89

James Kirkpatrick Davis,Assault on the Left: The FBI and the Sixties AntiwarMovement.

As director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation from 1924 until 1972, J.Edgar Hoover led a crusade against the nation’s greatest perceived enemyduring the Cold War years: the Communists. In 1956, at the 279th Meeting ofthe National Security council, Hoover gave a presentation titled, “The PresentMenace of Communist Espionage and Subversion,” during which he arguedthat the FBI should intensify it’s secret domestic surveillance of the Commun-ist Party USA (CPUSA). Following the meeting, Hoover moved to expandand intensify the bureau’s counterintelligence operations. These secret oper-ations would be known within the bureau by the code name COINTELPRO– an acronym for counterintelligence program. Over the next several years,COINTELPRO actions were aimed towards communist and socialist organ-izations like the CPUSA and the Socialist Workers Party. By the mid-sixties,however, the face of the Left wing movement in America was changing.Labor leaders were replaced by college students and young academics whenthe New Left emerged as a powerful social and political movement. Theprimary goal of the New Left was the end of the war in Vietnam, and angryprotests often turned violent as the war contined to escalate. The FBI imple-mented at least 285 COINTELPRO actions against the New Left in an effortto not only monitor but also infiltrate and disrupt the movement. The FBIbegan to wage war on the anti-war movement.

In Assault on the Left: The FBI and the Sixties Antiwar Movement, JamesKirkpatrick Davis recreates this battle. Davis has examined over 6,000 formerlyclassified documents to piece together the story. Through letters, memos, andminutes, Davis describes the COINTELPRO actions and develops the argu-ment that “the FBI domestic intelligence actions went considerably beyondthe investigation of actual crimes to include largely unwarranted surveillanceof law-abiding organizations and individuals.” In their efforts to squelch amovement that occasionally operated beyond the realms of law, the FBI itselfturned to methods like electronic surveillance, mail openings and surrepti-tious entries, among other actions that ultimately lead to the endangermentand public humiliation of many law abiding citizens.

Davis develops this arguement by moving chronologically through thestory of the New Left antiwar movement from the establishment of Studentsfor a Democratic Society (SDS) chapters, to the 1968 Democratic Conven-tion, Vietnam Moratorium Day, and Kent State. He paints a vivid picture

90

of the era of student revolt. Davis also provides detailed descriptions of thetactics FBI officials utilized in their assault on the Anti-war movement.

Some COINTELPRO techniques seem almost amusingly simple. For ex-ample, the FBI sent phony letters to the parents of students who were mem-bers of organizations like the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS). Insuch letters, often sent anonymously under the guise of a fellow “concernedparent,” the FBI informed parents that their son or daughter was involved inSDS. “You may have previously read of this organization,” one letter sugges-ted, “if so, you probably also have read of the immoral character of many ofthese SDS members.” This letter concluded by asserting that “this informa-tion is being furnished to you not to cause trouble in your family but with thefervent hope that you as a parent and government employee will do somethingabout your boy’s actions in connection with this organization.” Of course, theletters did not amuse concerned parents and caused trouble within families,often succeeding in their goal to make students withdraw from organizations.Letters were also used to spark dissension among various factions of the vari-ous antiwar movements. These letters were “written in the jargon of the NewLeft, necessitating the use of a certain amount of profanity.” In a letter mailedto 68 New Left leaders the FBI sought to intensify an alleged rift betweenthe Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) and other New Left groups. “Eventssince the disaster on June 29-30, have again demonstrated that everythingthe YSA touches turns to pure horseshit,” wrote the FBI. The FBI also sentcarefully placed letters to newspapers and university administrators, whichoften succeeded in socially ostracizing faculty members and students whowere involved in the new left as well as sometimes costing them their jobs.

FBI involvement in the student organizations, however, went far beyondmere letter writing. Undercover agents, after allowing their hair to grow long,were strategically placed within the student groups, not only to monitor them,but also to cause disruptions and dissension. By far the most dangerous andoutrageous action undertaken by the FBI was the fraudulent “fingering” ofreal New Left leaders as undercover agents. This was a potentially life threat-ening action, particularly given the volatile and sometimes violent nature ofsome New Left groups.

Davis’ text reads well, although there are times when large block quota-tions seem to be the dominant paragraph structure. Yet, these quotations areimportant because they vividly recreate not only the events, but the sentimentsand lingo of the protest era. Davis brings up issues that are intriguing not onlyfor historians of the sixties peace movement but for anyone concerned withCivil Liberties. Readers may share Davis subjects’ sense of outrage at thedeeply intrusive and manipulative tactics that the FBI enlisted in its battleagainst the New Left, yet they are also struck by the viciousness with which

91

some youthful protesters expressed their desire for peace. Certainly, somegovernment intervention was called for, but should it have been so underhan-ded? This are the issues that Davis grapples with while telling an engagingand important story.

Cornell University Mary Miles