The Infiltration and Exploitation

89th Congress SENATE f DOCUME.:NT1st Session No. 72

THE ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE

-TEACH-IN MOVEMENT

The Problem of Communist Infiltration and

Exploitation

A STAFF STUDYPRIEPARED FOR TIIE

SUBCOMMITTEE TO INVESTIGATE THEADMINISTRATION OF THE INTERNAL SECURITYACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS

TO TIIE

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYUNITED S[TATES SENATE

October 22, 19COf--Otrltuto be prrinted

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 1965

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing OflloeWashington, D.C,, 20402 - Prico 70 conts

55-733

COMMITTEE ON THE JUDICIARYJAMES O. EASTLAND, Mississippi, Ctairman

JOIIN L. McOLELLAN, ArkansasSAM J. ERVIN, J.a, North CarolinaTIOMASI J. DODD, ConmectlcutPHILIP A. IART, MichiganEDWARD V. LONG, MissouriEDWARD M. KENNEDY, MassachusettsBIROH BAYII, IndianaQUENTIN N. BURDIOK, North DakotaJOSEPII D. TYDINGS, MarylandGEORGE A. 8MATH ERS, Florida

EVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, IllinoisROMAN L. HRU8KA, NebraskaHIRAM L. FONG, IlawaiiIHUGH 0OOTT, PennsylvaniaJACOB K. JAVITS, New York

SUBCOMMIrrEE To INVESTIGATE TIE ADMINISTRATION OF TIIE INTERNAL,SECURITY ACT AND OTHER INTERNAL SECURITY LAWS

JAMES O. EA8TLAND, Mississippi, ChairmanTHOMAS J. IODT, Connecticut, Vice Cnairman

JOIN L. McCLELILAN, ArkansasSAM J. ERVIN, JN., North CarolinaBIRCI BAYII, IndianaGEORGE A. SMATIIERS, Florida

ROMAN L. IIIUSKA, NebraskaEVERETT McKINLEY DIRKSEN, IllinoisHUGIH SCOTT, Pennsylvania

J. (. SOURWINE, CounselBENJAMIN MANDEL, Director of Research

S. Con. Res. 65 Agreed to October 22, 1965

fbf)tt'-.fntIj Congrecnof tije niiteb *tntet of AlleritaAT TIlE FIRST SESSION

Begun and held at the City of Washington on Monday, the fourth dayof January, one thousand nine hundred and sixty-five

ConCturent Xekolutlio

.Resolved by the Senate (the tHouse of Representatives concrwring),That the pamphlet entitled "The Anti-Vietnam Agitation and theTeach-In Mlovement", prepared for the use of the Subcommittee onInternal Security of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, be printedas a Senate document.

SEc. 2. There shall be printed twenty-two thousand nine hundredand seventy-five additional copies, of which ten thousand copies shallbe for the use of the Senate Commnittee on the Judiciary, ten thou-sand nine hundred and seventy-five copies shall be for the use ofthe House of Representatives, and two thousand copies shall be forthe House Document Room.

Attest:FELTON M. JOHINSTON,

Secretary of the Senate.Attest:

RALPri R. ROuER'rs,7lerk of the House of Representatives.

1

RESOLUTION

Resolved by the Internal Security Subcommittee of the Senate Com-mittee on the Jldiciary, That a staff study entitled "The Anti-VietnamAgitation and thc Teach-In Movement" be printed and made public.

JAMES O. EASTLAND,Chairman.

THOMAS J. DODD,Vice Chairman.

JOIN L. MCCLELLAN.SAM J. ERV1N, Jr.BInRC BAYIh.G. A. SMATHERS.ROMAN I-IHTSKA.EVEnIETT N . DIRKSEN.IHUGH SCOTT.

Approved October 13, 1965.III

CONTENTS

PageIntroduction by Senator Thomas J. Dodd------- --------------- vIiChapter I. Communist exploitation and infiltration of peace movements-A brief history---------------- 1

Chapter II. Communist policy in Vietnam-The nature of the war inVietnam._--_--...----- .. ....----.----------- -------.- 6

Chapter III. The anti-Vietnam agitation ----------------------------- 9Chapter IV. The origins of the teach-in movement--- _-_------ 17Chapter V. The national teach-in in Washington-.--------------------- 34Chapter VI. Communist exploitation of anti-Vietnam teach-ins and theanti-Vietnam movement--------------------------------------- 39

Chapter VII. The national Vietnam protest, October 15-16------------ 42Chapter VIII. Biographical notes on some of the participants ---------.. 45

APPENDICES

Appendix I. Some documents re Communist policy on Vietnam-------- 91Appendix II. The Communist policy on the American peace movement- 93Appendix III. Communist Party directives re the anti-Vietnam move-ment------------------..---------------------------------------- 142

Appendix IV. American recss comment on the teach-inls--------------- 1,17Appendix V. U.S. Communist comment on teach-ins._----__------- 158Appendix VI. Soviet comment on teach-ins--------------------------- 177Appendix VII. Chinese Communist comment on teach-ins -............... 187Appendix VIII. Hanoi reaction to teach-ins and anti-Vietnam protests- 189Appendix IX. Some documents of the teach-in movement-------------- 191Appendix X. Sundry documents of the anti-Vietnam movement-------- 196Appendix XI. Three articles from the National Guardian on "The New

Left"-- .... ...................------------------- ..-------- 214Appendix XII. CBS news special report-------------------------..-- 224

v

THE ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENTThe Problem of Communist Infiltration and Exploitation

INTRODUCTION

By Senator Thomas J. Dodd

The current surge of criticism about administration policy inVietnarm may be divided into four broad categories:

(1) The honest criticism of loyal Americans who oppose communismbut believe that the method we are using to fight it in Vietnam iswrong, and who urge a different method.

(2) The honest criticism of those who believe communism is evolvinginto something less than a real threat, or who believe that Vietnam isoutside our sphere of influence and that we are pursuing a course offolly in committing ground troops to a war in that area.

(3) The honest criticism of convinced pacifists who believe thatforce is wrong in any and all circumstances.

(4) The dishonest criticism of those who support the general aimsof communism, who look upon America as the villain and regardMoscow or Poiping as the new Utopias, who hold that Westerndemocracy is in fact a capitalist dictatorship while Communisttotalitarianism is synonymous with people's democracy, who are allfor so-called wars of national liberation, but who tell us that the freeworld sins when it uses force to defend itself against Communistaggression.

1ho position of those in the first three categories commands respect,and their voices must bo heard, no matter how much any of us lmaydisagree with them, if the processes of democracy are not to bostultified.

It is unfortmnato that in the clamor and chaos of the anti-Vietnamagitation, the voices of many thousands of loyal Americans in thefirst three categories havo become confused and blended with thevoices of those pseudo-Americans in category No. 4.

It is, however, easy to discover who the true pacifists are, and thefact that many, and perhaps most of theo demonstrators are notgenuine pacifists can bo established from a simple scratching of thesurface. Those, for example, who openly urge support for the Viet-cong, denying documented facts and figures of murder, kidnaping,and assassination by the Viotcong are almost, without exception par-tisans of communism and their-criticism of our policy is rooted innothing better than the commitment to the interests of Communistexpansion.Condemning the growth of such groups on the loft, an eminent

liberal, Prof. John Roche, of Brandeis University, a former nationalchairman of Americans for Democratic Action, said this:What particularly disturbs me is the growth of part-time paoifism, or liberal

isolationism. Fine liberals, who would storm Congress to aid a beleagueredvn

INTRODUCTION

Israel, suddenly shift gears when Asia is involved and start talking about "theinevitability of Chinese domination" and the "immorality" of bombing NorthVietnam. Let me make it perfectly clear that a pacifist can on principle arguethat the use of force in international affairs is immoral. Though I do not holdthis position, I recognize its principled foundation. But a pacifist is thus for-bidden by his moral imperatives from having any favorite wars. (New Leader,Apr. 26, 1955.)When playwright Arthur Miller refused to attend the signing of the

new Arts and Humanities Act in protest against the Governmentpolicy in Vietnam, he stated that "When the guns go boom-boom,the arts die." But Mr. Miller did not get away that easily. DavidMerrick, one of Broadway's busiest producers, pointed out that:

* * * This is not what he said when he was all for the guns going boom-booma few years ago against Nazi aggression. I find it puzzling that he doesn't wantthe guns to go boom to stop the Red Chinese aggression. (New York HeraldTribune, Sept. 28, 1965, p. 20).The fact is clear that many of the most vociferous of the Govern-

ment's critics do not oppose the use of force. They simply opposethe use of force against Communists.The publicity that has been accorded the anti-Vietnam agitation

has created a greatly exaggerated impression, both in this country andabroad, of the dimensions of the intellectual opposition to the adminis-tration's Vietnam policy. This point was made emphatically by MaxLerner, distinguished liberal, professor, and author of "The Historyof American Civilization."

Said Mr. Lerner:I have taken no poll but I have traveled on many campuses * * * and I find

the scholars close to Asian studies support the Presidnfsnes-ca'us6-ty"'know whatwould happen in Asia if America wvrejo witlhdraw. The men in the politicalstudies also * * * support him because they know something about the ways ofCommunist expansionism. The men in the military studies support him becausethey known this is a minor war compared to what we would have to wage if itfailed * * *. If I am right, then my guess is that there is an inverse relation be-tween militancy or hostility to the President's policy and closeness to the subjectmatter (New York Post, Apr. 30, 1965).But while Mr. Lerner's findings may be statistically correct, this

in no way gainsays the fact that, by dint of sheer noise and persistenceand clever propaganda, the sponsors of the anti-Vietnam movementhave succeeded in creating the impression that they speak for thebetter part of the American academic community.

Writing in The Militant, organ of the Trotskyist Communists,Harry Ring sums up the Communist view of what is currentlyoccurring:

Opposition to Washington's aggression in Vietnam * * * is deeper and morewidespread than generally realized * * *. The opposition has found expressionso far primarily among college students and professors. But this campus senti-ment does not run counter to a contrary one in the general community. * * *The campus protest has already produced three widespread important actions:(1) The April 17 march on Washington to end the war in Vietnam, which drew20,000 participants; (2) the May 15 national teach-in in Washington whichattracted 5,000 direct participants; (3) the May 21 Vietnam Day at Berkeleywhere 15,000 students protested U.S. aggression * * *. It was a hard jolt forPresident Johnson when the distinguished literary figure, Lewis Mumford, chosethe annual meeting of the ultrastnid Institute of Arts and Letters to cry outagainst the administration's criminal aggression against the Vietnamese * * *people * * *. In every sense, the present opposition to U.S. war policies isdeeply significant. It is the most extensive organized opposition to war thathas ever been manifest while a war was going on. There were antiwar movements

VIll

INTRODUCTION

in this country prior to World War I and World War II but they collapsed theday the shooting started * * *. Every fighter for peace has reason to be heart-ened by the present trend of developments * * *. (The Militant, 'June 14,1965, p. 1.)Nor can there be any denying the fact that the Communist

apparatus has been able to exploit this situation with remarkablesuccess for propaganda purposes.That the Communists have every reason to be satisfied is a point

that must be conceded.Writing in the New York Times in June 1965, Mr. C. L. Sulzberger,

dean of the New York Times foreign correspondents, made thisstatement:The remarkable Communist propaganda apparatus seeks to undermine the

resolve of Governments in Saigon and Washington. * * * Many Americanintellectuals display a strange lemming instinct and refuse to see the struggle inits true meaning as advertised quite openly by the Communists themselves: ashowdown with global implications. * * * Our adversary finds it possible to usedemocratic processes of free speech to harass distant vulnerable spots. * * *

It is no part of the purpose of this study to suggest that all of thosewho disagree with the administration's policy on Vietnam or whoparticipate in demonstrations against this policy are Communists orCommunist dupes. There are, indeed, many men with impeccablerecords of anticommunism who have expressed disagreement with theadministration's policy, in whole or in part.

It is, rather, the purpose of the study contained in the followingpages to try to establish whether the Communist Party and its variousaffiliates have succeeded in infiltrating and manipulating and exploit-ing the so-called teach-in movement and the anti-Vietnam agitationin general, and, if so, to what extent and in what manner.

1 hope that the facts here set forth, will, among other things,- assistloyal critics of administration policy to purge their ranks of theCommunists and crypto-Communists, so that the national debate onVietnam policy can be carried forward as a discussion between honestmen, unencumbered by the participation of the Communists, whohave been seeking to subvert the entire process of free debate, asthey seek to subvert our society.

In the paragraphs that follow, I have sought to set forth for theconscientious reader a summary of the findings, and a summary of theconclusions to which, in my opinion, these findings inevitably point.

SUMMARY OF FINDINGSCHAPTER I

COMMUNIST EXPLOITATION AND INFILTRATION OF PEACE MI¥ovE-MENTS-A BRIEF HISTORY

Since the earliest days of the Communist movement, the Con'-munist leadership in every country has sought to expand and magnifyits influence by infiltrating non-Communist organizations or byfounding or encouraging the formation of ostensibly non-Communistorganizations as fronts for their activity.

This has posed a serious problem for all those honest pacifists andsocial reformers who know that the Communists are interested neitherin peace nor social reform, and who understand the danger of Com-munist participation in the movements to which they belong.

IX

INTRODUCTION

In their internal party documents, the Communists have beenremarkably frank in instructing their members on the need for sup-porting and participating in "broad community peace movements"and1on the need for flexibility in working with pacifists and con-scientious objectors and liberals and other groupings-in each caseseeking to find formulations that would inspire the enthusiasm of theparticular group they are seeking to influence.

Old-time Socialists and leaders of the National Committee for aSane N'.clear Policy, who have learned about the dangers of Com-inunist infiltration from their own bitter experience, are, to theircredit, using their influence to prevent or limit Communist participa-tion in the various peace movements with which they are associated.Their efforts have earned them the public castigation of the Com-munist press, which apparently considers it the inalienable right ofAmerican Communists to infiltrate and subvert the organizationsof their choosing.

CHAPTER II

COMMUNIST POLICY IN VIETNAM

At-the Third Communist Party Congress in Hanoi in Septemberof 1960, the party adopted a resolution committing it "to liberateSouth Vietnam from the ruling yoke of the U.S. imperialists andtheir henchmen in order to achieve national unity and completeindependence."Only the willfully blind can believe that it was a pure coincidence

that this resolution of the Communist Party coincided with thelaunching of a stepped-up guerrilla and propaganda campaign againstthe South Vietnamese Government.The course of the Vietnamese war since that time has been marked

by countless Communist resolutions supporting the struggle of theso-called National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, and condemn-ing American "imperialist" intervention.Indeed, there is not a Communist Party in the entire world, whether

it adheres to Peiping or Moscow, that has not adopted such resolutionsor issued such declarations.The Communists have always found it advantageous to conceal or

play down the fact that the purpose of their activities in Vietnam orany other country is the imposition of a Communist dictatorship. Inthis way, they have in every country and in every crisis situation beenable to mislead scores of thousands of well-intentioned people whosesupport can be enlisted by bandying about words like "peace" and"freedom" and "independence," but who would be antagonized if theCommunists told them in so many words that it was the purpose oftheir campaign in South Vietnam to impose a totalitarian dictatorshipin that country and convert it into a springboard for further aggressionagainst its neighbors.

It is clear from many things that a fundamental ingredient of Com-munist strategy on Vietnam is the mobilization of significant sectors ofpublic opinion in this country and in other free countries, in oppositionto American policy in Vietnam.

It is clear from any reading of the Communist and fellow travelerpress of this country that the Communist apparatus has for manymonths now devoted the better part of its energy and its resources

X

INTRODUCTION

and its considerable propaganda talent to the task of encouragingand enlarging public opposition to the administration's policy inVietnam.The pro-Communist National Guardian has stated:* * * what strength it has already mustered makes the new left the most

exciting and potentially powerful political phenomenon in U.S. radical historysince the rapid growth of the Cormunist Party in the thirties. For the mobiliza-tion of the new left has changed the posture of U.S. radicalism from a defensiveholding position to probing offensive action; and in so doing it has injected freshperspectives and a new militancy into the ranks of the U.S. left * * *.

CHAPTER III

THE ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION

Newspapers of the ultralefts which have had little progress to reportfor more than a decade, are now filling their pages with the messagethat Americans oppose the war in Vietnam, and that if Communistssimply persist, opinion in this country will become so divided that wewill be forced to withdraw.One of the leading campaigns being carried on by the new left

organizations is what they have termed the "antidraft" campaign.Paul Booth, of Students for a Democratic Society, reported thatSDS has organized "draft counseling workshops" in six cities to advisethose young people who are of draft age and who oppose the war inVietnam. He said that SDS will set up conscientious objector regis-tration desks outside military induction centers, and is discussingorganizing a "national day of antidraft protests."Another tactic frequently used by members of the new left protest

groups is that of attempting to stop activity at military bases byparticipating in acts of "civil disobedience." In August more than200 demonstrators tried unsuccessfully on two separate occasions tostop troop trains carrying soldiers to the Oakland, Calif., ArmyTerminal.The announcement distributed by the Vietnam Day Committee,

calling for supporters to "stop the troop train," said the following:Another troop train is coming through Berkeley taking American boys to

Vietnam to kill and be killed in a country where the United States does notbelong. We must demonstrate against the war machine; we must stop the trainand give our antiwar literature to the soldiers. To oppose the immoral war inVietnam and to block the war machine is moral; to take orders from an immoralstate is immoral. The police will be on hand to try to help the war machine gothrough, without a second's stop. We will be there too.

CHAPrTR IV

THE ORIGINS OF TIHE TEACH-IN MOVEMENTThe teach-in movement had its beginning at the University of

Michigan in March of this year.According to the Detroit News of March 25, 1965, the movement

was launched by Eric J. Wolf, professor of anthropology; William A.Gamson, assistant professor of sociology; and Arnold S. Kaufman,associate professor of philosophy.An estimated 2,500 persons attended this meeting, which was

jazzed up with a kaleidoscopic series of lectures, rallies, and seminars,punctuated by folksinging and bomb scares.

XI

INTRODUCTION

Films of the Vietnam war made by the Vietcong and smuggled intothis country were shown to the students. Later on, the Vietcongrepresentative in Algiers, Huyn Van Tam, was to boast that he hadreceived a $100 contribution for the purchase of medical supplies froman unidentified group of students at the University of Michigan(Chicago Tribune, Aug. 13, 1965).The sponsors of the teach-in movement pompously describe their

creation as an improvement on the educational process. In thecircular memorandum describing the national teach-in and invitingparticipation in it, the Inter-University Committee for a PublicHearing on Vietnam submitted the following definition:A teach-in is a critical examination by members of the academic community of

fateful Government policies and of policy alternatives. It is conceived as anatural extension of scholars' responsibilities as teachers and citizens in a time ofpublic crisis. Professors, it ought to be known, have not been cloistered in ivorytowers. Many have been engaged by the Government for advice on politicaland scientific matters; many conduct research of direct use to the Nation. Thiskind of public service has always been deemed respectable. But it is just asrespectable to offer results of thought and scholarship that conflict with currentlines of policy. Indeed, dissent, in a democratic forum, is the highest form ofcooperation.

In reality, the great majority of the teach-ins (there were a fewnotable exceptions to this rule) have had absolutely nothing in com-mon with the procedures of fair debate or the process of education.In practice they were a combination of an indoctrination session, apolitical protest demonstration, an endurance contest, and a varietyshow.At most of the teach-ins the administration's point of view was

given only token representation. The great majority of the speakers,by deliberate design, were critics of the administration.At many of the teach-ins, spokesmen for the administration's policy

were subjected to booing and hissing and catcalling, so that it wasimpossible for them to make a coherent presentation of their case.Communist propaganda films were frequently shown. Communist

literature Was frequently distributed.People of known Communist background were frequently involved.And at virtually every teach-in, the antiadministration speakers

vied with each other in their extremist denunciations of administrationpolicy.

CHAPTER V

THE NATIONAL TEACH-IN IN WASHINGTON

This teach-in was automatically given national stature whenthe administration agreed to participate in it and assigned Mr.McGeorge Bundy as the spokesman for the administration's view-point.The literature put out by the national teach-in movement throws

little light on its genesis or on the identity of its directorate.Its address was a post office box number in Ann Arbor, Mich.There was no publicly announced slate of officers or executive staff.The only "contacts" listed were Prof. Arnold Kaufman and Prof.

Marshall Sahlins.Several thousand people attended the all day session at the Sheraton

Park Hotel. According to the sponsors, the program was carried to129 colleges and universities on closed-circuit television. Portions

XII

INTRODUCTION

of the teach-in were also carried by the national educational networkwith 91 affiliates, and by at least 30 radio stations.What took place during the day, despite minor weaknesses, could

properly be described as a two-sided presentation, and as such, waseligible for free time on the national television network. But whattook place at the evening session bore not the remotest resemblanceto a debate. It was, on the contrary, a completely one-sided protestagainst administration policy which was not by any stretch of theimagination entitled to the free time that it received.Commenting on this entire situation, the New York Times' Max

Frankel said:Thus it was only with the blessing of the administration they condemn for

secrecy that the teachers and scholars were suddenly thrust before a nationalaudience and given the decade's greatest propaganda bargain-national impactfor an investment of $20,000 to $30,000.

CHAPTER VI

COMMUNIST EXPLOITATION OF THE ANTI-VIETNAM TEACH-INS ANDTHE ANTI-VIETNAM MOVEMENT

Whatever the intent of those who originated the teach-in move-ment, the fact is clear beyond challenge that the Communist propa-ganda apparatus has been able to exploit the teach-in movementand the anti-Vietnam agitation in general for purely Communistpurposes.Even if the teach-ins had drawn a firm line against Communist

participation, Moscow, and Peiping would have found some meansof exploiting them. But the exploitation has been made so mucheasier by the fact that so far none of the leading luminaries of theteach-in movement have considered it necessary to draw such a firmline-with the result that a substantial Communist infiltration isdemonstrable, that a much more substantial infiltration is probable,and that there has been a tragic blurring of the distinction betweenthe position of those who oppose our involvement in Vietnam onpacifist or idealist or strategic or other grounds, and those who opposeour involvement in the war because they are Communists or pro-Communists.

CHAPTER VII

THE NATIONAL VIETNAM PROTEST, OCTOBER 15-16

On October 15 and 16, the so-called Vietnam Day Committee hascalled for 2 days of protest against "American military interventionin Vietnam." It has been announced that there will be demonstra-tions in 80 cities in the United States, that 10,000 will march downFifth Avenue in New York, and that there will be demonstrationsas well in England, Japan, Italy, Mexico, Argentina, Senegal, andmany other countries throughout the world.The increasingly radical nature of the anti-Vietnam agitation is

illustrated by the following paragraph from the flyer put out by theVietnam Day Committee:

Therefore, we must turn to new tactics to affect American public opinion. Wemust put our bodies on the line. The form of civil disobedience is undecided atthis time, but consider this: if, for example, in Berkeley on October 16, thousandsof students and others block the gates of the Oakland Army Terminal where

INTRODUCTION

munitions are shipped to Vietnam, and are arrested, we think that attention willbe focused dramatically on the issues in Vietnam to an extent that no atrocityin Vietnam can match. The issue will be opened. Scenes of thousands ofmiddle-class youth being carried away by military police will be in every Americanliving room. Controversy about these demonstrations will go in churches andin poolrooms. People who would be with us if it were not for their reluctanceto take a stand will be put on the spot. We will be in a better position to takethe discussion about the war from the campus into the community.Alarmed by this open advocacy of civil disobedience and subversion,

296 faculty members at Berkeley issued a statement on September 24,1965, criticizing the tactics of the Vietnam Day Committee.A very great number of those who have given their names and their

support to the anti-Vietnam movement are unquestionably not Com-munists and they would rebel at the thought that they were beingutilized by the Communists for the purpose of undermining Americanpolicy and extending Communist rule in Asia. But these manythousands of pacifists and conscientious objectors and clergymen andliberals undermine the validity of their own position when they fail toface up to the fact of the heavy Communist involvement in andinfiltration of the anti-Vietnam movement and when they fail toinstitute certain elementary controls for the purpose of barring theCommunists from participation in their various movements and ofpreventing Communist manipulation of these movements.

SUMMARY OF CONCLUSIONS1. The great majority of those who have participated in anti-

Vietnam demonstrations and in teach-ins are loyal Americans whodiffer with administration policy in Vietnam for a variety of reasons,ranging from purely strategic considerations to pacifism.

2. The Communists have traditionally sought to infiltrate and ex-ploit all organizations dedicated to peace; and a reading of the officialCommunist press amd of confidential directives to party membersmakes it clear that the CPUSA and its affiliates have given all-outsupport to the anti-Vietnam demonstrations and teach-ins, havedirected their members to participate in them, and have sought toinfluence them in the interests of Communist expansion.

3. While leaders of other pacifist organizations like the NationalCommittee for a Sane Nuclear Policy have sought to protect them-selves by demarcating their own position from that of the Communistsand by establishing certain criteria and certain controls to protecttheir organization against Communist infiltration, there is nothing inthe public record to suggest that the leaders of the anti-Vietnamagitation and of the teach-in movement have similarly sought todemarcate their position on Vietnam from the Communist positionon Vietnam or to repudiate Communist support or to establish criteriaand controls designed to prevent Communist infiltration and ex-ploitation of their movement.

4. In the absence of any such effort by the non-Communist leadersof the movement to prevent or limit Communist infiltration or par-ticipation, a significant number of people of known Communistbackground or with long records of association with Communistfronts have been able to play a prominent role in the movement.

5. The control of the anti-Vietnam movement has clearly passedfrom the hands of the moderate elements who may have controlled

XlV

INTRODUCTION

it at one time, into the hands of Communists and extremist elementswho are openly sympathetic to the Vietcong and openly hostile to theUnited States and who call for massive civil disobedience, includingthe burning of draft cards and the stopping of troop trains. This isparticularly true of the national Vietnam protest movement scheduledfor October 15-16.

6. The great majority of the teach-ins have had absolutely nothingin common with procedures of fair debate or the process of education.In practice, they were a combination of an indoctrination session,a political protest demonstration, an endurance contest, and a varietyshow. The proceedings were characterized by extremist statementsand the open distribution of Communist literature.

7. The national teach-in in Washington on May 15 was charac-terized by a plausible effort at impartiality during the morning andafternoon sessions, but in the summary session that evening allpretense at impartiality was abandoned in favor of a totalitarian one-sidedness, with panelist after panelist and speaker after speakerexcoriating the administration and calling for the mobilization of anational movement of protest.The national teach-in sessions of May 15, 1965, received complete

support from the Communist and pro-Communist publications in theUnited States like the Worker, the People's World, the NationalGuardian, and the Militant.The national teach-in of May 15, 1965, was arranged in a manner

that left an impression condemnatory of U.S. policy in Vietnam.Writing in the Washington Daily News of May 17, 1965, page 7,

Bruce Biossat confirmed the general impression of other observerswhen he declared:

The participants in overwhelming majority made it plain they came seekingconfirmation of their pre-Washington judgments that administration policy inVietnam is almost wholly wrong. Contrary arguments, no matter how seeminglywell buttressed with fact, were generally greeted with skepticism, scorn, or deri-sion * * *

In the whole 165 hours, I did not hear from the lips of any critic a single approv-ing word about U.S. policy in Vietnam or anywhere else. The Government wasportrayed as stupid, ignorant, arrogant, secretive, and persistently wrongheaded.

8. The evidence is overwhelming that the world Communistapparatus-in the United States, in Moscow, in Peiping, in Hanoi,in Havana, and elsewhere-have been able to exploit the anti-Vietnam agitation and the teach-in movement for the purpose ofconfusing their own people, for the purpose of fostering the impressionthat the majority of the American people are opposed to the admin-istration's policy in Vietnam, and for the purpose of attacking themorale of American servicemen in Vietnam.

9. It is also clear from numerous statements by Communist spokes-men that many of them believe their own propaganda and that theyare convinced that American public opinion will compel the John-son administration to pull out of Vietnam and leave the field tocommunism.

10. What all this adds up to is a global effort on the part of theCommunist apparatus to force the withdrawal of American troopsfrom Vietnam by means of a massive psychological warfare attack.In this effort the Communists are exploiting all the idealism of honestcritics to bolster their position, just as they used Communist-front

XV

XVI INTRODUCTION

groups to bolster their position in various crisis situations in thethirties and forties. In many cases, the personnel is the same. Theonly thing which has changed is the cause-and even this is the sameif we consider that the greater cause of all Communist activity inAmerica is to bolster the international gains of world communism, byurging Americans that what occurs in Vietnam, or Korea, or Berlin,or Greece, or Turkey, is essentially none of our business.

CHAPTER I

COMMUNIST EXPLOITATION AND INFILTRATION OF PEACEMOVEMENTS-A BRIEF HISTORY

Since the earliest days of the Communist movement, the Com-munist leadership in every country has sought to expand and magnifyits influence by infiltrating non- Jommunist organizations or byfounding or encouraging the formation of ostensibly non-Communistorganizations as fronts for their activity.This has posed a serious problem for all those honest pacifists and

social reformers who know that the Communists are interestedneither in peace nor social reform, and who understand the dangerof Communist participation in the movements to which they belong.During the forties and fifties, the Communist peace offensive in this

country spawned such notorious front organizations as the Scientificand Cultural Conference for World Peace, the National Labor Con-ference for Peace, the Campaign Committee for the World PeaceAppeal, the Peace Information Center, the Committee for PeacefulAlternatives to the Atlantic Pact, and the Midcentury Conference forPeace.On March 24, 1949, the New York Times carried an advertisement

announcing the formation of the Cultural and Scientific Conferencefor World Peace, meeting at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel, in New YorkCity on March 25 26, and 27 1949. The list of sponsors was releasedby the National Council of the Arts, Sciences, and Professions whichsponsored the conference.On this list incidentally, were the names of many individuals who

also sponsored the National Teach-In on the Vietnam War, heldMay 15, 1965, at the Sheraton Park Hotel in Washington. Amongthem were Abraham Edel Thomas I. Emerson, Matthew Josephson,Oliver S. Loud, Robert S. Lynd, Philip Morrison Melber (Melba)Phillips, Anton Refregier, Ad Reinhardt, Dr. Theodor Rosebury,Dr. Harlow Shapley, Paul N. Sweezey, and Prof. Colston E. Warne.The high point of this conference was a call to civil disobedience

voiced by Richard Boyer, an avowed member of the CommunistParty.

Boyer, who had surrendered his conscience to Stalin, told Ameri-can writers that they "cannot safely surrender their conscience to* * * Truman.' The only anti-Communist voice raised at the con-ference was that of Norman Cousins. He was roundly booed when hetold the conference that the Communists did not speak for America,that they were recognized as the spokesmen for a foreign power,that they were completely without credit in their own country.In its report on the "Cultural and Scientific Conference for World

Peace " the House Committee on Un-American Activities character-ized the gathering as follows:

Certain outstanding features of the Waldorf-Astoria conference of March 25,26, and 27 are worthy of note in revealing its nature and aims. First and foremost

155-733--G---2

2 ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT

was its Communist character. From the outset Secretary of State Dean Achesonreferred to the gathering as "a sounding board for Communist propaganda."Another example of the thinly veiled front organization was the

so-called Midcentury Conference for Peace which took place in May1950 under the auspices of the Committee for Peaceful Alternativesto the Atlantic Pact. This conference turned into something of adud because Communist control was so apparent that honest pacifistswere not deceived.The first and most damaging blow to the conference was the public

withdrawal of the Reverend Donald Harrington, pastor of the Com-munity Church, New York, lifelong liberal and militant pacifist.Dr. Harrington said:The stark fact is that the American Communist movement not only is willing

to resort to any method or subterfuge to accomplish its purpose, but also it takesorders directly from Moscow and functions as an American arm of the SovietForeign Office.At this moment, though the international Communist movement is waging war,

both cold and hot, and engaged in violence in many parts of the world, theAmerican Communists have launched an exceedingly widespread and well-financed campaign for "peace."The Communist Party line seems for a brief period to be running parallel with

the point of view of pacifists and liberals. Communists, operating through awide variety of "front" organizations, are seeking support of liberal and peaceleaders and seeking to give them their support.They are not really interested in peace, but in appeasement. Their support

will be turned to sabotage the moment it serves Soviet policy for this to occur.

Among the idealists who sought to work with the Communists andlearned from bitter experience that this is something that cannot bedone was the late Eleanor Roosevelt. Addressing James Dombrowski,identified Communist and present executive secretary of the SCEF,Mrs. Roosevelt wrote in her letter of May 11, 1947:

I tried working with American Communists, as you know, and have long sincegivenup trying. I cannot work with anyone who is not completely honest andAmerican Communists are not honest. I know that often they work for thesame objectives, and do good work, but that does not alter my opinion. Verysincerely yours, Eleanor Roosevelt.

In general, the Communists have found it far more profitable tooperate within and through nonparty organizations, particularly thosewith prestige in the community, than through open fronts.

In their internal party documents, the Communists have beenremarkably frank in instructing their members on the need for sup-porting and participating in "broad community peace movements"and on the need for flexibility in working with pacifists and con-scientious objectors and liberals and other groupings-in each caseseeking to find formulations that would inspire the enthusiasm of theparticular group they are seeking to influence.The following statement, by Arnold Johnson, legislative director

of the Communist Party, USA, published in the Party Voice of 1958,No. 2, was intended for the guidance of party members in theiractivities within various peace organizations. The instructions givenby Mr. Johnson are explicit and demonstrate the aims of the Com-munist Party in penetrating peace movements.The responsibilities of the Communist Party in the fight for peace.are great.

Small as we are, we are the most conscious peace fighters and we are helping themovement forward. But far more must be done.

1. We must support encourage, and help develop the broad community peacemovements and organizations centering at present on the issue of stopping theatomic tests.

ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT 3

2. We must help to unite people and organizations of diverse views aroundthose common fundamental peace issues and peace activities in which they areprepared to participate together.

3. We must constantly, in discussions and literature, help to clarify issues,differences between the Soviet Union and our Government, the maneuvers ofU.S. imperialism aimed at preventing a summit conference, etc.

4. We must forthrightly and continuously emphasize the role of the SovietUnion and the Socialist countries as the chief world force for peace.

5. We must independently, under our own name, issue statements, leaflets,documents, hold meetings, etc., expressing our own position on peace issues, * * *We need to be flexible in how we present proposals. For instance, it is perfectly

reasonable in working with pacifists and conscientious objectors to find formula-tions so that they can function with enthusiasm. And in working with others,it often means finding a new formulation in a speech which is more expressive ofthe common objective. * * * We must demonstrate our ability to functionwithin the bounds of an organization program. * * *

In the same article, there were some further paragraphs outliningthe major targets for infiltration and making it clear that Communistsare expected to work within these organizations under discipline.The peace movement in the United States-

said Johnson-is diverse in form and activity, * * * Within the church and religious groupsthere are many forms of peace action. * * * The pacifists have recently cometo the forefront through their organizations, as well as by the activity ofunaffiliated pacifists including a substantial number of young people andstudents. * * *Women's organizations have always been active in the peace movement.

The extensive activities and voluminous literature of the Women's InternationalLeague for Peace and Freedom are worldwide. Together with the Quakers, theyare among the leading forces in many conferences as well as such movements asthe Committee for A Sane Nuclear Policy. * * *

In dramatic events, such as the walk for peace, the picket line demonstrations,as well as in forums and discussions, the youth are playing a dynamic role. * * *

In a more recent statement, which appeared in Political Affairs forMarch 1963, Mr. Johnson openly targeted the non-Communistorganizations which the Communists should today seek to infiltrate.These organizations he said include:

* * * the Friends Service Committee, the Turn to Peace, the Peace Centersin some 30 cities, the "Great Decisions" discussions across the country under theauspices of the Foreign Policy Association, the American Association for theUnited Nations, the Fellowship of Reconciliation, the War Resisters League,the Committee for Non-Violent Action, the Committee of Correspondence, thePeacemakers, the Humanity Guild. Theater People for Peace, and many others.Mr. Johnson said that these peace organizations "may be the key

organizations to bring all other organizations from diverse fields into acommon effort for peace."

In 1960 and 1961, the Senate Committee on Internal Security hadoccasion to look into the question of Communist infiltration in thenuclear test ban movement. In commenting on the situation on thefloor of the Senate, Senator Dodd, among other things, said the'following:On May 19, the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy held a rally at Madison

Square Garden in New York City which was addressed by many eminent speak-ers associated with both political parties. It developed that the organizer ofthis meeting, Mr. Harry Abrams, was a veteran member of the CommunistParty. In his appearance before the subcommittee, he invoked the fifth amend-ment in reply to a whole series of questions relating to his Communist activities.**$ $


The Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy is headed by a group of nationallyprominent citizens about whose integrity and good faith there is no question.Among them are people like Norman Cousins, of the Saturday Review, Mr.Clarence Pickett, of the American Friends Service Committee [deceased], Mr.Norman-Thomas, and others. They advocate a point of view which some of usconsider unrealistic or utopian, but it is, nevertheless, a significant point of view onan issue of life and death importance. For the personal motivation of mostof those associated with the Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy I have themost sincere respect. The point of view they represent deserves a hearing--indeed, it must be heard.

* * ** * *

In a series of hearings held in October 1960, the subcommittee looked into thematter of Communist infiltration in the New York area. Twenty-seven witnesseswho had been active in the Greater New York Committee for a Sane NuclearPolicy, or had been associated with it (Communist Party) in some way, appearedbefore the subcommittee.

* * * * * * *

Twenty-two invoked the fifth amendment when asked whether they were mem-bers of the Communist Party and other questions-relating to Communist activities.Nine of these fifth amendment witnesses were chairmen of locals of the GreaterNew York Committee for a Sane Nuclear Policy; 3 were members; and 10 hadeither contributed to the Greater New York committee, or had paid for advertise-ments in the program of the Madison Square Garden meeting, or had workedfor the committee as volunteers.

Before these hearings were held, the national committee for SANE, as I alreadypointed out, had taken certain measures to deal with the problem of Communistinfiltration. On May 26, the board of directors of the National Committee fora Sane Nuclear Policy adopted a statement of policy barring members of theCommunist Party or individuals who are not free because of party disciplineand party allegiance from any office in the organization.

Because of the affirmative attitude of the national committee in coping withthis problem, I considered it my duty to advise them, although I could notrelease the details of the testimony to them, that the great majority of the wit-nesses who had appeared before the subcommittee had invoked the fifth amend-ment and that among these were some half-dozen chairmen of locals in the GreaterNew York area.

* * * * . * * *

In early November, the national committee of SANE directed the GreaterNew York committee to surrender its charter. The motion also recommendedthat existing local groups which desire to apply for a charter should communicatewith the national office.

The national committee of SANE has taken the stand that it is entirely cap-able of dealing with the Communist infiltration in its ranks and preventing thesubversion of its principles by the Soviet termites. For my own part, I aminclined to agree with the national committee that Government interventionand regulation is to be avoided wherever possible, and that it would be infinitelypreferable if SANE and other organizations can demonstrate their ability toresist Communist infiltration with their own resources.

In 1962, the House Committee on Un-American Activities lookedinto the question of Communist involvement in Women Strike forPeace. Mrs. Blanche Hofrichter Posner who had served as Chair-man pro-tem of the Office Committee of Women Strike for Peace on avolunteer basis, was among the several witnesses who consistentlyinvoked the fifth amendment in refusing to answer any questionsregarding her Communist affiliations.

Old-time Socialists and leaders of the National Committee for aSne Nuclear Policy, who have learned about the dangers of Com-

ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT

munist infiltration from their own bitter experience, are, to theircredit, using their influence to prevent or limit Communist participa-tion in the various peace movements with which they are associated.Their efforts have earned them the public castigation of the Com-munist press, which apparently considers it the inalienable right ofAmerican Communists to infiltrate and subvert the organizationsof their choosing.Thus, in Political Affairs (theoretical organ of the Communist

Party, U.S.A.) for March 1963, Arnold Johnson complained in theseterms against Dr. Homer Jack of the National Committee for a SaneNuclear Policy.

Dr. Homer Jack, the executive director (of the National Committee for aSane Nuclear Policy) is often preoccupied with keeping Communists out of thepeace movement. * * * He also expresses a view that Communists will "eventu-ally manipulate the American peace organizations," if allowed to join them or tohave positions of leadership.Johnson also complained about the efforts of Socialist elements in

Women Strike for Peace to introduce certain elementary organizationalcontrols that would make Communist infiltration more difficult. SaidJohnson:The Women's Strike is an "all-inclusive" movement * * * There are those

who want to convert it into an organization with members, officers, and controls.The Socialists have been pushing for this but all such moves have been defeated.We need to study much more the value of the movement feature which can alsobe applied to other situations.The record strongly suggests that the Communists have been

successful in resisting the imposition of criteria and controls in manyof the peace organizations that have given their backing to the anti-Vietnam movement.

5

CIlAPTER II

COMMUNIST POLICY IN VIETNAM

TIlE NATURE OF TIHE WAR IN VIETNAM

While there are some opponents of the administration's Vietnampolicy who are innocent enough to believe that the Vietcong insurgencyrepresents a genuine popular uprising and that it is motivated primar-ily by a desire for more democracy and more social justice, the moreserious anld realistic critics of American policy in Vietnam do notindulge in any such illusions.Bowing before the overwhelming weight of the evidence, they

would be prepared to agree with the administration's supporters thatthe Vietcong insurgency is Communist inspired and Communistdominated and- Communist supported, and that its triumph wouldmean the Communist subjugation of Vietnam and ultimately of thewhole of southeast Asia.When Vietnam was divided geographically into a Communist..

controlled zone and a non-Communtrist-controlled zone by the Geneva.Convention of 1954, the Communists were obviously convinced thatthey would be able to undermine and infiltrate South Vietnam andto take it over by peaceful means. But, instead of collapsing underthe weight of the problems it inherited from the Geneva Convention,the Government of the late President Diem succeeded in unifyingthe country, resettling the 1 million refugees from the north, stabilizingthe economy, and instituting major reform, especially in the field ofeducation.

It soon became apparent that South Vietnam was not going tocollapse and that it could not be taken over by the simple means ofinfiltration. What is more, the growing prosperity of South Vietnamprovided a dangerous contrast to the increasing poverty which theCommunists economic regime had fostered in North Vietnam.At the Third Communist Party Congress in Hanoi in September

of 1900, the party adopted a resolution committing it "to liberateSouth Vietnam from the ruling yoke of the U.S. imperialists andtheir henchmen in order to achieve national unity and completeindependence."Only the willfully blind can believe that it was a pure coincidence

that this resolution of the Communist Party coincided with thelaunching of a stepped-up guerrilla and propaganda campaign againstthe South Vietnamese Government.The course of the Vietnamese war since that time has been marked

by countless Communist resolutions supporting the struggle of theso-called National Liberation Front of South Vietnam, and condemn-ing Arnerican imperialist intervention.

Indeed, there is not a Communist Party in the entire world, whetherit adheres to Peiping or Moscow, that has not adopted such resolutionsor issued such declarations.

6

ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT

During the month of March 1965, there took place in Moscow aconference of 18 Communist parties. The conference adopted alengthy resolution on the Vietnam war, which included this paragraph:

Marxist-Leninist parties consider it their international duty to secure jointaction by all progressive and democratic forces in order to give determined supportfor the heroic struggle of the Vietnamese people for their freedom and independ-ence. (The Worker, Mar. 16, 1965, p. 3.)

It is to be noted that this resolution of the 18 Colmmunist partieswhich met in Moscow avoids all mention of communism and talks,instead, about "progressive and democratic forces" and about "free-dom and independence." The Communists have always found itadvantageous to conceal or play down the fact that the purpose oftheir activities in Vietnam or any other country is the imposition ofa Comlmunist dictatorship. In this way, they have in every countryand in every crisis situation been able to mislead scores of thousandsof well-intentioned people whose support can be enlisted by bandyingabout words like "peace" and "freedom" and "independence," butwho would be antagonized if the Communists told them in so manywords that it was the purpose of their campaign in South Vietnamto impose a totalitarian dictatorship in that country and convert itinto a springboard for further aggression against its neighbors.Communists demands addressed to the Government of the United

States are equally misleading and equally designed to elicit a maxi-mum of support.

In a front-page appeal in the Worker of March 7, 1965, Gus Hall,general secretary of the Conmmunist Party, U.S.A., specifically calledupon his followers and "all Americans" to demand:

* * * an immediate end to all bombings.Withdraw all troops and end the war in Vietnam.Agree on immediate negotiations.Reconvene the Geneva Conference of Indochina.It ill a fact to ponder that many of the peace organizations which

have called for withdrawal from Vietnam have promulgated slogansremarkably similar to those with which Gus Hall ended his article inthe Worker.

It is clear from many things that a fundamental ingredient of Com-munist strategy on Vietnam is the mobilization of significant sectors ofpublic opinion in this country and in other free countries, in oppositionto American policy in Vietnam.A statement by Prof. J. D. Bernal, Chairman of the World Peace

Council, which was broadcast over Moscow radio on Juno 23 called on"all peace groups and world opinion generally" to "increase theirefforts" for an end to the war on the basis of the legitimate rights of theVietnamese people.Commenting on some of the protest activities that had already

taken place, the Worker of May 25, 1965, page 6, not only gave itseditorial approval but added directives for future activity:What must now be added, in addition to the intensification and multiplicationof all bring-thc-troops-home activities, is a sharpening of the focus of criticism and

protest directly upon the Congressmen and Senators.Every weekend when the Representatives and Senators are at home they should

confront mass delegations of their constituents demanding that they speakout * * * and prevail on Johnson to abandon militarism and return to the path

7

8 ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION-AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT

of peaceful coexistence and negotiation of differences in our relations with countriesabroad; to pull our occupation troops out of Vietnam and the Dominican Republic.

This calls for great unity rallies, demonstratonsn, and marches everywhere withtlhe focus on Washington's policymakers.

lThat the Communists feel hendy about the success of their propa-ganda camllaignrand about tle direct and indirect sllpport they have)been able to mobilize for it from non-Communist sources is clearfrom all their broadcasts and from the many statements on thesubject that have appeared in their press.

ThuIs, Dang Qullag Minh, representative of the Communist-con-trolled South Vietnamese national liberation front, declared in aninterview with Wasshington Post representatives J. R. Wiggins andChalmers Roberts that public pressure at home would force a changeill American policy toward Vietnam.More recently, HI-anoi Radio in September gloated over the many

evidences of public opposition to tlie administration's Vietnam policy.It is (lear from any reading of the Communist and fellow traveler

press of tllis country that the Communist apparatus has for manymonths now devoted the better part of ifs energy and its resourcesand its considerable propagantla talent to the task of encouragingand enlarging public opposition to the administration's policy inVietnam.

In this chapter, we have sought to establlisll, by reference to Com-munlist sources 11111 employing their own words, Communist objectivesin Vietnalm, Comllmlnist slogans for free world consumption, and thebroad outline of tlle unprecedented propaganda campaign which theCommunists have been conducting throughout tlhe free world in sup-port of their objectives.

In the chapters that follow, we hope to examine more closely theqllestioli of Commun11nist l)articipation in and exploitation of the anti-Vietnam movement, and, in particular, of the teach-in movement.

CHAPTER III

THE ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION

Newspapers of the ultraleft which have had little progress toreport for more than a decade, are now filling their pages with themessage that Americans oppose the war in Vietnam, and that ifCommunists simply persist, opinion in this country will become sodivided that we will be forced to withdraw.

TIHE MADISON SQUAIRE GARDEN RALtLY

In June more than 17,000 people filled Madison Square Gardento participate in a rally against the war in Vietnam. Commentingon this rally the Commnunist newspaper, Tlhe Worker, stated:The great Madison Square Garden rally on Vietnam attests to the fact that there

exist vast numbers of Americans who have not been taken in by the blandishmentsof the apologists for armed U.S. aggression against sovereign people in distantlands abroad. 'his is heartening evidence tlat the people of our country can beorganized in time to bring about an end to aggression in Vietnam an(l the with-drawal of U.S. intervention forces.1

THE ASSEMBLY OF UNREPRESENTED IPEOPLE

During the weekend of August 6-9, Washington, D.C., was thescene of an assembly of unrepresented people which protested theAmerican role in Vietnam. Among the groups sponsoring the meetingwas the Mississippi Freedom Democratic Party, the Stldent PeaceUnion, the Women Strike for Peace, the W. E. B. DuBois Clubs, aswell as an organization raising funds and gathering supplies for theVietcong. This group, which prominently displayed a Vietcong flag,was the American Committee for the National Liberation Front.Among those speaking at the meeting was Walter Teague, chairman ofthis group, who continually expressed his wish that the Vietcong forceswould be victorious and that American troops would be defeated.

'The demonstrators gathered on the grounds of the WashingtonMonument where such publications as The Worker, National Guard-ian, Militant, Iand Worker's World were distributed. A petition wascirculated proclaiming the innocence of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg,and one table featured material publised in Moscow and Peiping.A songbook was distributed at this meeting, and groups of students

gathered under trees at which time folksinging took place. One ofthe songs, "I'm Gonna Say It Now," contained this lyric:

I've read of other countries whereThe students take a stand,'They've even helped to overthrowT'lhe leaders of the land.Now I wouldn't go so far to sayWe're also learning' how,But when I've got somethin' to say, sir,I'm gonna say it now.2

I Tho Worker, Juno 13, 1005, p. 3.2Song by I'1ill Ochs, published In "r13roadside," 215 West OStli St., New York.

n


Another song which was particularly popular with the demon-strators was entitled "'he New MacNaiara's Band." Among itslyrics were these:

Oh, my name is MacNanmara,I'm the leader of the band;I've organized an army that's the terror of the land;Its leaders are like puppets that move at my command;It costs a lot of money but the show is really grand.Our bombs explode as they unload upon that distant land;"We kill a few and torture too and then extend our hand.Oh, the flames grow higher from napalm fire, we set the world aglow;We watch with satisfaction as the cause of freedom grows."Bomb all the way with LBJ" is now our battle cry.3

A teacl-in was held the night before the protest, and at this timethe critics of the Government policy compared tihe Vietcong withJohn Alamns, Benjamin Franklin, anld other leaders o.f the AmericanRevolution. lThe U.S. Government, on the other hanll, was comparedwith tliat of Nazi Germany. Among those participating was a

meoin)er of tlh Women's Strike for Peace who had joined with a groupof American women in going to Indonesia where they had ai meetingwith women from North Vietnam. At a meeting held in Washingtonat American University in July 1965 they called for a corps of womenwho live in communities near military leases who woul( miingle amongthe solliers in tlhe places where they gather to stimulate them to refuseto fight-a kind of domestic "Tokyo Rose" corps.

'JThe importance of this meeting was pointed out in a recent analysisof "'The New Left" published in the pro-Communist publication, theNational Guardian:The Vietnam war has already strengthened tlose groups within the new left

that believe the day of singlc-issue organizations is over, just as links between thecivil rights movement and the peace movement have become symbolized in theslogan, "Freedolm both in Selmia and Saigon." The August Assembly of Un-represented People was a first effort of the new left toward a unified politicalapproach to the major action issues. Community organizing projects on Vietnamhave been formed in several areas based on the awareness that students musthave allies to carry political weight.4

PROTESTS UNLIMITED

.About 1,000 persons, mostly students, attended a "Stop the Warin Vietnam" rally in New York Hanmmarskjold Plaza September 1.2.The rally demanded "an immediate cease-fire, halt to the U.S. bomb-ings of North Vietnam and American willingness to negotiate with-drawal of U.S. troops with tie national liberation front."

In D)etroit on September 11 the local Committee to End the Warin Vietnam and Women Strike for Peace sponsored a march, rally,and vigil for "oeace and freedom in Vietnam."The National Student Association adopted a declaration Soptember

2 urging that the United States cease offensive action in Vietnam,and picketing is being conducted regularly in front of the Army In-duction Center in Milwaukee and in other cities.One of tih leading campaigns being carried on by the new left

organizations is wlat they have termed' tie "antidraft" campaign.Paul Booth, of Students for a Democratic Society, reported that SDShas organized "draft counseling workshops" in six cities to advise

8 Prepared for tho peaco march of Apr. 17 by Judy IIalperin, Joan IIalperin, Susan Perkis, Susan Warshau,George Philips, and Happy Traun.

4 National Guardian, Sept. 18, 195, p. 4.

,'.NTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT 11

those young people who are of draft age and who oppose the war inVietnam. He said that SDS will sot up conscientious objector regis-tration desks outside military induction centers, and is discussingorganizing a "national day of antidraft protests."The May 2 movement is organizing a "We Won't Go" rally to

take place in the Columbia University area of Now York City onVeterans Day, November 11.The New York Workshop in Nonviolence held 3 days of demonstra-

trations September 23-24. The group sat down outside the White-hall Induction Center, and a number of demonstrators picketed anddistributed antidraft literature.--An individual example of the results of this movement may be seen

in the case of Howard King, of Oneonta, N.Y. King refused to reportfor induction into the Armed Forces September 22 as ordered by hisBennington, Vt., draft board. In a statement King wrote:The United States is using the draft call unconstitutionally. Through the

draft, the Government maintains an army not for the defense of the people ofthis country, but for the suppression of peoples in the process of liberating them-selves f.om hunger, disease, and illiteracy. The Congress of the United States hasnot declared war * * * the people of the United States, through the actions oftheir Government, stand accused before the world of crimes against humanity.6The Central Committee for Conscientious Objectors in Philadel-

phia reported that during August it handled 513 inquiries pertainingto avoidance of military service on political or moral grounds-com-pared with 182 for the same period in 1964 and 103 in 1963. Thenational antidraft campaign was started in September, and the WarResisters League made this comment during that same month:We've been swamped * * * by the number of young men seekinginformation

about opposing the draft. We used to have three or four men walk into ouroffice every month seeking advice. These days that figure is between 15 and 20a week.6An important trial was held in New Haven, Conn., in September

at which time a 22-year-old New York resident was fined $5,000 andsentenced to Federal prison for up to 5 years for "willfully and know-ingly failing to report for induction into the Armed. Forces of theUnited States." David H. Mitchell 3d stated that he had refused toreport because he considered "U.S. action in Vietnam crimes againstpeace and humanity." 7 This was much the same standard languageused by Mr. King, of Oneonta, N.Y., and appearing in the tractspublished by the Students for a Democratic Society and other groups.Another tactic frequently used by members of the "new left"

protest groups is that of attempting to stop activity at military basesby participating in acts of "civil disobedience." In August more than200 demonstrators tried unsuccessfully on two separate occasions tostop troop trains carrying soldiers to the Oakland, Calif., ArmyTerminal.The demonstrators carried placards that said, "Peace Corps-Not

Marine Corps," "Don't Be Railroaded Into War," "Why Are TheySending You There?" and "You Haven't Killed Yet-Don't." Twoof the demonstrators narrowly escaped the wheels of the train. Theyjumped from their position on the tracks seconds before the enginepassed. The Vietnam Day Committee which, together with theWomen Strike for Peace, is sponsoring tihe demonstrations, declared

I National Guardian, Oct. 2,1965, p. 4.* National Guardiau, Sept. 2., 1965, p. 1.T The New York Times, Sept. 16, 1966.


after tlhe incident: "It was ta iniracle that murder was not coin-1itted(. " 8'Ilie annlolllcemCenCt distributed by tie Vietnam Day Committee

calling for sl)l)porlters to "Stop the '1Troop) Train" said the following:A\notler troopl train is coinig through Berkeley taking American boys to

\ielctnan to kill an:d )e killed in a country where tile United States does notb('lonlg. \\We llust demlionstrate against the war machine; we must stop thetrain and give our antiwar literature to the soldiers. To oppose the immoralwar ill Vietnam and to block the war machine is moral; to take orders from animmoral state is immoral. The police will be on hand to try to help the warMachine go through-without a second's stop. We will be there, too.

\hllat kid(l of literature is distril)uted to the soldiers by the Vietnam)ay Clommittee ald other such groups? Headed "Reservists andMlell of Draft Age" one of thle leaflets says this:

Being young, male, and al)le bodied is no crime. But we may soon have to paya heavy penalty for it. 'The men in \ashington demand that we give u1) ourfree(doml, our careers, and l)ossibly our lives * * *. It now appears that we, theyoung lmen of Allnerica, will ,be conscripted to support a government which tlIeyoung men of \Vitnam are (deserting. ()ur leaders have bludered their wayinto this war. Ihey have lied to us about their reasons for fighting it. And nowtheylplan to put our lives onl tle line, while they sit back and continue the blunder-ing 1and the lies. They want lus to go to Vietnaml to kill soldiers and civilians whoare fighting for their national rights, or )e killed by them. To our leaders, we arc

plainly nothing b)ut a natural resource-cannon fodder.It would be possible to go on endlessly, listing attempts at stopping

troop trails, the burning of draft cards, acts of "civil disobedience,"tand other imanniers of protest. Despite such activity, many stilldoubt that a nlew left movement exists, although the Communists arequite vocal ill )roclllilling and welcoming its existence.The National Guardianl stated:* * * wvllat strength it has already mustered makes the new left the most

excitillg land potentially powerful political phenomenonn in U.S. radical historysince ti(e rapid growth of the Communist Party i t th thirties. For tle lmobiliza-tion of tile new left lhas changed the posture of U.S. radicalism from a defensiveholding position to probing ollensive action; and in so doing it has injected freshperspectives andi a new militancy into the ranks of tle United States left * * *.9The )protest mIoveillnits, then, are not organized simply in opposi-

tionI to tile war in Vietllaml, but are part of a new and growing move-m11cnt to alter tile entire structure of American society. Those whop)articiplated in Commliunist movements in the past are deeply involvedin tile current t cnforts. M[r.J. Edgar Hoover has said, for example,that tile campus D)uBois Clubs are clearly oriented toward commu-llism. Theso groups devoted thoir efforts last year at the Universityof California in Berkeley to tlhe "free speech" mlovemenlt, anld thisyear have changedI tile name and nature of their organization, nowcalling themselves tile "Vietnam I)ay Committee."

Manrio Savio, UtJiversity of California "free speech" rebel leader,signed a petitioil circulated by tile XMay 2 lmovemenO t vowing that howVould refuse to fight on tile United States side in Vietnam.

Bettial Aptheker, one of the1 four top leaders of tlhe "free speech"movement, is tile daughter of key Communist Party theoretician,Herbert Apcthcker of New York.

Margaret Limla, University of California Women for Peace leader,is tlo (laughter of Albert Hf. Lima, northern California CommunistParty chairman.

'liho Now York Times, Aug. 7, 105, p. 3.9 Nitlonnl Oiurdlan, Sept. 18, 1965, p. 3.


Robert Starobin, "free speech" spokesman at the University ofCalifornia where he has been a history department teaching assistant,is tle son of former Daily Worker foreign editor, Joseph Starobin.

It is clear that a second generation of Conmmunist activists havearrived on the political scene. A recent analysis of this developmentpointed out tliat: "For these second-generation radicals the normalparent-cllild conflict is not taking place. Instead, the child and theparent are like two brothers compulsively locked in combat against ahostile father, the free enterprise system. The fanaticism and articu-lateness of the red diaper babies is easily understood when one remeln-bers that these youthful radicals are merely reiterating for the millionthtime parental doctrines learned from thle cradle." 10

A serious problem we must face in considering the effect of suchgroups is that they play upon the sympathies of nonradical critics ofour policy in Vietnam. All of those who believe that we have pur-sued the wrong course in Vietnam are not Communlists or pro-Communtists, or individuals determined to fundamentally changeand alter their society. Many honest pacifists have joined witlradical nonpacifist groups in protest rallies and demonstrations.Those who are not radicals, however, are guilty nevertheless of

spreading a good deal of misinformation, John Fischer of Harper'smagazine attempted to explain some-of the reason for this:One group of critics of President Johnson's policy in Vietnam * * * need

not be taken too seriously. It includes many of the poets, pediatricians, novelists,painters, and professors who have been Inaking so much noise during the lastfew months. Most of them are deeply humane people who loathe war andwish it would go away. In a rather vague fashion they feel that the way toavoid a fight is to drop your gun and back off-forgetting the disastrous resultsof tliese tactics in Ethiopia (1935), Spain (1936), and Munich (1938).

'Jhey see it as their duty as intellectuals to stand in eternal opposition toauthority and the established order. Whenever authority uses force to defenddthe established order-in Santo Domingo, Vietnam, Berlin, or in the Cubanmissile crises-they grow eloquent with anguish and suspicion. On the otherhand, they seldom protest against the use of force (including terrorism) by anyonewho proclaims himself a rebel; for they have a romantic identification withrebellious characters, especially exotic ones like Castro and Mao. If RobinIood is against the bad guys, then they assume that he must be a good guy-overlooking the sad historic fact that a Robin Hood come to power is often just asbrutal and oppressive as the sheriff of Nottingham he overthrew.

Personally, I am inclined to give. more weight to the opinion of another rebelliousintellectual who, in addition to his scholarly accomplishments, has considerableexperience in statecraft. He is Dr. C. Rajagopalachari, a leader in India'sstruggle for independence, a companion of Gandhi, a pioneer in civil disobedience,a onetime Governor General of India, and an apostle of peace. In a letter tothe New York Times of June 6, 1965, he spoke to "the best brains of America"about their "criticism and ridicule" of the President's policy. "There is not theslightest doubt," he wrote, "that if America withdraws and leaves southeast Asiato itself, Communist China will seize the continent. There is no hope for freedomof thought in Asia if the hegemony, if not the empire, of China is established." u

Many of the liberal intellectuals who had at one time supportedthe activities of the new left student movement have recently becomedisenchanted with the activities and policies pursued by that Iove-ment.Three hundred faculty members at the University of California

issued a statement challenging the Vietnam Day Comlniittee, pointingout that this group "does not enjoy the blessings of the faculty."

1oTocsin, June 24, 1965, p. 3." Originally published In Harpers, reprinted In Reader's Digest, September 19G5, p. 11.


The faculty group, composed essentially of liberals and moderates,included many who had earlier supported student demands for moreliberalized rules governing on-campus advocacy of political and socialcauses in Berkeley.

Comment ting on this faculty statement the Los Angeles Timesstated:The faculty group's criticism is centered on what spokesmen called the "extrav-

agant" tactics of the Vietnam Day Committee, including the "debasing" use ofso-called civil disobedience tactics as exemplified in the attempts to halt trooptrains. The protestors were also accused of ignoring the totalitarian nature ofcommunism, while at the same time going out of their way to be critical of U.S.conduct. Hopefully, tile academic group's call for commonsense and a respectfor democratic courses of action will be heard and heeded by others at Berkeley,students and faculty alike.12

In the current protest movement it is easy to discover who theacifists are and who the Marxists and quasi-Marxists are. The

latter category invariably urge support for the Vietcong, condemningwhat they term "American terrorism" and applauding the activitiesof the Vietcong, denying documented figures of murder, kidnaping,and assassination. A few of them proclaim their Marxism openly.When Prof. Eugene D. Genovese, of Rutgers University, was

criticized for openly proclaiming his Marxism, he was defended byJames Mellen political science instructor at Drew University, at a"teach-in" held September 30, 1965, at Rutgers University. SaidProfessor Mellen:

As a professed Marxist and Socialist, I do not hesitate to state my position.I stand( side by side with Professor Genovese * * * profess my political view-points in class every (lay and it is my view that if other professors in New Jerseyteaching my subject do not do so they are abdicating their responsibility.18

'Tle third issue of Free Student, official publication of the May 2movement, boasted that one of its representatives had managed toshow a film glorifying the Communist forces in Vietnam in TamalpaisHigh School in Mill Valley, Calif., on March 26 and 30, and at nearbyRedwood High School on April 1, 1965. Such films have been shownon many campuses throughout the country, and money and supplieshave been raised on such campuses for Vietcong troops.1

In a widely distributed telegram dated February 7, 1965, theeditorial board of Spartacistl published by a Young Trotskyite group,said the following to Ho Chi Minh, "President, Democratic Republicof Vietnam,":

Spartacist in fullest solidarity with the defense of your country against attackby U.S. imperialism. eIroic struggle of Vietnamese working people furthers theAmerican revolution.'6A leaflet distributed by Youth Against War and Fascism accuses

the United States of "mass murder; the extermination of thousandsof peasants, young revolutionary guerrillas, villagers of all ages inboth North and South Vietnam." It goes on to charge the UnitedStates with "open aggression against a country one-twentieth thesize of the United States which has not committed one act of waragainst U.S. territory." The solution, according to this organization,may be found in "the just and reasonable demands for negotiations" Sept. 15, 1965, Los Angeles Times, editorial." Quoted in the Now York Ierald Tribune, Oct. 1, 1965, p. 12.14 Tocsin, May 20, 1965 p. 2.t Bpartaclst, Apr. 17, 1965.


made by the Premier of the Democratic Republic of Vietnam in re-sponse to Johnson's peace hoax."Vice President Hubert Humphrey, speaking at the University of

Wisconsin, urged college students to replace "destructive" demon-straitions with constructive social action. "The right to be hearddoes not automatically include the right to be taken seriously." hetold the opening session of the congress of the National StudentAssociation. "I saw some signs that said 'get out of Vietnam,"' heasserted, "I agree. But in our getting out we don't want to let some-body else take over. If you can show us how to get out of Vietnamwithout the Communists taking over in Saigon, without South Viet-nam losing what freedom it has left, we'll put the placards that arearound here in the hall of fame instead of the hall of shame. But thesigns offer no alternative, 'just leave.' I can promise you we do notintend to leave." 16 The audience of 1,000 student leaders respondedwith an overwhelming ovation.The response to Mr. Humphrey's statement was openly hostile on

the part of the new left youth organizations. Writing in the YoungSocialist, Jack and Elizabeth Barnes, national chairman and nationalorganizational secretary of the Young Socialist Alliance, made thiscomment:

* * * During a speech I-ubert Iumphrey angrily replied to a young studentcritic: "Keep your mind on the enemy, and the enemy is not in Washington."By this angry outburst he betrayed his real fear that in their fight against warabroad and for real democracy and civil rights at home the student movementwill discover that the main enemy is indeed in Washington.'7Such groups, and such individuals, are not advocates of peace, and

are not pacifists. They are simply partisans of the other side, andtheir criticism of U.S. policy is not rooted in anything more than theself-serving interest of Communist expansion.

University leaders have found in such movements a threat not onlyto the national security, but also to the integrity of the universityitself.Dr. Wilson H. Elkins, president of the University of Maryland,

stated the following in an address at a student convocation in CollegePark:

It seems clear that if any student or group of students is allowed to seize powerin the name of freedom of speech, then universities should close their doors beforerigor mortis sets in. The University of Maryland is committed to the exerciseof the basic freedoms, but it believes strongly that there must be rules andregulations consistent with the public nature of the institution. It encouragesacademic freedom but does not associate this principle with any rights of studentsto determine academic or nonacademic requirements.'sDr. Elkins noted that-

insidious erosion and sometimes outright defiance of authority is a dangeroustrend in our society.Speaking before the American Council on Education, President

Kingman Brewster, Jr., of Yale University, said that college studentsought to stay in school and learn something before they storm thenearest barricade in protest over social ills. He said that the im-patient young activist runs the risk of "disqualifying himself fromtrue usefulness if he fails to arm himself with the intellectual equip-

l The New York Times, Aug. 24, 1965." The Young Socialist, July-August 1965, p. 3." Quoted in the Wall Street Journal, Sept. 14, 1965.


iicnt for tile solutions of the prollemls of war and poverty and indig-nity." M\r.1B1ewster warned that if "impatient anti-in tellectualismof thc radical left is not to seduce many of our best brains away fromtrue usefulness, students must be reminded that emotional over-simiiplification of tile world's problems does not solve them. 'I'oo manyof our brightest students squander their talents for a lifetime ofconstructive work for the cheaper and transient satisfaction of throw-ing themselves on some immediate 'cause' which is too often thesubIstitute for thorough thought or the patient doggedness it takes tobuild something." 19'he role of ties current lnew left organizations has been summed

u1) by C(iis I-all, of the Communll ist Party: "Fronts are a tiling of thepast. We don't need them. We've got the W. E. .. DuBois Clubs,the Studelnt Nonviolent C(oordinatillg Committee, and Students for a

Democlratic Society going for lus, but they're not 'fronts' in the usualsense of tile word. llTey're jist a part of thle 'responsible left'-thatportion of Alleric'an youth tlhat realizes society is sick.' 20

19 New York I[erald 'Trilbne, Oct. 9, 1905. p. 14.20 UPI1 dispatch in the Eiston( (Md.) Express, July 28, 1095.

CHAPTER IV

THE ORIGINS OF THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENTThe teach-in movement had its beginning at the University of

Michigan in March of this year.According to the Detroit News of March 25, 1965, the movement

was launched by Eric J. Wolf, professor of anthropology; William A.Gainson, assistant professor of sociology; and Arnold S. Kaufman,associate professor of philosophy.Kaufman boasted that his group had contacted like-minded col-

leagues at the following universities: Stanford, Colorado, Syracuse,San Francisco Stat3, California at Berkeley, and Wisconsin.

Originally planned was a revolutionary move to cancel all classesin protest against U.S. policy in Vietnam. This brought forth anangry resolution of condemnation from the Michigan Senate which isreprinted on p. 18.

Fifty professors who had organized the walkout under the auspices ofthe Faculty Committee to Stop the War in Vietnam, a group set upby the interuniversity committee, decided on March 16 to call off thescheduled strike.The classroom strike plan was discarded, to be replaced by an all-

night protest against U.S. policy in Vietnam, which was labeled as"immoral" and "lunatic".Frithjof Bergmann, assistant professor of philosophy, stated his

position in these unequivocal terms:We should get on the side of the people, not their oppressors, even it it means

linking arms with Red China in southeast Asia. I am in favor of getting out.An estimated 2,500 persons attended this meeting, which was

jazzed up with a kaleidoscopic series of lectures, rallies, and seminars,punctuated by folk singing and bomb scares.Films of the Vietnam war made by the Vietcong and smuggled into

this country were shown to the students. Later on, the Vietcongrepresentative in Algiers, Huyn Van Tam, was to boast that he hadreceived a $100 contribution for the purchase of medical supplies froman unidentified group of students at the University of Michigan(Chicago Tribune, Aug. 13, 1965).Funds for the Vietcong were also solicited at the February political

rallies of the free speech movement at Berkeley coincident with HerbertAptheker's unscheduled talk.The atmosphere at the majority of the teach-ins was similar to

that at the Oregon University teach-in, which was described in theseterms in the New York Times magazine of May 9, 1965.The lineup was strictly anti-Government, as befits an all-out protest, though

among the organizers and sponsors-5 departmental chairmen signed up, alongwith 104 other faculty members and 190 students-opinions ranged all the wayfrom those who thought the U.S. position in Vietnam was blatantly immoral tothose who thought it was merely untenable. Within the inner circle, it was moreimportant that the United States had helped obstruct free elections in Vietnam

1755-733--65---3


/ * !: '

senateaeaolutionin!7Z1Olffcrd by Senator Terry Troutt

A It1SOLUTION CONDI)IMNING T11 CUIIIlENTLY'L[IlnRATlENISl)(I.ASSIS CANCI;IIlIATION AT THlE UNIVEISIT¥Y 01F MICHIGAN.

WIIEREAS, Twenty University of Michigan instructors declare they will cancel theirclasses on March 24, 1965, in protest of President Johnson's administration policies regard-Ing Vietnam, according to public announcements; and

WHEREAS, University of Michigan President Harlan Hatcher disapproves and has soinformed the faculty members involved. Sociology Professor William Gamson, as spokes.man for this recalcitrant group, indicated defiance of President Hatcher's wishes; and

WHEREAS, The University of Michigan Is a state-supprtcd institution, Is an instru-ment owned by the people of this State, and its faculty members arc servants of the people,functioning under duly constituted authority and

WHEREAS, As private ctliens or groups, freedom of certain action is established fororderly protest: none Is condoned for a minority group speaking for an entire public entity.This arbitrary attempt, despite prohibition by constituted authority, indicates contempt forthe Pecfle of the State of Michigan and for Its Constitution; and

WHEREAS, It is therefore obligatory upon the highest authority of the People, In ItsLegislature, to act forthwith In condemnation of such threat; It is obligatory that the Michl.gan Legislature forthwith record that disapproval and plainly state Its support of its agent,President iarlan Hatcher of the Univerity of Mlchigan; now therefore be It

RESOLVED BY THE SENATE, That the action of the twenty Instructors at the Unl.verslty of Michigan who have threatened cessation of classes on March 24, 1965, is not onlytotally Iladvised but represents a clear violation of their duties as instructors at a State Uni-versity to their students and te '"' people of the State of Michigan; and hereby Is condemned;and be It further

RESOLVED, That President Harlan Hatcher of the University of Michigan be con.firmed In his stand opposing such action by faculty members and request him to pursue thematter with disciplinary action whatever the outcome; and be it further

RESOLVED, That a copy of this instrument of legislative Intent be transmitted to Preal-dent Harlan Hatcher and the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan for theiradvisement.

Adopted by the Senate, March 16, 1965.

8-0.,l~y j thf~·rc

State Of Michigan


(specified under the Geneva agreements of 1954) than that there had never beenfree elections in Ianoi; anger over growing U.S. military involvement over-shadowed parallel aid from China, the Soviet Union, and North Vietnam; doubtsabout a future U.S. role in southeast Asia were louder than fears concerning RedChina's aims for the area.

* * * **

Standing in the rear of the hall were about 100 students, many of whom hadused the recess as a cocktail hour. No sooner did the speeches begin than heckling,jeering, and catcalls drowned them out. One speaker who had a German accentwas interrupted by cries of "Heil" Another, who was perfectly audible, wasstopped by shouts of "We can't hear you."The uglies were confronted by sweating Dean of Students Donald M. DuShane,

who tried to mollify them. The hecklers laughed, and went on booing. When apoliceman tried to eject a blond youngster, his companions grabbed the youthby the arm and yelled: "You got free speech, man. Stand up for your rights."Instead, the kid defiantly went limp, telling the policeman: "I'm a juvenile.You better not hit me." Finally, in a desperate maneuver, the folk singers cameon to quell the outburst. As they began to sing "Over Jordan;" the cry went up"The Vietcong want to cross the Mekong."

* * * * * * *

In terms of decorum and attempted objectivity, some of the teach-ins were better than the Oregon University teach-in, some worse.This is the general atmosphere in which certain academicians and

students sought to bring pressure upon our national policymakers.- Arnold S. Kaufman, associate professor of philosophy at the Uni-versity of Michigan, one of the three founders of the teach-in move-ment, has perhaps been the most active philosophical mentor of theteach-in movement at his university. In a signed article in theNation of June 21, 1965, he outlined the role of the scholars andteachers in the revolutionary struggle with these words:Now the main custodians of human intellect and its works in a society such as

ours-the scholars and the teachers-are counterattacking. * * * Those whohave inspired the teach-in movement believe that revolutionary movements mustnot be suppressed. Instead, this Nation must learn to respect revolutionaryenergies. * * * More than 3 million students combine with approximately 500,000faculty. From a purely political point of view, it is not a group that can beignored.From the University of Michigan, the teach-in movement spread

like wildfire to campuses across the country. Between March 24-thedate of the University of Michigan teach-in-and May 15, 1965-thedate of the national teach-in in Washington-there were Vietnamteach-ins at some 50 colleges and universities in every part of thecountry.The sponsors of the teach-in movement pompously described their

creation as an improvement on the educational process. In thecircular memorandum describing the national teach-in and invitingparticipation in it, the Inter-University Committee for a PublicHearing on Vietnam submitted the following definition:A teach-in is a critical examination by members of the academic community of

fateful Government policies and of policy alternatives. It is conceived as anatural extension of scholars' responsibilities as teachers and citizens in a time ofpublic crisis. Professors, it ought to be known, have not been cloistered in ivorytowers. Many have been engaged by the Government for advice on politicaland scientific matters; many conduct research of direct use to the Nation. Thiskind of public service has always been deemed respectable. But it is just asrespectable to offer results of thought and scholarship that conflict with currentlines of policy. Indeed, dissent, in a democratic forum, is the highest form ofcooperation.


IT reality, the great majority of the teach-ins (there were a fewnotable exceptions to this rule) have had absolutely nothing in con-mon(i with the procedures of fair debate or the process of education.I1l practice they were a combination of an indoctrination session, a

political protest demonstration, an endurance contest, and a varietyslow.At most of the teach-ins the administration's point of view was

givncr only token reJpresentation. The great majority of the speakers,,by deliberate design, were critics of the administration.

At, nany of the teach-ins spokesmen for the administration's policywere sli)jecte(l to booing afln hissing and catcalling so thaitit was

iilm)ossible for them to make a coherent presentation of their case.Comllnist propaganda films were frequently shown. Communist

liteeratltire was frequently distributed.People of known Commnllnist background were frequently involved.And at virtually every teach-in, the antiadministration speakers

vied with lneach other ill their extremist denunciations of administrationpolicy.At a teach-in at Rutgers University on April 23, Prof. Eugene D.

Genovese declared:Those of you who know me know I amn a Marxist and a Socialist. Therefore,

unlike mIost of my distinguished colleagues here this morning, I do not fear orregret the imlpeflnding Vietcong victory in Vietnam. I welcome it.At th1e University of Berkeley teach-in on May 22-23, Prof.

StaughtoIn Lyind of Yale University called for massive civil dis-obe(lience across the country to force President Johnson to resign.Spelling out what lie meant, he called on opponents of the adminis-trl'tion's Vietnam policy to engage in marches, picketing, the burningof draft, cars, and going to jail if necessary. Another participantin the Berkeley teach-in, Prof. Timothy F. Harding of CaliforniaState College, disclosed that he was recruiting American studentsto lielp the rebel forces in the Dominican Republic.At the University of Oregon teach-in, Prof. Kenneth Boulding of

the University of Michigan said:The United States is a bandit. We have no legitimacy. Red China is much

less committed to conquering the world than we are. The monolithic conceptof communism as a world force is a paranoic concept of the John Birch Society.Support came from Prof. David F. Aberle of Michigan University,

who stated:I am against domination of any country and I am opposed to capitalist im-

perialism, whicl is the worst.More support came from Professor Ball, who said:Our position in Vietnam is critical. We are moving in the same direction Hitler

did.At a teach-in at American University in Washington, D.C., on

May 22, Dr. Linus Pauling, Nobel Peace Prize winner, informed theaudience that President Johnson's warlike actions constituted groundsfor illlpeachment-at which time there was an immense surge ofapplalso. When a student rose to ask Dr. P:uling if he would ratherfight for his Nation than live under communism, the program chairmanrudely cut him. off.

Tile teach-ill at Pittsb1irgh University was organized by Dr. RobertG. Colony, who had openly boasted of being a Communist on a


Chicago radio program in 1938, which he has denied, and who morerecently was a founder of the Fair Play for Cuba Coommittee, an orga-nization which has been identified as a Castro front by the SenateSubcommittee on Internal Security.

Despite the high-flown claims of the teach-in sponsors to academicobjectivity, it is noteworthy that the great majority of the facultyIlnembers who were involved in teach-ins were of very junior rank andof little reputation and that their disciplines had precious little todo with political science or with foreign affairs or with Vietnam.For example, of the 1,268 academicians listed as sponsors of the

national teach-in in Washington, 172 were psychologists, 167 scientistsand engineers, 107 were sociologists, 153 were professors of Englishor languages, 77 were professors in the fields of philosophy and religion.Of the 10,000 political scientists teaching in American universities,

only 65 were listed as sponsors of the national teach-in committee,and the great majority of these were completely unknown juniors.Viewing this situation in its August 1965 issue, Commentary maga-

zine said:Notable by their relative absence have been scholars who have a claim to know

More about Vietnam, or Asia, or communism or international politics than mightbe gleaned from a reading of the New York Times.

By way of further illustrating the true nature of the teaclh-inmovement, we reproduce, in the pages that follow, descriptions ofa number of teach-ins written by eyewitnesses.

TII TEACII-IN AT BERKELEY UNIVERSITY[Source: Ncuc Zilrcher Zeltung (Zurich, Switzerland), June 13, 1965 (p. 7)]

TEACII-IN AT BERKELEYPOLITICAL RADICALISM IN AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES

The campus of the University of California at Berkeley, on May 21 and 22was the scene of a demonstration protesting against tile U.S. policy in Vietnam."Vietnam Day" had been announced by an organizing committee composed ofradical student groups as a "teach-in," a kind of sit-down demonstration (similarto sit-in), with academic debates. It was to give the signal, as "escalation of theAmerican antiwar rebellion," for direct action by the Amelrican students againsttile policy of their Govcrnment and for the awakening of a radical left in tileUnited States.

In recent years the University of California has developed into a center ofstudent unrest. The radicalization of the students, grown out of a mixture ofjustified demands for academic reform and protests against racial segregation,with anarchist tendencies and Communist influenced, culminated in Berkeley inthe fall of 1964 in a "free speech movement" which called student strikes in orderto compel the university authorities to accede to its demands, and occupied theadministration buildings of the university, but which soon degenerated intopublic exhibitions of the use of obscenities and the sale of contraceptives in thestudent dormitory. The intervention of Wlshlington in Vietnam and in theDominican Republic then afforded the radical student groups a renewed oppor-tunity for attacks against the university authorities and the Government andfor a public display of their power and influence among the students.

EXTREME LEFTIST GROUPS

The campus of Berkeley, a town of its own with imposing classic and ultralmodern buildings, on "Vietnam Day" was transformed into a circus and anuse-ment park. Around the Ludwig's Fountain in front of Sprout Hall, radicalstudent groups, such as the Communist Party-connected W. E. B. DuBois Clubs,the pro-Chinese Progressive Labor Movement, and the Trotskyist Young SocialistAlliance, set up their booths and, like circus barkers, pushed their pamphlets


calling for revolutionary action and explaining with Marxist phrases the tacticsof all overthrow (of the government) in the United States. Flaming red bannersover Ilountains of )paper demanded "Get out of Vietnam" or "Put a Stop toJohnson's War."

Next to a picture of Marx, a cartoon was put up showing the President asmilitary adviser ill Vietnam, ia banner headtline, "Impeach,Johnson," called forthe iilpeachliment of Jolhnsoni; large plhotograplhs showing burnt Vietnamesechildren and the torturing of captured Vietcong rebels demonstrated the crueltyof the Vietnamese war; support of the Communist national liberation front inSouth Vietnam was being solicited openly. Long-haired and black-stockingedyoung girls were warning in a womenn for peace" booth against a resurgence ofNazism in the Federal Republic and were distributing buttons with the legend"Mlake Love Not War." Negro students were enlisting volunteers for the civilrights actions in the Southern States; conscientious objectors were collectingsignatures against military service; opposition journals with names like "Spar-tacist," "National Guardian," "Minority of One," "The Marxist-Leninist Van-guar(d," or "Western Voice for Revolution," were trying to get new subscribers.At the same time members of a conservative student group were defending, undera poster reading "leds Get Out," the President's policy and warning theirfellow stulenlls iln a leaflet not to let themselves be duped by Comminuist propa-ganda.

VAUDEVILLE ANI) DEMAGOGUERY

On tile lawn of a football field next to tile student dormitory, about 6,000Iparticipants in the rally were camped-attentive students, bearded beatniks,long-haired teenagers, and families witl children and dogs. The protest pro-gram, which lasted ai solid 30 hours, even throughout the night, without interrup-tion, hardly had anything in common with a student meeting or an academicleebate. Demagoguery, anti-intellectual intolerance, naive idealism, and Com-nlunist arguments of Clinese origin were calling the tune, and the generalatmosphere was more like that of a religious revival meeting.

Iliglt at the beginning a folk singer with his guitar appeared who sang "TlhePest in \Vietnam" extolling Mao Tse-tung anl Ho Chi-minh; a vaudeville teammade fun of Government and university authorities; comics amused the audiencewith obscene jokes. Renowned professors, such tas Robert Scalapino, EugeneBurdick, and Ilans Morgenthau, as well as the State Department, having refused:prticip:ation in this "ideological circus," were insulted by turns and accused ofcowardice.

As the sole defenderr of the Government's policy, a political scientist, Prof.Aaron Wildavsky, appeared, who refuted the moral arguments of the critics bystating that the American policy in Vietnam was grounded in moral reasons dueto the very fact that it was trying to prevent tlie objection of those countriesil southeast Asia under a totalitarian regime. Otherwise, there was no sign ofobjective appraisal of developments in Vietnam; the Communist aggression wasignoredl; instea(l, the demallnd for an immediate American withdrawal fromV\ietnllam was coupled witl the demand for toleration of pornographic literatureanld immunity for homosexuals.Most of the speeclhes seemed to follow the same pattern: That the U.S. Govern-

ment is lying but that Peiping and Hanoi are telling the truth; that not Moscow,'eiping, or Castro are threatening world peace, but the United States of America,which lias become a "world police" force and "stronghold of imperialism"; thatWashington is conducting pure power politics (a strong-armn policy) just likeIitler; that the American students annd professors, it was repeated over and overagain, must not make the same mistake as the German intellectuals did withregard to lHitler, and that is, therefore, their duty, through continuous protestsor even "revolutionary action," to lead the United States of America back onthe right track.

Several speakers considered a revolution in the United States of America a possi-bility, even a necessity, demanding as the first step in that direction the with-drawal (of the American troops) front Vietnam.

TACTICIANS AND DREAMERS

Tlhe speakers on this "Vietnam Day" were not students, but, along with ahandful of oppositional intellectuals and professors, mainly functionaries of theradical left, professional agitators, and outright Communists. The wirepullers ofthe rally used organizational methods suggestive of Communist rallies in Europe:a trained Communist Party functionary directed the strategy of the rally and theappearance of the speakers, while a bullylike character with a walkie-talkie was

ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-]N MOVEMENT 23

ill charge of the commando groups and attendants distributed among the audienceand posted at the campus gates. The coordination of the rally at Berkeley withthe worldwide Communist actions directed against the U.S. policy in Vietnamwrs further confirmed by the cabled greetings received from the French, Italian,Janlnese, Ghanese, and Algerian sections of the Communist student organizationIU3 and the Soviet Konisomol which, like Bertrand Russell, inevitably presenton inch occasions, were applauding the protest of the American students.

APPEAL FOR "DIRECT ACTION"

After darkness had set in, with floodlights illuminating the campus, SenatorErne3t Gruening, of Alaska, the most prominent speaker, addressed the audience.lie repeated the criticism voiced by him in the Senate of the American policyin Vietnam which, in his opinion, could be corrected only by the immediatewithdrawal of the American troops and tlie starting of negotiations with theVietcong. The well-known pediatrician, Dr. Benjamin Spock, pleaded for a rapidend to the cold war and the armaments race.M. S. Arnoni, publisher of a review, Mlinority of One, praised by Peiping and

Hanoi as the genuine voice of America and whose collaborators include, amongothers, Bertrand Russell, Albert Schweitzer, Linus Pauling, T. II. Tetens, andGunther Anders, defended China's policy in Tibet, against India, in SoutheastAsia, and in the conflict with MIoscow, and appealed to the American students tojoin up) with the Vietcong, as volunteers, and to fight against the U.S. Marines inVietnam. Isaac Deutscher, Stalin's and Trotsky's biographer who lives in Eng-land, represented himself as a prophet who had always been wiser than the ForeignOffice and the State Department, which gave him the right to criticize the policyof the West. I-e declared himself for Marxism and the class struggle and prophe-sied the emergence of a new "Socialist world" from a fusion of the Soviet de-Stalini-zation and the American protest movements. Following a muddled appeal bytll3 leader of the "Free Speech Movement," Mario Savio, to the "spirit of thea'ris Commune" and for the "continuation of the revolution," the rally was re-simned in a gymnasium in which, lasting until morning, pacifist movies wereshown, avante garde poems were read, and, unobserved from the outside, debatestook place by discussion groups and workshops on further radical student grouptactics.

POLITICAL FOLK FESTIVAL

On Saturday, the "Vietnam Day" turned into a mass meeting. Not being a

working day, it brought people from neighboring towns, with bag and baggage,beatniks from the big cities, and curious tourists, to the campus. Speechesby Norman Thomas, leader of the American Socialists and former Socialist candi-date for the presidency, and by the novelist Norman Mailer, alternated with per.formances by folk singers and comics. The speeches delivered were becomingmore and more radical; collections were taken up under the slogan "Demonstratevour admission of guilt for Vietnam," followed by appeals for donations of bloodfor the Dominican rebels.

Speakers from different radical groups were accusing each other of "softness"an(l "revisionism," at tile same time expressing their disappointment thattlhe protest against tle Government was confined only to meetings and words,and that no "direct action" was being taken. The proposal offered by a YaleUniversity history professor, Staughton Lynld, organizer of the "Freedom Schools"in Mlississippi and tile student march to 0Washimngtoii last March, suggesting thattlhe U.S. policy in Vietnam be tried in a new international court of justice, withLuthuli, Nicm6llcr, Dolci and King as judges, was received with frantic applause.Lynd called for a "nonviolent revolution" in the United States and change in thepresent administration, and predicted a new "hot summer" for Washington.

After these effusions, the protest rally in Berkeley ended with the adoption ofradical-sounding resolutions and the march of a few students to the recruitmentoffice in front of which they burnt their service records [draft notices?].

STUDENT UNREST

Observations at American universities confirmed neither the claim of repre-sentatives of the leftist opposition that the majority of American students joinedin the protest movement against the Johnson policy, nor the assertion of theextreme right that the incipient political activity of the students was nothingbut the result of Communist infiltration. The reasons underlying the actions ofthe American students, frequently going to extremes, in reality arc more com-


plex. The natural conflict between generations coincides with a growing uneasi-ness about the educational system. The undergraduates, especially, in view oftlhe enormous increase in student numbers, feel that they are merely elements ofa lirogram and they miss the contacts with the professors who, inaccessible tothem, pursue their research, Government missions [contracts?], or administrativedutisartiscipatiction in the civil rights demonstrations have sharpened theirsense of ideal values which, in romantic naivete, are being set against a societyperceived as too materialistic. Furthermore, on such occasions the students havebecome aware of the effectiveness of organization and tactics [strategy].

Thle young generation of Americans hardly remember the threat to democracyposed by litler and Stalin; they grew up in a period of rising prosperity andhardly know material worries in their studies. In addition, the sex revolutionhas. broken through the barriers of Puritan morality. Political activity, on theother hand, offers a new fascination; it attracts public attention and promisesto afford the students--who arc merely numbers in a mechanical testing system-[sic] appreciation of a "cause" and awareness of belonging to a "movement."I owever, excesses such as those which occurred at Berkeley cast a shadow over theawakening of interest in politics in the minds of American students. In thejudgment of competcnt observers, such as the Berkeley sociologists William'etersen anf(d Lewis Feucr, the actions of the radical students in California threatento encourage an anarchist and nihilist "protestationism," or to turn Berkeleyinto a center of a new radical movement in the United States.

[Translated by Elizabeth I-Tanunian.]

T'Hri TEACII-IN AT STANFORD UNIVERSITY\MISREPRESENTATION AND IIYPOCRISY IN TIlE STANFORD TEACII-IN

(By Carl Anderson)On IMTonday, IMay 17, a "teach-in" concerning current U.S. policy in Vietnam

was held on the Stanford campus. Featured in the 15-hour program were Prof.Hlans IMorgerthau, of the University of Chicago, an outspoken critic of U.S.involvement in Vietnam; Mr. John IIorner, of the U.S. State Department, speakingon behalf of thel current administration policy; and several faculty members fromStanford and other colleges.

Th'le teach-in, a marathon program of criticism and debate, is a very recentphenomenon. Intellectuals critical of U.S. raids on North Vietnam, seeking anew device to dramatize their opposition and desiring to take advantage of whatthey gaged to be substantial student opinion opposing American actions, devel-oped til teach-in as a means of protest. Teach-ins have been held at over 80colleges and universities; and some, particularly the one at the University ofMichigan, have gained national attention.

'The organizers of tle fStanford teach-in were somewhat devious and ambiguousin their descriptions of the event to its prospective participants and audience.Whatever their motives, they approached several faculty members whom theywanted to include in the teach-in and told them the program was to be one ofdiscussion and information, not one of protest. Four or five professors wereactually invited to appear on behalf of the administration's position. TheStanford teach-in was, then, ostensibly to be different from its "protest" prede-cessors. A few days before tile teach-in, however, in a statement to the StanfordDaily, tlhe facade slipped. Despite thle presence of some pro-administrationspeakers, the program was to be, the organizers revealed to Daily ReporterTomi Bowen, essentially a protest.

This revelation detonated a veritable explosion of academic outrage. Manyprofessors, eager for the extensive discussion of the issues that a well-balancedleach-iii promised, flatly refused to participate in any protest. Rattled by thisturn of events, the organizers hastily disclaimed.the statement reported by theDaily and reassured all concerned that, in fact, the program was to be one ofintellectual discussion. At least one professor, however, doubted tlis.

''lhis man, who was scheduled to participate in a panel discussion early in theprogram, noted that San Francisco satirical review group, The Committee, wasslated to perform at the beginning of the teach-in. He questioned their role inan "intellectual discussion," and declined to appear on the same stage with TheCommittee. Since his participation in tile program was considered essentialby the organizers (and it had already been announced), they complied with hiswishes alld arranged for his part of the program to be held in Tressider Union,


across campus from Memorial Auditorium where The Committee had performedand the rest of the teach-in was to take place.The furor caused by-the inadvertent Daily release put great pressure on the

promoters of the teach-in not to publicize the event as a protest device. Furtherpublicity of the teach-in was consequently carried out in a methodical, mechanicalmanner. At every opportunity the organizers reiterated that the program wasto be one of discussion, not one of protest. In the numerous banners andannouncements of the program around campus, the word "protest" neverappeared.

Therefore one might suppose that the program turned out to be a fair and opendiscussion. Careful scrutiny reveals that this was not the case. At only twotimes during the event was there participation by speakers supporting U.S.policy in Vietnam: at the afternoon panel discussion in Tressider Union and atthe featured evening discussion in Memorial Auditorium. Of course, these werethe most important parts of the program, and there was strong and articulaterepresentation of both sides. All other time, however,- was occupied by personscritical of administration policy. Since the panels occupied less than 5 hoursof the 15-hour program, over two-thirds of the program was dedicated exclusivelyto unopposed criticism of U.S. policy and to events such as the performance ofThe Committee, that could hardly be termed by any stretch of the imagination"open intellectual discussion."

This lack of balance is important because of the impression the teach-in left onoff-campus observers of the program. There was no indication of the broadlybased support current U.S. policy enjoys on the Stanford campus. For example,on May 19, the Palo Alto Times editorialized the teach-ins:

"* * * though collegians generally oppose President Johnson's Vietnampolicy, a respectable number of faculty members support it." This is trulydlamning with faint praise. At Stanford, almost 1,000 students, faculty, andstaff signed a petition supporting American actions in Vietnam, and 137 facultymembers sent a telegram to the White House endorsing President Johnson'spolicy, yet only 300 persons signed a petition critical of U.S. involvement. Itwould appear that the substantial majority of interested Stanford studentssupport President Johnson's policy. The Times' editorial, thus gives a greatlydistorted picture of student opinion.The tach-in can be a valuable and constructive device for the scholarly exam-

ination of important issues of public policy. But it fails in this function if it isused as a protest and it fails if it presents to the public a distorted view of theopinions of the academic community. In either case it is not an "open intellectualdiscussion." The Stanford teach-in, whether by accident or design, to someextent avoided the first pitfall. Regrettably, it fell into the second.

TIIE TEACII-IN AT TIlE UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIAStatement by Prof. Robert Scalapino

[San Francisco Chronicle, May 21, 1965]NEW BLAST AT TIlE UC TEACH-IN

The May 21 meeting on the Berkeley campus is symbolic of the new anti-intellectualism that is gaining strength today.A few individuals, most of whom would not dream of treating their own disci-

plines in this cavalier fashion, have sponsored a rigged meeting in which variousideologies and entertainers are going to enlighten us on Vietnam.Only a handful of the performers have ever been to Vietnam or made any

serious study of its problems. The objective is propaganda, not knowledge.To lend some respectability to the performance, the organizers sought to give

a few of us "guerrilla" status in the show.They urged us to appear, with ratios of up to 8 to 1 against us, and with our

opponents being such individuals as the editor of the National Guardian, theinternational secretary of the DuBois Clubs, the Mime Troupe, and assortedjazz singers.Can we be blamed if we did not want to lend our names and reputations to that

effort?This travesty should be repudiated by all true scholars irrespective of their

views on Vietnam. It can only damage the reputation of Berkeley as an insti-tution of higher learning.


Material originally appearing in this space,leaving been found erroneous in certain respects hasbeen deleted. All remaining material in this volumehas been reclhecked and found accurate; and none ofit has been a subject of complaint.

"UNREPRESENTED" FOLLOW TIHE COMMUNIST LINE ON VIETNAM(From tho Richmond Times Dispatch, Sept. 2, 106i]

Allan C. Brownfeld, author of the article that follows, graduated fromthe Marshall-Wythe School of Law of the College of William and Maryin 1964 and is now a member of the staff of Congressman CharlesMathias of Marylandd ad a graduate assistant in government andpolitics at the University of Maryland.

(By Allan C. Brownfeld)Some time ago Washington, D.C., was the scene of an "Assembly of Unrepre-

sented Peoples' which protested the American role in Vietnam. Reading aboutsuch protests is hardly the same as witnessing them. Only by talking with thepicketing, demonstrating students and others who are hostile to the Governmentpolicy can their feelings be understood and appreciated. This is not to say thaty learning of such attitudes on a personal level that we might find them less

dangerous. In fact, almost the precise opposite would be the case."The Unrepresented" came to Washington from throughout the country.

Many were young, most were dressed in sandals, blue jeans, and similar attire.They needed shaves and baths, but felt that to look well dressed would not bequite as effective a protest against a society they considered to be a "police state"and a militarily aggressive one.

ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT 27Among the groups sponsoring the meeting was the Mississippi Freedom Demo-

cratic Party, the Student Peace Union, the Women Strike for Peace, the W. E. B.DuBois Clubs, as well as an organization raising funds and supplies for theVietcong. This group, which boasted a Vietcong flag prominently displayed, wascalled the American Committee for the National Liberation Front.As the demonstrators gathered on the Washington Monument Grounds any

observer could very quickly see the tenor of the meeting. Among those publica-tions being displayed and distributed were the Worker, National Guardian,Militant, and Workers' World. A petition was being circulated proclaiming theinnocence of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and Morton Sobell. One table featuredmaterial published in Moscow and in Communist China.The night before the protest was held I participated in a teach-in at which I

represented the position of the Government. In my presentation I pointed outthat the war in Vietnam was the current thrust of Communist expansionism, ex-pressing itself in the form of guerrilla warfare. I noted that if Vietnam were tofall, our commitments to the other free nations of Asia would be of little value,and that if we could not successfully combat such a war now, we would have todo it later at perhaps a less preferable place. The question, I said, was notwhether to fight or have peace. The question is whether to fight now in Vietnamor perhaps later in Hawaii or California.

While critics stated that the use of "force" is immoral in itself, I pointed outthat force is neither moral nor immoral, but can be judged only on the basis of thecause it serves. In an address at Amherst College, former Secretary of StateDean Acheson put it this way: "Is it moral to deny ourselves the use of force inall circumstances, when our adversaries employ it, under handy excuses, wheneverit seems useful to tip the scales of power against every value we think of as moraland as making life worth living? It seems to me not only a bad bargain but a

stupid one. For the very conception of morality seems to me to involve a dutyto preserve values outside the contour of our own skin, and at the expense of fore-going much that is desired and pleasant, including, it may be, our own fortunesand lives."

After I concluded my talk I was barraged with questions. One woman askedme whether I supported the use of "aggressive force" in Vietnam. I, in turn,asked her whether she had supported the use of force against Hitler. She saidthat she had, and I noted that she was not, in fact, against force but was simplyagainst fighting communism.

It is essential that we shatter the illusions of the public about such critics.The vast majority of them are not honest pacifists. They believe in using forceagainst governments with whom they disagree. The unfortunate fact is thatthey seem to think of communism as an affirmative advance. Many of theindividuals in attendance at the teach-in and at other of the weekend's activitieswere quite frank in admitting their own Communist ties and sympathies. Ameeting of the Women Strike for Peace held at American University earlier in thesummer featured a call for a "domestic Tokyo Rose corps"-a group of womenwho live in communities near military bases who would mingle among the soldiersin the places where they gather to stimulate them to refuse to fight.Tihe critics of the Government policy at the teach-in compared the Vietcongwith John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and other leaders of the American Revolu-tion. The U.S. Government, on the other hand, was compared with that ofNazi Germany.Though such critics represent a small minority view, the fact remains that

many abroad see in their activities a division of public opinion in this country.Communist leaders in Hanoi, Moscow, and Peiping see in such demonstrations aweakening of American unity, and of an American will to combat their aggression.This can only serve to make them more resolute in their conduct of the war.Such protests will increase and not diminish as the school year begins. We

must understand that they are not pacifist demonstrations against the idea ofwar, but are political demonstrations against our participation in this particularwar against Communist aggression. Put in their proper light we can do our bestto offset their damaging influence, and we can wonder why so many youngAmericans and their teachers have an almost fanatical hatred for their own coun-try, a country which permits the free speech and open protests which would beforbidden in the capitals of the countries they claim are "liberated."


TIE OREGON UNIVERSITY TEACH-IN(From the New York Times magazine, May 18, 198]

VIETNAM COMES TO OREGON UNIVERSITY

(By Mitchel Levitas 1)EUGENE, OREG.

Never had tlhe pleasant, placid campus of the University of Oregon been throughanything like this. The Erb Memorial Student Union, usually deserted on aFriday night, was jammed with 3,000 standing, sitting, milling people. Rawfreshmen argued fearlessly with senior professors. Platoons of "Greeks"-fraternity men-debalted with intellectuals they ordinarily ignore as "smokies.""Between choosing one extreme or another," patiently explained a smokie, "thereis another alternative--think."

As lie spoke, one happily unthinking student waved aloft a sign on which waswritten nothing at all. A pert coed decorated hier sweater with a card that carriedthe sensible entreaty: "Let's make love, not war." Carefully watching it allfrom the sidelines-and later in the thick of things-were two Eugene policemen,dressed in plainclothes for the evening.The occasion was a marathon protest against U.S. policies in Vietnam, and

for 12 straight hours nothing else seemed to matter. Finally, after 400 sandwiches,60 gallons of coffee, 30 speakers, 9 "seminars," 3 folksingers, 2 poetry recitations,and an edgy interlude of drunken jeering and brief violence punctuated by anexploding firecracker and a flying golf ball that narrowly missed its humantarget, the evening-till-morning demonstration stumbled to a weary finish."This has been a great success as a campus event," Anthropology Professor DavidF. Aberle, 47, organizer of the meeting, told 250 survivors who stood beneaththe cool, gray morning sky. "As to its success as an event of national importance,that's a wide-open question."And one that is being raised with a growing insistence at colleges and univer-

sities across the country. Called a teach-in on many campuses-a slogan thatblends the politics of protest with the decorum of academia-the demonstrationsbegan at the University of Michigan on March 24, spread to Columbia the nextday, and by now have been staged at about 30 schools, ranging from the predict-able (Berkeley) to the unexpected (Texas).

Not for 25 years, since the Nation and its halls of learning bitterly arguedwhether or not to intervene against the menace of Nazi Germany, have thecampuses echoed to similar organized outcries on a foreign policy issue.Somewllat belatedly, the State Department is hastily dispatching "truth

squads" to schools where the opposition is loudest. Another indicator of officialconcern over the teach-ins was the irritable reaction of that normally soft-spokenGeorgia gentleman, Dean Rusk, "I sometimes wonder at the gullibility ofeducated men," the Secretary of State snapped, "and the stubborn disregard ofplain facts by men who are:supposed to be helping our young to learn-especiallyto learn how to think."

Rusk was uncharitable. There is no guarantee that a Ph. D. in physics, say,is insurance against political gullibility, or a key to revealed truth about a situa-tion as perilously complex as Vietnam. Men with sheepskins can behave likesheep, too. Yet there is no denying that a respectable segment of the Americanacademic community is opposed to U.S. policy in Vietnam, and even many ofthose teachers who back the Government and refuse to sign up as teach-in par-ticipants are not all that certain of their stand.The demonstration at the University of Oregon on April 23-24 originated with

a phone call to Professor Aberle from Marshall Sahlins, an anthropologist atMichigan who hcad thought up the teach-in idea, and who knew Aberle as a formercolleague at Ann Arbor.A slender man with thinning black hair fringed by strands of silver, Aberle feels

"uncomfortable" picketing or marching for a cause. Ho is less concerned withideoloy than withf facing what he considers his moral and social responsibilities.Back in 1952, for example, he had accepted an appointment at the Walter HinesPage School of International Relations at Johns H-opkins, at the time headed byOwen Lattimore. Then Lattimoro came under fierce senatorial attack based onhis alleged Communist sympathies, and for Aberle the issue boiled down towhether lie should still accept the job, or decline it because of the uproar. Hetook the offer, remaining until 1960.

1 Mitchel Levltas Is a member of the Times magazine staff.

ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT 29A year later he became chairman of tle anthropology department at Brandeis,

hut resigned with his British-born wife, Kathleen, also an anthropologist, after shewas called on the carpet by Brandeis President Abraml L. Sachar for a speech(luring the Cuban missile crisis. Addressing a student group, Mrs. Aberlo hadexpressed the hope that nuclear war would be avoided, but added that if the show-down developed into a limited war, "I hope Cuba will win and the United Stateswill bc shamed before all the world, and its imperialistic hegemony ended foreverin Latin America."Rather than call their protest a teach-in, the Oregon organizers decided at the

outset to fly the banner of a "Faculty-Student Committee To Stop the War inVietnam." "A teach-in," .-aid Prof. Lucian Marquis, director of the university'shonor college, "suggests an immediate grievance, like a civil rights sit-in. To usethat concept here we thought would be falsifying the situation." "Besides,"added Prof. George Streisinger, of the Institute of Molecular Biology, "the termsuggests a protest against the university administration, which it certainly wasn't."

Oregon's president, Arthur S. Flemming, who was Secretary of Health, Educa-tion, and Welfare under President Eisenhower, firmly supported the committee'sright to protest. Enhancing the university's long-established reputation forprotecting academic freedom, Flemming in 1962 won the American AssociationoJ University Professors Meiklejohn Award for allowing students to hear speakersof their own choice, specifically Gus Hall of the Communist Party, at a time whenlall was being barred on other campuses. This time, Flemming cooperativelymade the Student Union available for the Vietnam demonstration, and by officially"recognizing" the rally as a university event, he enabled coeds to stay up allnight--if they attended (or said they did).

Meanwhile, Aberle's group plunged into the hectic job of signing up supporters,planning the meetings, and finding off-campus speakers. Everyone agreedtlat Oregon's senior U.S. Senator, Wayne Morse, a vehement critic of U.S.policy, would be the ideal big gun. The pacifists wanted one of their own, sothey got David McReynolds of the War Resisters League. Professor Marquishad heard about Stanley Sheinbaum, an economist at the Center for the Study ofDemocratic Institutions who had been on a University of Michigan technical-aidproject in Vietnam under the Diem regime, and Sheinbaum agreed to speak.Someone, Aberle doesn't remember who, thought of Robert Scheer, a writer forRamparts magazine who had recently returned from Vietnam, and Scheer accepted,too.,The lineup was strictly anti-Government, as befits an all-out protest, though

among the organizers and sponsors-5 departmental chairmen signed up,along with 104 other faculty members and 190 students-opinions ranged all theway from those who thought the U.S. position in Vietnam was blatantly immoralto those who thought it was merely untenable. Within the inner circle, it wasmore important that the United States had helped obstruct free elections inVietnam (specified under the Geneva-agreements of 1954) than that there hadnever been free elections in Hanoi; anger over growing U.S. military involvementovershadowed parallel aid from China, the Soviet Union and North Vietnam;doubts about a future U.S. role in southeast Asia were louder than fears concerningRed China's aims for the area.

"Believe me," said Aberle, puffing on an ever-present cigarette and leaningback in a chair in his small corner office in the Science Annex, "I'd much ratherteach and do research than fight this thing. The kind of publicity I need arearticles in professional journals. But what we have in Vietnam is a schizophrenicsituation, a war that is not a war by a government that is not a government.And we refuse to recognize a stable regime in Peiping, a stable regime in Ianoi,a stable National Liberation Front. This could lead us into world war III butwe're acting like the man who jumped off the Empire State Building and shoutedas he passed the 24th floor, 'So far I'm all right.'

Passionate politics like this was a recent phenomenon on the Oregon campus,which only last November chartered its first rightwing Young Americans forFreedom club and its first leftwing group, Students for Socialist Action, anamalgam of Marxists and non-Marxists. "We're not sufficiently structured toworry about ideology," cheerfully explained Mike Harpster, a graduate historystudent and one of the many native Californiams who have carried the seeds ofpolitical awareness from the rich soil of Berkeley to virgin lands up north.

"I was surprised," said Cathy Neville, editor of the Daily Emerald, "but sincethis protest was organized a few weeks ago Vietnam has replaced civil rights asthe most serious topic of discussion." "Even the Greeks have been talking aboutit," zr;id John Luvaas, president of the student government, "and among studentsin general Vietnam has been running the subject of girls a pretty close race."

30 ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN -MOVEMENT

Two groups of students in particular decided-at the last minute-to protestthe protest demonstration. Paul Medlar, a sophomore premed student, initiateda petition urging those who favor the United States staying in Vietnam to showup at the all-night meeting wearing white shirts and blouses; more than 800signed the petition. At the same time, two earnest freshmen, Bill McCartcrand Jim Mead, organized a picketing cadre, thriftily using some signs importedfrom other campuses where similar opposing forces hac! already met."We disagree strongly with those who want to pull out of Vietnam," said

McCarter, a lanky, trim figure in a suit and tie. "But we really respect theatmosphere of their demonstration. If it accomplished nothing else, it at leastwill make a lot of people who didn't know or care about Vietnam really thinkabout it. And that's what the democratic spirit is all about."The democratic spirit overflowed the Erb Memorial Union the night of the

rally, despite a light drizzle and threats of heavy rain.At about 7:15 McCarter's pickets unloaded a pile of signs from the back seat of

a yellow Cadillac convertible. There were rumors that some law school studentsmight show up with a supply of eggs to throw, and that the Greeks would comebearing tomatoes. The messages on the placards seemed to match the mood ofuneasy expectation: "Welcome Comrades-Vietcong Headquarters Upstaid,""Reddish Professors Turn Out Yellow Pinks," "Oh Hlell, Let's Pull Out--WhoCares About 15 Million Vietnamese."The incoming crowd ignored the marchers, and after circling about for a few

minutes, the pickets climbed a wide staircase to the second-floor ballroom. Therethey quietly took up positions on the fringes of the packed hall, dotted with whiteshirts and blouses. A thousand people occupied folding chairs on which werepamphlets protesting the war in Vietnam, along with the State Department whitepaper and an analysis of the document by Journalist I. F. Stone, whose credentialsinclude a book accusing the United States of having plotted the Korean warOutside the hall, hundreds of students stood shoulder to shoulder in the adjacentupper lobby, crowding a table for donations to offset the estimated cost of $1,500to transport speakers, pay for janitorial services, and mimeographing.The meeting began promptly at 7:30. In a few words of welcome, Aberle

greeted "those who came to protest, those who came to be informed, and thosewho disagree with us." It was a mild prelude to a series of fiery speeches.

Senator Morse, former dean of the Oregon law school, was first up, and stayedup for 90 minutes. If words were bullets, he would have defeated the administra-tion singlehanded.

Morse gave credit to the "Teach-Ins" as the most important single factorbehind President Johnson's Baltimore pledge to hold "unconditional discussions"on Vietnam. At the same time he said that "a return to the Geneva accords isthe last slim hope for peace." Otherwise, Morse predicted, "if we keep up ourunilateral policy, 12 months from tonight there will be hundreds of thousands ofAmerican boys fighting in southeast Asia-and tens of thousands of them will becoming home in coffins." The crowd leaped to its feet in a standing ovation,while the pickets jiggled their signs in silent disapproval. His speech over,Morse fielded a few hostile questions with ease ("Can we wait until China becomesa nuclear power?" "Why do you say we can't win the war in the air?") thensat down to another ovation.Thus primed for more protest, the audience attentively listened while Ramparts

magazine's Schcer argued that Vietnam is "America's Hungary" because, likethe Russians, "we are trying to push our way of life onto a people that want noneof it." Economist Sheinbaum, who ought to know, reported that the staff of theUniversity of Michigan aid program in Vietnam was heavily infiltrated with CIAagents. Pacifist McReynolds took the line that President Johnson deceived thevoters by switching to a "Goldwater policy" in Vietnam after the election, anopinion widely shared among "Teach-In" organizers.The speeches continued until 12:20 a.m., with the ballroom crowd as large as

ever. Meanwhile, on the main floor of the Student Union, a more personal formof education took place as a dozen informal debates were waged 'in the midstof a jostling mob. One student carrying a sign that said "Stop Communism insoutheast Asia" was challenged by a social scientist. "Your sign says nothingabout methodology," he argued, and the discussion was on.

In the glass-walled "Fishbowl," a curved, spacious room with tables and ajukebox, Jim Peterson, a sophomore political-science major, sat with prettyblonde Carol Chislett, a freshman liberal arts student. "A lot of the studentshere don't know what they're talking about when they argue Vietnam," she said."I didn't know anything and that's why I came." Added Peterson: "Now this

ANTI-VIETNAM AGITATION AND THE TEACH-IN MOVEMENT 31is an education. I have no sympathy with the aims of this protest, but it wouldbe a crime to miss it."Wandering through the crowd were two bewildered members of the Stanford

track team, in town for a race with Oregon the next day. They were uninterestedin the meeting, "but what else is going on in Eugene tonight?" One murmuredin disappointment.

Following a 30-minute break after the main speeches, part of the demonstrationwas scheduled to move outside for more speeches (brief ones) and folk singing.Instead, it stayed indoors because of the threat of rain, the fear that studentsmight drift away in the open air, and the belief that possible trouble from rowdystudents would be easier to control in the ballroom. Trouble did erupt, but itwas not easy to control.

Standing in the rear of the hall were about 100 students, many of whom hadused the recess as a cocktail hour. No sooner did the speeches begin than heckling,jeering and catcalls drowned them out. One speaker who had a German accentwas' interrupted by cries of "Heil." Another who was perfectly audible, wasstopped by shouts of "We can't hear you."The uglies were confronted by sweating dean of students, Donald M. DuShane,

who tried to mollify them. The hecklers laughed, and went on booing. When apoliceman tried to eject a blond youngster, his companions grabbed the youthby the arm and yelled: "You got free speech, man. Stand up for your rights."Instead, the kid defiantly went limp, telling the policeman: "I'm a juvenile.You better not hit me." Finally, in a desperate maneuver, the folk singerscame on to quell the outburst. As they began to sing "Over Jordan," the crywent up "The Vietcong want to cross the Mekong."

After 40 tense minutes, the atmosphere simmered down. The hecklers de-parted and the speakers went on as before, denouncing the United States for"the most immoral actions it has ever taken," pleading for the recognition ofRed China, and arguing that, like the French in Algeria, the United States wouldwin the world's respect by pulling out of Vietnam "with no loss of face." All thisnauseates me," said Steve Munson, former president of the campus YoungRepublican Club.

If the early part of the formal program was only loosely "educational," the hoursfrom 3 a.m. until dawn more fully redeemed its pedagogic aims. After anotherbreak, for coffee and sandwiches, the participants joined nine seminars. There,looking remarkably alert, they quitely argued various aspects of the Vietnamconflict: Was the "domino theory" a plausible forecast of eventual U.S. defeat inall southeast Asia? -Could the United Nations help to end the war? Iow relevantwas the breakup of monolithic communism?Most seminars were led by sponsors of the protest, but they made no effort to

control the discussion. "You can't duplicate this in a classroom," said ChuckWebster, a freshman. "I've learned an awful lot." Sophomore Jane Isaacswas amazed by the "frat types" who stayed to disagree. "There are 500 peoplein those seminars-and this is Oregon," she exclaimed.As the sun rose over Eugene, 250 sleepy souls trudged back to the ballroom to

conduct the penultimate part of the program: hearing reports from the seminarleaders and voting on a "policy proposal" that summed up the night's work. Theresolution preserved the polemic tone of the opening speeches. The United Stateswas condemned for military actions "not directed toward the welfare of the peopleof Vietnam," for its "unilateral intervention" and for "willfully misrepresenting thefacts concerning the war."

As for proposals, the document demanded an immediate cease-fire, that theUnited States "abandon its policy of containment and confrontation of commu-nism for an active policy of coexistence based on extensive economic aid * * *,"and the convening of an international conference, including the National Libera-tion Front, to supervise "free elections in North and South Vietnam." The resolu-tion passed, 233 or 234 (the bleary tellers couldn't tell) to 9. With that, the groupadjourned for another outdoor rally "to show our strength," as Aberle said,wearily. A few more remarks by students, faculty and two members of the clergyand the protest at Oregon was over.

But not forgotten. At the tables in the Fishbowl, in the wooden booths atMaxic's, a local beer joint, and through the hi-fi at the New World coffeehouse,the debate over Vietnam continued the next day. They were even talking aboutit at the Paddock, a dimly lit, upholstered watering place favored by the Greeks."I know my parents are for the United States staying," said pretty BarbaraKimball as she eyed a pizza, "but the demonstration pretty well convinced methat we ought to go."


Though the speeches at some teach-ins may often be more shallow than pro-found, and the atmosphere perhaps more propagandistic than scholarly, the rootsof protest are nurtured by legitimate longings.One is the desire for clarity among academics, and Vietnam is an issue riddled

by moral and intellectual contradictions. Another desire stems from the largerbattlefield of the cold war-the fear that after the nuclear test ban agreement,Goldwater's defeat and President Johnson's promises the chance for a "reconcilia-tion" with Moscow seems to be slipping away; according to this reading of events,bitter disappointment has bred angry discontent.Then there is the question of the democratic process itself. Oregon's Aberle

may be swayed by enthusiasm when he proclaims "a new form of citizen commu-nication." But University President Flemming is undoubtedly correct when hesays that, regardless of whether the communicants are right or wrong, "if wedon't have this kind of discussion and debate, if we don't encourage the trend ofgetting people involved, then our form of government is in trouble."The teach-in movement was born at the University of Michigan after heavy

criticism of an original plan for a 1-day faculty "work moratorium" to protestU.S. policies in Vietnam.The notion of a "strike," while sufficiently dramatic, was so controversial that

it diverted attention from the basic aim of the protest group. During a meetingon the night of March 17 they were batting around alternative ideas such as nightclasses or a vigil, when Anthropologist Sahlins suddenly interrupted the discussion."Hold everything. I've got it," he shouted. "They say we're neglecting ourresponsibilities as teachers. Let's show them how responsible we feel. Insteadof teaching out, we'll teach in-all night."Though teach-in organizers may make an effort to round up a Government

partisan, most demonstrations are one-sided affairs, for which the sponsors make noapologies. "There's something bizarre about that suggestion," says philosophyprofessor, Arnold S. Kaufman, a leader of the 200 University of Michigan facultymembers who joined the University of Michigan protest movement. "Themass media are filled with the Government position."

Nevertheless, Kaufman and his colleagues were enough concerned about theobjection that, in addition to the open seminars, they set aside 4 hours of the8 p.m. to midnight speechmaking portion of the program for questions from thefloor (a schedule that was abridged because two bomb scares emptied the hall).

Vietnam critics range from a small cadre of sympthizers with the new, far-outleft who want the United States to pull out of Vietnam tomorrow, to nonpoliticaltypes aroused mainly by the fear-by no means shared unanimously-that thewar may well lead to a nuclear holocaust. Somewhere in the middle are "peace"strategists such as Seymour Melman, of Columbia, and Anatol Rapoport, ofMichigan; politically minded scholars who worked actively for the Johnson-Iumphrey ticket; and civil rights militants for whom Vietnam is the overseasversion of Selma.There are exceptions, of course.At Oregon, "stop the war" organizers tried hard to win over Prof. James

Klonoski, a political scientist, chairman of the Eugene CORE chapter, and anaid to Hubert IIuml)hrey during the presidential primaries of 1960. Klonoskideclined to join up, "even though I support the Government by something like50.1 percent to 49.9 percent. At the risk of sounding simplistic, like RichardNixon, it's a matter of having to confront the evil."

Historian Paul Dull backs the Government somewhat more strongly, butwould not, if asked, join a counterdemonstration. "It would be too closelyidentified with the campus Young Republicans," says Dull.The result, at Oregon and elsewhere, is a partial vacuum, filled by dissent.

Escalating the argument, the newly formed Inter-University Committee for aPublic Hearing on Vietnam has scheduled a national teach-in this Saturday inWashington, D.C.; the group aims to round up at least 500 professors from allover the United States for a daylong meeting. After delicate negotiations whichtransformed the event from a protest to a debate, Presidential Adviser McGeorgeBundy has agreed to appear, emerging from the sanctuary of his office in theWhite House basement to confront George Kahin, a Cornell University expert onsoutheast Asia as the main speakers of the occasion. The moderator will be thedistinguished Columbia professor of philosophy, Ernest Nagel.

While it is too early to predict the ultimate result of the teach-in movement, itscampus impact has been considerable. Audiences are sizable and mostly sympa-thetic.


Then, too, the activist academic-strengthened by his role as a professionalscholar-is in a formidable position to shape opinion.To a degree that pains Dean Rusk, at least ne is succeeding.No one among the protest leaders at Oregon claimed to represent a majority of

faculty or student opinion. Mlalny who attended the rally simply were curious or,like their elders, concerned and perhaps confused. Among those in the crowd whowere undecided about the wisdom of U.S. policy in Vietnam, undoubtedly morepeople became critics than supporters, scarcely surprising after hearing 12 hoursof mostly one-sided discussion.

Yet the real significance of the teach-ins lies deeper. They are catalysts notonly for the conversion of ideas, but for the dispersion of ideas. And when interestreplaces apathy, the growth of a meaningful consensus will take care of itself.

55-733-- 65--4

CHAPTER V

THE NATIONAL TEACII IN IN WASHINGTON

Apparently on the heels of the Michigan teach-in, a decision wasmade to set 1u)p the so-called Inter-University Committee for a PublicHearing on Vietnam, and to organize a national teach-in in Washingtonon Saturday, May 15.

lThis teach-in was automatically given national stature whenthe administration agreed to participate in it and assigned Mr.TMcGeorge Bundy as the spokesman for the administration's viewpoint.

T'he literature put out by the national teach-in movement throwslittle light on its genesis or on the identity of its directorate.

Its address was a post office box number in Ann Arbor, Mich.There was no publicly announced slate of officers or-executive staff.The only "contacts" listed were Prof. Arnold Kaufman and Prof.

Mnlarshall Sahlins.Several thousand people attended the all-day session at the

Sheraton Park Hotel. According to the sponsors, the program wascarried to 129 colleges and universities on closed-circuit television.Portions of the teach-in were also carried by the national educationalnetwork with 91 affiliates, and by at least 30 radio stations.The national teach-in was conducted with a somewhat greater show

of impartiality and with much more decorum than other teach-ins.The sponsors agreed, in conversations with the administration,

to an equal number of participants, pro and con; and they also agreedthat there would be no stamping, chanting, marching, or demonstra-tions of any other kind against administration spokesmen.For some reason, the administration accepted the stipulation

that Mr. I3ndy's companion speaker at the morning session was to beselected by the National Teach-in Committee from a panel of speakerssubmitted by Mr. Bundy.

For some reason, too, it acceded to the stipulation that the chairmanof the panel sessions in the early evening were all to be designated bythe national committee.For some reason, too, no firm conditions were attached to the or-

ganization of the plenary session which terminated the teach-in thatevening.The morning and afternoon sessions were divided more or less

equally between both sides-although even here the national comn-mittee pulled a fast one by inviting as an additional speaker, IsaacDeutscher, the biographer of Lenin and Trotsky, who describedhimself as an "unrepentant Marxist."

Describing the atmosphere of the morning session, Mr. MaxFrankel sait in the Now York Times of May 17:To observers here, most of the organizers and audiences appeared to be moti-

vated by much more than the subletics of Vietnam policy. In many remarks andquestionls there lurked distrust and hostility toward the Government itself. * * *I hey were uneasy about the use of force in international affairs, suspicious of the

34

The Infiltration and Exploitation

Documents

Transcript of The Infiltration and Exploitation