scientist who addressed the Congress about his dismissal from the post of Associate Professor of Physical Chemistry at Oregon State College for having written a letter to a scientific periodical in connection with the biological theories of the Soviet scientist Lyssenko, Dr. Spitzer having supported the latter. In his address to the Congress Dr. Spitzer had given the full history of his own case and had factually and at some length gone into the increasing lack of academic freedom in the United States. It was presumably with these remarks that Mr. West was expressing agreement.

Other American Speakers

Having listened to Mr. West with great interest, we were surprised to learn from Dr. Spitzer personally that the N.S.A., though appealed to, had taken no action in his case. Dr. Spitzer and his wife proceeded to Holland where he took part in a Scientific Convention. We were later shocked to see a letter from his wife stating that on the 9th September,' as they were boarding the boat to go from Amsterdam to England, before returning to the U.S.A., he had been arrested by the Dutch police at the request of the American authorities and that the American Consul there had informed her that he would remain in goal there until the first available boat to America. The last we heard of him, some weeks later, he had been forcibly returned to the U.S.A. and his passport was there taken from him.

It appeared that again no action had been taken by the National Students' Association.

In light of these facts, we find ourselves able to give credence to the contentions made to the Congress by Mr. Chester Davies of the American Committee for International Student Cooperation (a body affiliated to the I.U.S.) when he claimed that the N.S.A. of America was not in practice carrying out a policy anything like Mr. West's speech would have us believe. He bluntly charged Mr. West and the N.S.A. with hypocrisy and insincerity, claiming that little or nothing had been done by the N.S.A. in the way of protests or action in the face of a whole series of aggravated encroachments on academic freedom, the political control and militarisation of education, serious racial discrimination, the wholesale dismissal of teachers for their political opinions or their refusal to sign "loyalty oaths," and so on. The N.S.A., he said, had refused to co-operate with other student bodies in their protests and actions against these things.

Among Mr. Davies' complaints about the present state of U.S. education were:
1.The appointment of Army officers, businessmen, and persons of no academic standing as principals and trustees of public universities.
2.An increasing number of warlike statements from persons in influential positions in Universities, such as that of James Conant, President of Harvard, that the task of a University is "to prepare the student for the cold war."
3.The dismissal of University staff for expressing liberal opinions, and the demanding of "loyalty oaths" and the interrogation of staff and students on their political views. He cited the new celebrated case of the University of California, where a very substantial number of the staff were dismissed or resigned for refusing to subscribe to such a "loyalty oath." (N.B. A large number of such cases are dealt with in two I.U.S. pamphlets, "Whither Education in the U.S." published in July, 1949, and "U.S. Education in Crisis" published this year). See also Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, November, 1950.
4.The banning from University life of a number of young people's organisations such as the Labour Youth League and the American Veterans' Committee, and the victimisation of students for belonging to proscribed organisations.
5.Insensate actions, such as that of the Baltimore School Board of burning all books alleged to be sympathetic to the Soviet Union.
6.Censorship of student publications by University authorities.
7.The unhindered appearance, and sometimes even the encouragement by the authorities, of intolerance and race hatred, for example, in some places, against Jews, in others against Catholics, or the foreignborn, but particularly and almost universally against Negroes.
Mention was also made of a recent pamphlet reporting the results of a survey conducted under the sponsorship of Louis Bromfield, Pearl Buck, Albert Einstein and others and published in the United States. This report found that American schools of higher learning are becoming increasingly dependent upon military funds for their survival. It claimed that the military controlled more than 70 per cent. of all scientific research in the country, and hence was a strong influence in university policy. Among its findings were:
1."In recent months the nation's press has reported an increase in military activity and influence in our American educational institutions. This activity, represented by military subsidy of science departments, expanded military training units, increased use of schools and colleges as recruiting grounds, and military propaganda directed towards students and faculty has serious implications both for the future of our nation and for world peace."
2."Despite the fact that the purpose of education is not the promotion of nationalism or militarism, a considerable number of American colleges were prepared to make war their major raison d'etre as long as the government wanted." Citing estimates that the military would spend about $54 million in research in universities in 1950, the report (written before the beginning of the "Korean Affair") said "whenever military secrecy becomes important to a college, the political opinion of students and professors, and their associations, become important and may be the basis for their investigation and dismissal."
3.In addition to General Dwight Eisenhower, now President of Columbia University, the report names nine other top-flight military men who are running American colleges.
4.". . . The Army is trying to sell itself to educators through the professional educational organisations, often indirectly suggesting to educators who are planning a convention that a certain top general would be available for an address. . . . Colonel Herman Beukema of the U.S. Military Academy used such an opportunity to say," . . there can be no question of returning the armed forces to the hole in the corner they occupied before the war. With understanding will come a greater concern for the selection and education of qualified military personnel to fill the niches where power and policy become one and inseparable."."
5."Education has the choice of being used as a tool of the military in its effort to achieve power, or of being the servant of all the people. Only if education is free from militarism, can it really be the instrument through which democracy and peace may be achieved," concluded the report.

Thought Control

A further remark quoted at the Congress was that of Robert M. Hutchins, Chancellor of Chicago University in which he said. "The miasma of thought control that is now spreading over the country [unclear: s] the greatest menance to the United States since Hitler." The fear expressed by many speakers was that the N.S.A., either through ignorance or through neglect, was doing effectively, nothing to combat these dangerous tendencies in U.S. education, tendencies which, taken with the current "crusade against bolshevism" in the United States, was indeed drawing that country to the brink of fascism.

False Solidarity

Another critic of the N.S.A. for its omissions was the delegate for Porto Rico, Jose Luiz Gonzales. He described his countrymen as "the most exploited people in the Western Hemisphere," Porto Rico having been a colony of the United States itself for 52 years. His story was, like that of so many other colonnial students, one of poverty, ill-health, utterly inadequate facilities for education, medical treatment, housing etc. He claims that there are 500,000 Porto Ricans without reasonable adequate housing and an average of 300,000 children of school age receiving, no schooling, while millions of dollars are being spent on local naval bases. He spoke of a strong movement for national independence in which students take an active part. Speaking with great feeling, he said that Mr. West's claim that the N.S.A. supported national liberation movements and students struggling against colonialism was a lie. He then outlined a recent dispute between students and the authorities when a number of students were killed. He said that the N.S.A. had been appealed to for support in this case, but that it had pronounced that "the blame was equally divided" and had declined any sort of assistance to the students. The delegate concluded, "In the sacred name of one hundred people of Porto Rico who died in the fight for national independence, I reject the false solidarity of Mr. West"

Lies and Slander

Finally on this topic, let us quote the speech of Mr. Tom Madden (British member of I.U.S. Secretariat) where he said:

"At this Congress we have heard the representative of the N.S.A. speaking friendly words, yet in the recent past the officers of the N.S.A. have indulged in much name-calling against the I.U.S. and its Congress. It is hard to forget the bullying blackmail of the N.S.A. leaders towards the C.I.S.C. (affiliated U.S. student body) before this Congress. Surely Mr. Childers, N.S.A. Vice-President for International Affairs, and the N.S.A. News were not simply speaking for themselves and improperly representing their organisation on these occasions. We ask the representatives present, why do officers of your organisation slander the I.U.S.? Why did you declare at the recent N.U.S. Council meeting in England that your organisation was maintaining close relations with Japanese student organisations 'with a view to assisting them eventually to develop a national union of students?' Surely you are not ignorant of the fact that there exists in Japan a powerful national student organisation representing over 60 per cent. of the students, that is to way, more than 250,000 students. Surely you are not ignorant of the fact that this Federation is constantly leading militant action against the introduction of the American witch hunt into Japanese Universities, and that its very existence is threatened by the decrees of General MacArthur. This ignorance is very strange unless the 'Commission of Inquiry' which you have stated the N.S.A. wants to send to Japan is intended to disrupt the unity of Japanese students.

"In view of our past experiences, some of the statements that you have made to the Congress arc very difficult to accept at their face value. I want to make it clear that the I.U.S. accepts the sincerely expressed wish of several conventions of the N.S.A. to co-operate with our organisation. But I do not believe that the Congress will be ready immediately to believe in the sincerity of N.S.A. leaders. .

"If we are wrong and they are truly sincere, it will be proved by a change in the attitude and daily work of the leaders of your organisation in the United States. In any case, we hope that you will take the decisions of the Congress back to the N.S.A., and if your words of cooperation prove to be true, we shall be happy about that and regard it as an important success for world peace. One of the first things that you could do to show your sincerity would be to declare your willingness to speak to students in your country about the Congress on the same platform, together with the C.S.C. representatives on your return. Secondly, you could undertake to report fairly on this Congress through the N.S.A. News and to the N.S.A. Convention."