LISTEN TO AUDIO
TRANSCRIPTION: Part 3 of 3, Track 1
EDITORS NOTE: This transcription has been reviewed and edited to capture and match sentence structures to the best of our ability. Please check the actual audio before quoting passages.
Fulton Lewis III 00:08
Judge Axelrod, who heard briefly the evidence with regard to the cases involving the 67 other arrested students, a reading of the police report must be accepted as true. It sets forth enough facts to justify a conviction in each case on at least two grounds, namely violation of Section 404, which is in citation to riot, and section 405 of the penal code, which is resisting arrest. He says this, “I’m convinced to the students that were arrested were not engaged to exercise, in subversive activities nor in spreading subversive propaganda. They wanted to exercise their perogative approach of protesting what they believe to be an undemocratic hearing. However they chose the wrong means to accomplish their purpose and let themselves become victims of those who profit by creating unrest, riots and the type of conduct which is outlawed in the Penal Code sections I have quoted. I stated in an open court and I’d repeat that I believe the defendants have been punished sufficiently already. I am hopeful that they have learned the errors of their ways and that there will be no repetition of their type of conduct.” Later, the judge also agree with J. Edgar Hoover that these riots had been led and incited by communists. She quotes the sheriff of San Francisco as saying, “There was no act of physical aggression.” Mrs. Perkins obviously got that quote from one of two places: Paul Jacobs, in the Reporter magazine, or Paul Jacobs in the Washington, Washington Post editorial “Forgery by Film” when Paul Jacobs was quoted. That quote by Reporter magazine and The Washington Post says, quote unquote, as she read, there was Sheriff my, Sheriff Carberry saying, quote, “There was no act of physical violence on the part of the students period,” end of quote. This is the true transcript of a quote by Sheriff Carberry and see if it doesn’t differ a little bit from what we have been read here tonight. “There were no acts of physical violence. Acts of noise and disturbance, which occasioned two courts closing their session on Thursday afternoon. The incident of Friday, which took place, as I am told, because I was not there, was occasioned by an act of violence against a uniformed police officer.” That’s a little bit different from the condensed quote that was read to us here earlier. [Laughter] The Meisenbach case she mentioned, no witness saw Meisenbach run and jump a barricade and so forth. Fine. Let’s agree with that. Nobody saw Meisenbach, the film doesn’t mention Meisenbach. The committee has never mentioned Meisenbach, and so let’s forget Robert Meisenbach. One of, the one of the things that the pro…the defending attorney, Meisenbach’s attorney, did say in that case, however, in defending his client was trying to prove himself that the act had happened but that somebody else had done it. For this reason in cross examining some of the prosecution witnesses he asked for a specific identification of the person they had seen commit this act, and he got varying descriptions from. Descriptions which obviously didn’t fit his client, Robert Meisenbach. Meisenbach was acquitted, and I don’t know if they’ll ever find the person that did jump the barricade and hit the police officer over the head. But that’s all the film said that happened and the film does not mention Meisenbach. The trouble began when the students were not entered permitted to enter the building. The students were in the building. The films that you see where the hoses took place. Hosings took place, that was in the buildings in the hallways. There were students inside the hearing room, all of those people that are chanting, “Open the doors, open the doors.” All the people that you hear singing the Star Spangled Banner and you see, ironically, in this case, standing up for the Star Spangled Banner, are not American Legion members. On this one occasion, these were the people that were sitting down. As Archie Brown led the Star Spangled Banner, there were students all the people you see standing up in the room were students and other witnesses.
Fulton Lewis III 04:01
Last point. They were not frequently promised by the sheriff that they could go in. They were promised by the sheriff that they would not be thrown out if they shut up. They did not shut up until they were thrown out. [Laughter] The “Star Spangled Banner” was sung during a noon recess. This is not true. This comes, this information comes from an eyewitness report by a professor from Berkeley that claims he was there, who says, “I’m sure I was standing right there and this Star Spangled Banner episode happened while the committee was at recess. As a matter of fact, there’s only one committee member there, and that was Congressman Shear who was sitting up in a leather chair, leaning, smoking a pipe looking out the window.” This is remarkable because Congressman Shear was in a hospital bed in Cincinnati that day, and was never out there until two days later. If you read the transcript of the hearing, the hearing had already been called back to order, they had already called the first witness and then receive partial testimony from the first witness, and then this demonstration broke out.
Fulton Lewis III 05:04
Finally. All right…Finally, one quick one. The government, governor of Michigan has refused to let the police departments show the film in the state of Michigan. And it gets only fair to point out that that was the former governor of Michigan, a man who is now our ambassador to Africa, and uh, [Laughter]…he has been replaced by a more competent…[claps] he has…He has been replaced by more competent governor in the state of Michigan and the State Police is now showing “Operation Abolition” in schools all over the state. Thank you.
James Hund 05:46
We’ll have the second rebuttal now from Professor Zinn.
Howard Zinn 05:56
This was the first time I had seen the film “Operation Abolition.” And just a word on behalf of Mrs. Perkins who did the critique on the film. On behalf of I think our basic idea. I won’t argue about the details, about the barricade about whether Shear was in Cincinnati, or sitting there, or anything like that. I think in a situation like that, it’s very easy to, for people to make mistakes on both sides, about the details. It’s an old story in historical investigation. What bothers me about the film is not this, but the basic premise of the film, which you just heard repeated a few minutes ago. That this was a communist led riot, and what I saw on film, and I don’t know if you saw anything different, I saw people whom the committee described as communists speaking rather loudly, vociferously, agitatedly, and so on. People whom the committee described as communists, who were there, who were present, and who apparently, in those moments, when these film clips took place, we’re playing an active role. And I did see students demonstrating, holding picket signs, singing and chanting. And I cannot really construct a logical case out of this evidence, which indicates that this therefore, is a communist led riot. Can’t do it.
Howard Zinn 07:52
Now, the basic… [audience claps] There’s an idea here, which has been reiterated by the committee, and which is basic to the film, and which runs something like this in crude form. I’m sorry to use the word crude because the committee has become sophisticated. But [Laughter/claps] in crude form, it goes like this. This committee says it’s out to get communists. Communists are against the committee. Therefore, people who are against the committee are probably communist dupes. Now, test that syllogism in your next logic class, and see how it works out. I want to agree with Mr. Lewis about the American Civil Liberties Union. I want to agree with him. I also think they should have followed some decent civil liberties procedures. I want to agree with him on the Japanese detention camps in World War II, which I think were a disgrace. I also want to point out that the Internal Security Act of 1950, fathered by the house on American Activities Committee, provides for detention camps. I want to agree with him on Adam Clayton Powell’s strange manipulation of money, anybody else’s strange manipulation of money. Almost. The picture given of the House on American Activities Committee has been a rather nice one by Mr. Lewis. It seems to change character: the old committee was not so good but this committee is better. This is a nicer committee, it’s people are more intelligent, doesn’t have people like Thomas on it, and so on. And what’s more, well, it’s improved its procedures. It has this list of rules. The only committee apparently dropped such a list of rules because it was the only committee that had to, right. But the picture is of a committee, which is diligently operating to work up legislation to protect us from sabotage, espionage, and other crazy military activities, which are designed to overthrow the government by force and violence, or to aid some communist conspiracy, conspiracy to overthrow us. The problem there is that we really don’t need the House on American Activities Committee for this. We have laws on our books, which protect us against espionage, against sabotage, against the overthrow of the government by force and violence and so on. The committee, as you will notice from the wording of its enabling resolution, is not set up for this. The committee is set up to ferret out propaganda. Now, he tells us that they’re not concerned with ideas, not concerned with books, not concerned with what people say, not concerned with what people read. What does propaganda mean?
Howard Zinn 11:35
The committee is engaged in things which are not called for by its enabling resolution. The picture given by the committee of one that just draws up plans for legislation dealing with sabotage and so on, it’s protecting our security, and all of this. Why does a committee which is concerned with this, investigate teachers? I’d like to know how Lloyd Barenblatt teaching on the faculty of Vassar College is a military threat by way of sabotage, overthrow the government by force and violence, espionage, or anything like that to the United States. I’d like to know how those 100 — I stand corrected. Did you say 101, 103, whatever it was — I’d like to know how those 100-odd teachers in San Francisco represent, in California, represent this kind of threat to the United States. I’d like to know how Pete Seeger who is called before — ever hear of Pete Seeger? He’s a folk singer. He was called before the House on American Activities Committee and I would like to know in what way Pete Seeger is a threat to the national security of the United States. This is what bothers me. If the committee confined itself to ironing out those little sophisticated frills on existing legislation connected with sabotage, espionage, and violent activity, that would be fine. But that would be a completely different kind of committee. That’s not the way this committee operates. Read through the hearings of this committee, it will say with all the niceties and with all the changes and all the improved procedures, it’s not a very nice committee. It treats friendly witnesses in a friendly way. I mean, let them talk much as they want. treats unfriendly witnesses in a different way. I wouldn’t say that there’s any real freedom of speech before the committee.
Howard Zinn 13:47
My objections to the committee, in short, are not titling ones. They don’t have to deal with procedure. They really are not based on whether somebody has right of counsel, although that’s important. I think people should also be allowed cross examination of witnesses before the committee, and, but this isn’t important. There’s something fundamentally wrong with the committee. And that is the committee is set up, and the sin derives from its birth, the committee is set up to investigate propaganda activities. And in a free nation, no committee should be set up which is concerned with speech, or writing, or thought or association. This is a job, if anybody is interested in countering propaganda, this is a job for private organizations. And as a matter of fact, in a democracy, this is what happens: private individuals and organizations like the young Americans for Freedom, have a perfect right to counter all the propaganda that they come across. And in the free marketplace of opinion, the various propaganda is supposed to collide and out of it, the truth is suppose to come and this is a democracy, not the government setting itself up in the business of deciding what is false propaganda, what is true propaganda, what kind of propaganda should be allowed, what kind of propaganda should not be allowed.
Howard Zinn 15:14
I have another fundamental objection to the committee and that is, it is a deadly diversion from the kind of things that have to be done to create a free world. By that, I mean, the communism and this is, one, I think of the things that makes me believe that the people on the committee don’t really understand the nature of communism. Communism — and take a look at the countries that have turned communism, take a look that have turned communists, take a look at Soviet Russia, take a look at Red China, take a look at Cuba, take a look at the countries of Eastern Europe and try to understand how and under what conditions communism came to these countries. It came fundamentally, in every one of these situations, out of either war, or repression. This means that the most important thing anybody can do who wants to prevent communism, is to prevent a situation which leads to war, and to stop repressive activity in the country to create an atmosphere of freedom. And this, the Gouse on American Activities Committee is not doing; on the other hand, it’s contributing to the atmosphere of oppression. And it is by focusing on teachers, and professionals, and writers, and people who 10 years ago were members of the Communist Party, or people who sign this petitions, orpeople who join that organization, it’s diverting us from the job of constructing a society which is free, which is more just, and a society which is the only kind that can be firm, and strong, and subsist in a world as difficult as this one.
Howard Zinn 17:17
Now, the American people, I think, no people really is foolish enough to relinquish its freedom voluntarily. But most people, well, most people will relinquish their freedom, but all they need is an excuse. They need a reason. And throughout history, whenever the freedom of people was taken away, these people were given a reason, and that reason, has always been the same. The reason has been security. This reason was given in Germany, this reason has been given in the Soviet Union, this reason is given in every state where freedom is suppressed. “It is necessary for our internal security.” This is the basic false, terrible premise of the House on American Activities Committee.
Howard Zinn 18:16
Just want to close by saying this. That what is dear to me —and this is why I’m opposed to the house on American Activities Committee — what is dear to me is the idea expressed by [Louis] Brandeis, and incidentally, I don’t always agree with the Supreme Court. And I think that five/four decisions on the Supreme Court sometimes become four/ five decisions. And I feel that I’m free and independent, and I can agree with the Supreme Court one day, disagree with another day. I don’t take any court as the final arbiter of what I think is right or wrong. Brandeis, in 1928 in the Olmstead case, in a dissenting opinion — apparently some Supreme Court justices don’t go along with the Supreme Court. The…Brandeis said, “The right,” and I’m quoting, “The right to be left alone by the government is the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized man,” end quote. [Applause]
James Hund 19:32
We’re fortunate tonight and having a portable microphone here so that everyone can hear the questions which are asked, and we certainly have been presented with plenty of material over which we can disagree or agree as the case may be. And we will try, as I said earlier, to shift the questions back and forth between Mr. Lewis and Professor Zinn. Who would like to ask the first question? Back over there.
Audience 20:12
The figures regarding legislative enactment of recommended measures by the House Committee, I think are in a house committee report for 1960. In a survey today, I found that, of 69 recommendations between 1954 and 1960, two were enacted. If you, if you discount the fact some of the recommendations were made twice. Would you care to comment?
James Hund 20:37
Who would you like to comment?
Fulton Lewis III 20:41
Could you repeat your statistics again?
Audience 20:47
Between 1954 and 1960, there were, I believe, 69 legislative recommendations by made by the House Committee, of which two were adopted by the House as I counted them. I went through a long series of no actions taken. This doesn’t seem to fulfill the legislative mandate of the committee.
Fulton Lewis III 21:05
Well, let me see if I can go through without taking a whole lot of time. And just going through some general laws that I know have been asked, since, let’s say in the past four years, five years. A passport security law has been passed by the House during the past four or five years. The merchant marine security law, in which the Coast Guard had asked for powered, with guard, withhold Merchant Marine licenses from members of the Communist Party, after hearing and so forth, that was passed. The FCC law, which I just pointed out was passed. They were recently laws…this was just a year ago passed as amendments to the Internal Security Act of 1950. There are a series of some 17, right, right alone right there, which have all passed the House of Representatives. Now a lot of this whole group, let’s say of 30 laws, and I haven’t, I haven’t gotten it broken down by years is out, I just haven’t broken down over a lump sum of 23 years. But let us say that the Senate has approved so many of these laws during the past four or five years. The the point that I was trying to make, and perhaps I should have emphasized this more than the actual statistical number of committee laws, because who am I to say that it’s okay, we can maintain the committee as long as it has three laws a year, but it only has two, it’s got to be abolished. This really is a matter for judicial interpretation and maybe I should have put more emphasis on the fact that the Supreme Court has never, and even Justice [Hugo] Black and the format minority, has never questioned the concept, the constitutionality of the committee with respect with legislative record. Does this answer your question?
James Hund 22:52
[Do you] have a question for Professor Zinn? Gentleman back there.
Audience 23:13
I have a question for Professor Zinn. This is a two part question. And the first part of it is strictly yes or no answer. Is it not a fact, more or less conceded by general opinion, that in Neo Marxist theory, if you tell a fib, just plain out lie often enough, long enough, to enough people, enough different places, sooner or later, it’s accepted as fact? Is that true?
Howard Zinn 23:43
Did you say Neo Marxist theory?
Audience 23:46
That includes socialism, if you prefer?
Howard Zinn 23:51
May I have the source of that quotation, please?
Audience 23:54
I didn’t say I was quoting. Professor, I didn’t come up here to get into an argument with you. I wanted to ask you just a question. [Laughter]
Howard Zinn 24:11
Well, you see, if you gave me the quotation and the Marxist source, I, I think I’d be in a better position to comment on it. Here. Yeah.
Audience 24:20
I didn’t say…I beg your pardon, I didn’t mean to interrupt you. I didn’t say it was a quotation.
Howard Zinn 24:25
You’re asking me if it is current, or if it is Marxist theory to believe that if you repeat a lie long enough, people will believe it. My answer is, I don’t know.
Audience 24:42
Just for the record, could I ask you this? I understand from the rational records and so forth, that the proper name of this committee, which is under discussion tonight, is House Committee on American activities. And yet, just for the record, let’s set it straight before we get into a whole lot of dissertation. I like to keep figures. You refer to the House Committee on American activities by initials, four times by name, 13 times as House on American Activities Committee. Now, which of those two is correct? I mean, just for the record, let’s set it straight. It was gonna be one thing. Good. It’s gonna be another, let’s have it. And I was under the impression that you would know this because you are the dissenting party, so to speak.
Howard Zinn 25:33
I’d like to…I’d like to turn this question over to the man who worked for the committee. Mr. Lewis, do you want to answer? [Laughter/clapping]
Fulton Lewis III 25:49
The proper, proper name of the committee is the House Committee on American activities in the United States Congress.
Audience 25:54
[Indiscernable] Just wanted to get it straight. [Laughter]
James Hund 25:59
Question for Mr. Lewis? This gentleman here, and come up the front, I think it might work better.
Staughton Lynd 26:17
Mr. Lewis, I’m a historian, and I’m under the impression that when we think of the history of democracy, and the men who somehow symbolize what democracy stands for, for some reason, we think not of the members of internal security committees, but of the men who defied them. We think not of the un-Aathenian Activities Committee, we think of Socrates. We think not of Pontius pilot, but of Jesus of Nazareth, who incidentally refused to testify. [Laughter] We think not of the Catholic Inquisition, we think of Galileo. We think not of the court of Star Chamber from which…all of these clauses are separated by semicolons, and are part of the question. [Clapping] We think not of the court of Star Chamber from which so many Americans, from which so many Englishman fled to these country, we think, to this country, we think of John Lilburne and John Milton. Why is this?
Fulton Lewis III 27:45
I think the reason and this is, this is a matter of speculation. The reason that we have heard of these instances, the reason that they have made — and we can add the Salem trials here in this country — the reason that we have heard of them, and the reason they carry such an important position in history is because of the fact that these bodies of Inquisition were wrong. How many bodies of Inquisition, I speculate and I asked, have there been that I’ve never made the pages of history. And I would speculate that history will never record the activities, perhaps maybe with the exception of one or two, that the House Committee on American Activities of the United States Congress has made unless history shows that that committee has been wrong, and that that committee has persecuted members of the Communist Party who did not deserve to be persecuted. It’s only a gamble. It’s your word or your ideas about what future historians are going to write against mine.
Fulton Lewis III 28:54
I am, I am confident, and I rest really very certain, as apparently, the Congress itself does. The last committee, the last vote by the members of Congress on the committee issue and it’s brought, it’s brought up each year, was 412 to six in favor of continuing this committee. And they’ve heard the arguments many times that Professor Zinn has made tonight from other sources. I am convinced that their judgment in maintaining this committee is not going to go down as a historical judgment. But it will just go down as another one of the many investigating bodies in the history of the world, which have fulfilled their function, which have protected the security of that little locality, or that nationality, or that group of people, and which never got any notice because they were right. Strangely enough history records, history is more accurate and gives more emphasis on reporting something like the Salem trials, because it was such a farce or the Athenian trials, because it turned out that those were so wrong. I am confident that these trials or that these hearings, by government and by the Supreme Court today are right. And probably they won’t go down in history. [tape cuts out]
James Hund 30:28
I’m sure there must be some students here who wish to ask some questions. Like to give them a chance if there are any. Yes. Question for Professor Zinn? Yes, it is. Might as well use your right, your right there.
Audience 30:43
I wanted to ask a question, please. When I came here this evening, I didn’t have the foggiest idea about whether the committee was good or bad. And I still have no opinion about it but I would like to ask Professor Zinn if he could tell me in what way the laws which Mr. Lewis has stated, the maritime laws and the Coast Guard and so forth like that, in what way these have affected an individual’s own rights or what legislation the committee has recommended to be passed, whether it’s been passed or not, that would disparage or cut down on the amount of individual liberty that any citizen should possess.
Howard Zinn 31:34
I won’t talk about the merchant marine law, the other laws, because I think I would need to have them before me in order, and I won’t argue for or against those laws. It may be, and I can see this possibility that the committee has authored some good laws. [Applause] But the most important law, and I think the committee will generally agree to this, the most important law authored by the committee is the Internal Security Act of 1950. And this is very complex act calls for the registration of communist action, and organizations but not only communist action organizations, communist infiltrated organizations, and it makes illegal any act which quote, I think it’s a quote, let’s call it a paraphrase, which substantially contributes to the establishment of a totalitarian dictatorship in the United States. I don’t know what that means — and because I don’t and because many other people, I think, would have difficulty deciding what this means — it allows very wide latitude for whoever happens to be in power at the moment to decide who and what kind of act is contributing to a totalitarian dictatorship. President Truman, who I don’t consider a communist or pro-Communist or a particular defender of communists, President Truman vetoed the Internal Security Act because, he said it was a thought control act. If necessary, I can read to you from some of the provisions of the act, which call for the labeling of information which is put out by various organizations, which called for the stamp of “this information is put out by a communist organization,” “this information is put out by a communist action organization,” “this information is put out by a communist this kind of organization.”I don’t want newspapers or magazines to come to me with any government stamp. Newspapers or not meat. Newspapers and magazines should come to me free so that I can read them and decide for myself whether they’re true or false. And this is not to be determined, be determined in advance by government edict. This is only part of the Internal Security Act of 1950. [Applause]
Fulton Lewis III 34:20
We agreed that when one person talked the other person would have brief comment if he wanted to. And I would like to comment, just briefly on Professor Zinn’s reply to you, which actually was not a reply. He has still not told us what laws passed by the Committee on Un-American Activities in any way limit the right of speech, the right of press, even of the Communist Party. I’ve got lying on top of my briefcase there last Wednesday’s edition of “The Worker” which is a communist publication, and it says it’s a communist publication. You will not get your mail with a government stamp on it. There is no provision in any law which would have the government stamp anything on the mail. Not even in the Foreign Agents Registration Act is there any provision in which our government will put a stamp on this mail. But we have been receiving literally hundreds of tons of unsolicited mail from communist countries, which does not carry any identification as to the origin of the material. It goes to unsolicited names, to unsolicited people who have not asked for this material. It is being sent through the United States mails at a cost to the United States taxpayer. And it is a feeling of the government, and I concur wholeheartedly in this feeling, that this is an unnecessary burden, which we must put up with, from a country which is a sworn enemy of ours in a time of Cold War. So the government has passed a law saying we will still, nevertheless, we will still tolerate this material, if you will only stop hiding, resting on the belief that what you are thunder so loud that we have no fear of hearing what you say. If you yourself will place on there either the point of origin of this material, or stating on there that this material is published in a communist country or, with regard to domestic, the domestic material, that this material is published by a communist organization.
Fulton Lewis III 36:35
With regard to registration with the government. This is not an unusual thing. Other lobbyists register with a government and they don’t squawk about it. Foreign representatives, and there were a bunch of them that were in the newspaper ,the other day, they register with the government. The Communist Party in the Internal Security Act, an act which has had its constitutionality upheld and which is being enforced today by the Attorney General of the United States, is an act which simply tries to provide us with some protection, some knowledge of the Communist operation in this country. There were two, there were two choices, very briefly, there were two choices which you could make. One was a law which would outlaw the Communist Party per se, and forbid its operation. This was discussed by Congress, and it has been discussed time and time again. I would agree with J. Edgar Hoover, in this case, that such a law would be unfair. Such a law would penalize a person, let’s say who might innocent, might, may have been innocently lured into the party on such and such an occasion and who has not participated in any action or conspiracy or anything of the sort.
Fulton Lewis III 37:48
The other alternative, the communists are constantly yelling that they are a political organization. If they are a political organization, let them come up. It is the verdict of the government that they are not a political organization. But even the government in this case might be wrong. We will give you one last chance as of June 20, 1960. You register, just have your leaders register with the government as a political organization, and there will be no recrimination. There will be no criminal action taken against the party. They refuse to do this. The party was indicted. It refused to cooperate with the law. When it, when the leadership failed to register, the law then specify six months later, the membership must registered. Not one communist according to the Justice Department, which I called last week, not one communist has come forward to comply with the law of the land. Whether they agree with it or disagree with it, it is still the law of the land and I’m sure Professor Zinn will concur in that. So, it is, he might not like the law — and there are many people that don’t like the law — but it is the law of the land. And it is a law which the Communist Party should comply with, and it’s a law which was upheld by the courts and by Congress.
TRANSCRIPTION: Part 3 of 3, Track 2
EDITORS NOTE: This transcription has been reviewed and edited to capture and match sentence structures to the best of our ability. Please check the actual audio before quoting passages.
James Hund 00:02
That turned out to be a question for Mr. Lewis, if, perhaps we should have another one for Professor Zinn.
James Hund 00:09
Mr. Weinberg.
Audience 00:15
All right, try.
Audience 00:16
An area of….problem areas involved in the dissemination of information and propaganda includes trying to convince people that the United States government should feel should be overthrown by violent means?
Howard Zinn 00:47
Is there a problem when somebody uses speech utterance to convince somebody that the government of the United States should be overthrown by violent means? Yeah, I think there’s a problem.
Howard Zinn 01:00
Do I think…obviously, there must be some problem when somebody thinks this way. Do I think it is a problem which requires that the speech of this person be suppressed, or this person go to jail? I don’t think so. I think that people should have the right to say anything they like.
Howard Zinn 01:00
The notion that the call for overthrow of the government by force and violence is to be prohibited, I think would rule out some very basic concepts in the American democratic tradition, including the doctrine of the Declaration of Independence, which I think states quite clearly that people may overthrow the government at a certain point. Now the Declaration of Independence utters this in words. I think people have the right to utter this in words and I think words should be countered by words. And I think words are sacred, whatever these words are. When somebody acts — and now away from words and away from advocacy — when somebody acts, specifically to overthrow the government by force and violence, that’s another matter. But if we’re speaking of speech, I believe very much with Black and Douglas that speech is sacred, of any kind. Now I may stop, Black you may notice recently in defending the absolute right of free speech, defended libel and slander. Said he even thinks that perhaps we have gone too far with libel and slander, perhaps this kind of speech should be prohibited. I am not sure about this point, about personal libel and slander. But as far as speech dealing with political criticism, with governments, with politics, with social systems, I certainly believe in the toleration of such speech.
Fulton Lewis III 03:33
I’m not much of a historian but I do know this: that there is no such thing as a right which belongs to us, a legal right, which was given by the Declaration of Independence. There is, for Professor Zinn’s clarification, a document which supersedes the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence was set up and written for a specific purpose. It was written by a group of men who were oppressed, and who did not have a democratic alternative, and who resorted — because there was no other place, no other way to accomplish a common end — they resorted to force and violence. They promptly, within a period of two decades, they properly set up for this country always to be guided by, I hope, a document called the Constitution of the United States which from would from that day on forever prohibit any recurrence of the dreadful revolution, but the revolution which was responsible for the foundation of our country. No one in our society today — because there is a democratic alternative — no individual and no group has a right to advocate or conspire or teach or attempt the overthrow of our government by force and violence, and I don’t know how anyone can believe or say to the contrary.
James Hund 05:17
You have a question for Mr. Lewis. Fine.
Audience 05:21
Mr. Lewis, why is it always that the Committee on American activities always investigate people who tend to be on the left of the political side? Why don’t they investigate the ones on the right such as the Nazi Party, etc.? Aren’t they a threat to our security?
Fulton Lewis III 05:39
The leader of the Nazi Party, George Lincoln Rockwell, has written the chairman of the committee, I think it used to be on a monthly basis. It probably worn down as to maybe a bi-monthly or maybe a couple times a year, now asking to be investigated. And Rockwell probably cleverly is asking to be investigated because the type of activity that Rockwell is engaged in, as despicable as it may be, is cleverly within most of the limits of the law. And when he is involved in other things, there are they are obvious laws against them: beating up or the allegation of beating up a Jewish boy in the Nazi headquarters over in Alexandria, Virginia. There are laws against beating up people. You don’t need federal legislation to stop a Nazi from beating up a Jewish boy in Alexandria. The place where you do need legislation if Rockwell — and I agree with Chairman Walter on this — that it would be giving this man…that there was no reason to investigate Rockwell. Now if there ever was, fine. The committee, I might point out, did back in 56 investigate the Klu Klux Klan, and it issued a…and several other groups which would normally be considered on the American right, in a lengthy voluminous report on what it called fascist, the Neo fascist groups in American society today. It did not make any legislative recommendations because there are no legislative recommendations to make. The problem is not a federal problem of more legislation being needed. If the Klu Klux Klan goes out and beats up someone, there are laws against this already on the books. If the problem is that the laws are not being enforced, this is a matter for the Justice Department of the United States and not the United States Congress. The same thing…the other thing, obvious question, which I’m sure in a way you’re probably alluding to, would be the John Birch Society. Why isn’t the committee investigated that? The John Birch Society would love to be investigated. What unconstitutional thing does the John —whether you agree with it or not? — what unconstitutional, what is the the most extreme thing which the John Birch Society is asking the American public to do? Impeach Earl Warren. [Laughter]
08:13
This is…Whether you want to impeach Earl Warren or whether you don’t want to impeach Earl Warren, the mere word “impeachment” implies that you’re going through the constitutional means, if they’re not saying shoot Earl Warren. Although there some people that have said that. [Laughter] No, I would say that when the when the threat did, when the serious threat did come from the right, and this was back in the late 30s, the Dyes Committee spent a great deal of time investigating, and some of the first reports were investigating Nazi activities, Nazi front activities, and fascist activities in this country. If this threat ever became as great today as it was in 1938, go ahead and have investigated. This is fine. The job of the committee is to investigate and to protect us from groups that advocate the use of force and violence and are under the power and discipline of some foreign power.
Howard Zinn 09:15
I really, although I think there’s some justified criticism about the slant of the committee’s interest, I really am not interested in arguing that the committee should investigate other groups besides the ones that are being investigated now. I think the committee should simply get out of the investigating business. [Laughter]
James Hund 09:42
Question [for] Mr. Zinn? Mr. Johnson. Mr. Johnson? I think Mr. Zinn has the next question. Yes.
Audience 10:01
[Indiscernable] be abolished, you made that statement that propaganda is prominent. [Indiscernable] and I quote, “prominent organizations.” Now I ask: How are private organizations suppose to [indiscernable] such as communism?
Howard Zinn 10:24
They can’t. But private organizations have the job of spreading ideas, and this is what they can do. And probably the most potent force in the world today, and I know there are a lot of people who recognize military might as the most single potent force, I think the power of ideas is the most important thing. And I think the circulation of ideas is the most important thing in the world today, and I think this needs to be done by private groups who are both left and right.
Fulton Lewis III 11:13
If this is true, then, and I would agree with this on one respect, and that is that if Edward R. Murrow would resign from the USIA tomorrow, because he… This is a this is a person in a governmental position paid by taxpayers whose job is to spread propaganda. He’s not doing a very good job of it. I’d like to see him replaced for that. It is government’s job, just as in the food and drug laws, there is a law, a protective law and part of the government, of a function of government is not to protect us from ideas. But to provide some means where we can accept these ideas and protect us, as laws protect us from libel and slander and so forth, to protect us from conspiracy.
Fulton Lewis III 12:06
There is a law in our food and drug laws, which is not designed to prohibit the use of certain medicines at home. It does not interfere with the civil liberties of anyone at all. It’s a law that requires all bottles which contain poison, to have a label on them saying this bottle contains poison. That is not anti-civil liberties. If anything, it is pro civil liberties because a lot of people who would otherwise die from taking the contents of this bottle would be saved and would not die because they would be aware of the fact that the bottle contains poison. I would be completely in favor and I have utmost confidence in the intellect of the American public that they are not going to vote for Elizabeth Gurley Flynn against John F. Kennedy in 64. But at least let the American people and let the laws — just as the Congress requires lobbyists to be identified to them — let the laws require that this poison which may or may not kill people, it certainly influences people. Let them at least, don’t stop this from being circulated because this would be a violation of civil liberties. Just let them know who is saying this. Let them know In other words, that this bottle does contain poison and you can take it as medicine. You can take it at your own risk.
James Hund 13:38
Question up here for Mr. Lewis.
Audience 13:41
Yeah.
Audience 13:42
I’d first like to say that the assertion that the morality of the Declaration of Independence has been superseded is, and I’m very curious, a rather un-American thing to say…
James Hund 13:42
Alright.
Fulton Lewis III 13:57
I didn’t say morality. I said legality. And there is a difference. [Laughter]
Audience 14:04
Yes, there is. I would just like to give you the opportunity to answer Professor Zinn’s question, rhetorical question concerning the House committee’s interest in folk singers, dramatists, school teachers, people whose interests are ideological, why it chooses to call someone like Frank Graham a liberal who is a member of communist front organizations. And isn’t it the case that in questioning these people, they assume that because these people oppose the committee or pose views by members of the committee, that they are legitimate objects of the committee’s attack? In other words, aren’t using the logic of the syllogism which Professor of Zinn suggested, namely, you oppose me, I am opposed to communists, therefore you are a communist.
Fulton Lewis III 15:10
Let me answer the first part of your question first. Why does the committee call Pete Seeger? Is this person engaged in, is he going to destroy the United States government single handedly? No, the reason that Pete Seeger was called by the committee, Pete Seeger is a folk singer. He goes out and sings folk songs for college students and other people, and gets quite a fee for doing this. The reason that the committee was particularly interested in Pete Seeger is not what Pete Seger was singing committee, if you ever read the secret testimony that never asked him anything about his songs that he was singing, what ideas you’re spreading. But the fact that he was soliciting and turning over the funds which he was receiving to the Communist Party. The same was true for many of the other persons which the committee call. On another point of the teachers and the question about the 101 teachers in California, I think that this is a rather obvious reason.
Fulton Lewis III 16:17
The committee as it feels in other areas, this is not, a education is not, in my opinion, at least, a vital defense facility although in the opinion of the liberal sponsors of the National Defense Education Act, education is. But it is the feeling of Congress, as it is the feeling of a majority or many of the states in this union, that it is, it makes no sense to spend taxpayers’ money to pay the salaries of members of the Communist Party, people who are pledged by their mere membership to our destruction. It is not a law which says that maybe their ideas would be bad or maybe if this person teaches history, he won’t teach a distorted view of history. This isn’t the primary concern. It’s just a moral reason that you don’t want to be paying out of taxpayers’ money which you take from the taxpayers by force anyway. You don’t want to be turning this money over to people who have sworn to bury us. It just doesn’t make sense. Concerning the other areas of committee investigation, a lot of them are involved in other areas. The point I was trying to make is that the committee’s legislative recommendations were centered around laws with respect to our national security. When Professor Zinn says, “But we already have laws about sabotage and espionage and about overt acts.” We don’t and the mere fact that 250 members of the Communist Party were, are now right this instant employed in CONELRAD stations [(Control of Electromagnetic Radiation, was a method of emergency broadcasting in the event of attack during the Cold War] in this country, is evidence, I think, of the fact that we do need more legislation. If Professor Zinn wants to wait until these 250 men act before we punish them or before we not punish them, but simply withdraw a privilege which they have asked for and receive, I will tell Professor Zinn and all of us that at the time that those 250 men act, that there will be no reaction on our part, because that time is carefully geared to be the last time or the one time. That this is a sophisticated period that we — and the word sophisticated, maybe not the worst, or the best word to use — but it is a time which requires a lot of thought and a lot of concentration of sophisticated effort. And I’m not in love with all the laws that we now have on the books. A lot of them are clumsy, but they are at least efforts. And a lot more further laws are needed and a lot more energy on the part of the Professor Zinns and the Fulton Lewis’s are needed if we are going to remove this menace in the future.
Howard Zinn 19:05
Well, this is a new explanation I’ve heard for why teachers are called. And theimplication still remains that these teachers are dedicated to the overthrow of the government. But the committee doesn’t exactly show how they are going to overthrow the government teaching history or teaching some other subject in a particular college. But the committee tells us that they’re going to overthrow the government. And apparently the committee is worried — I get this by implication — perhaps the salaries that these teachers make may be used for this purpose. And this, if so we are completely safe, of course. [Laughter] And now, I begin to understand the conspiracy in this country to keep teacher salaries low. [Laughter]
Howard Zinn 20:11
If the committee wants Pete Seeger to stop turning over his money to the Communist Party — I really don’t know what Pete Seeger does with his money, and I really kind of doubt, I don’t know, but I kind of doubt that this is exactly so. But let’s grant, you say that this is so: Frankly, I have no objection. And I mean that. I don’t see what business it is of the government of the United States to tell anybody what to do with their money. They can contribute it to any organization. Government wants to do something to this organization, let them go ahead and do it. But so long as an organization exists, somebody wants to give them money, fine, I don’t care about that. And I don’t think it’s the government’s business to tell people what to do with their money, even if the government doesn’t like the organization involved. No, I don’t,I’m not happy, I suppose, when somebody gives money to the John Birch Society, but I don’t think the government should do anything about it. If the committee really wants to cut off Pete Seger’s funds, they should go to the source. And they should spread the word that Pete Seeger can’t sing [Laughter] and this way, the record sales will go down. Or they could begin countering Pete Seger with other folks singers, or perhaps in some of their own folk songs, which would replace Pete Seeger’s records on the stands and very sharply curtail his income. [Laughter]
James Hund 21:51
I think we have time for one or two more questions, perhaps, a question for Professor Zinn?
James Hund 22:01
Well, I would rather, let’s come back. Mr. Johnson had his hand up for some time. Do you have a question? Well, it’s Professor Zinn’s turn, we agreed to alternate. So, all right, he wishes to yield to Mr. Johnson asked Mr. Lewis a question.
Audience 22:27
Mr. Lewis [indiscernable] be recommended by the House Committee on Foreign Affairs [indiscernable] suppose to be recommended by the balance of [indiscernable] committee. And the federal communications law is suppose to be recommended by [indscernable]. What [indiscernable] House of American Activities can [indiscernable] can override [indiscernable].
Fulton Lewis III 22:55
Well, let me point out to you, first of all, that it is not just a group of Congressmen who have sat down and decided,”We think we’ll form the Committee on American activities, and really do Congress a service and go out and investigate communism. ” That the reason that this committee exists, it gets its appropriation from the members of the House of Representatives. In their verdict, in their opinion, there are enough cases, with respect to communism, that transcend the lines of all committees. The House Judiciary, in this case involving, with many cases involving labor and education, this would normally fall in Adam Clayton Powell’s committee, and he would have to set up a special staff of his own to study communism, the application of communism, education and labor, the problems they’re in, to the merchant marine and fisheries committee. In… with respect to, it wouldn’t be the Foreign Affairs Committee. It would be the merchant marine and fisheries committee of the House, they’d have to set up their own little Subcommittee on American activities to investigate and so forth. It has been the feeling, just as it is in the Senate side with the Senate internal security subcommittee, that there are enough cases and that the problem of communism is broad enough and transcends into enough different areas, that rather than setting up 20 different subcommittees of the committee’s that you now have, that you concentrate this work, because it all involves the same Communist Party, just different aspects of it. You concentrate this work in the task of performing this work in one experience committee, namely the Committee on American Activity. This is the way it’s been done for 25 years, it’s the most effective way to do it. The other members of, congressman James Roosevelt suggested that the committee’s work we placed under the House Judiciary Committee two years ago. He did that primarily because the current chairman of the House Judiciary Committee is a man by the name of Emanuel Celler, who is quite hostile to the work of the Committee on American activities. When Francis Waller asked Congressman Roosevelt on the floor of the House, this was last year, whether he would still be in favor of that proposal should Emanuel Celler be defeated in the election and the ranking Republican or the next ranking Democrat, or if the Republicans won control of Congress, the ranking Republican — who would make Francis Walter look like a left winger — if he were then the chairman, would Jimmy Roosevelt still want this power put over in the Judiciary Committee and Roosevelt said no, he wouldn’t not. Only if Emanuel Celler was chairman of it. So that the attempts to put this on the Judiciary have not really been sincere attempts. If there is argument that it should be placed under there, and it is in the Senate, the internal security subcommittee of the Senate is under the Senate Judiciary Committee. Actually, it would strengthen the committee’s work, but under the current chairman, actually, it would weaken it.
James Hund 26:02
This gentleman down here wish to ask a question. Down here in the front row. Well, you’ve asked one, let’s ask someone over there who hasn’t had a chance.
Audience 26:11
In your closing remarks and in your closing speech you made a statement regarding the role of communism [indiscernable] . I wonder if you would tell us what role [indiscernable] .
Howard Zinn 26:29
I don’t believe I said the role of communism. I believe I said the relationship of communism. And if you want to know what is the relationship of communism to the dynamics of social change in the 20th century, I would be happy to talk about it but I really, confess I couldn’t do it in a minute.
James Hund 27:00
Gentleman down here.
Audience 27:02
Dr. Zinn, do you believe the fact that [indiscernable] the establishment from [indiscernable] committee has any bearing on [indiscernable] the American [indiscernable} and their ideals?
Howard Zinn 27:22
Well, I suppose so. I think there’s something to be said from Mr. Lewis’s statement about nervousness. And I think we have been nervous and I think the committee makes us nervous. I think world conditions make us nervous but I don’t think the committee settles on nerves. And I think that people being nervous, as they are, perhaps are induced to think, well, just as people think a whiskey will settle the nerves. Well, the effect is the same. And I think there is a certain amount of intoxication involved here and people…perhaps, perhaps we don’t have enough faith in…we don’t have enough faith in freedom of speech. I think this is so. I think we, we really don’t have faith in the fact that people can exchange ideas and not…nothing disastrous will happen. We’re afraid, well, to have somebody express ideas which are Marxist or communist. I don’t know what we’re afraid of. I think if we had faith, and if people had faith in the power of ideas which meet in fair combat, that they would allow any ideas to circulate in this society, and that perhaps it is this lack of faith, which helps the creation of such a commitment.
Fulton Lewis III 28:56
I don’t think that these laws are passed or recommended by the committee or passed by Congress or interpreted favorably by the Supreme Court because all of these people don’t have, don’t believe that Americans have enough faith in their ideas. How much faith —let’s say I have a tremendous amount of faith in my ideas — how much faith in my ideas would it take to prevent Alger Hiss from walking in and out of the State Department every day? How much faith in my ideas would it take to prevent 250 members of the Communist Party from coordinating their activity of simply turning on a switch in a radio station with Soviet activity, which could well bring about the destruction of my entire nation. It’s not a matter of faith in my ideas. Faith and my ideas, sure. Friday night, when in Charlottesville, Virginia, I sit there and listen to the students give Gus Hall one of the worst times he’s ever had. And I was proud of the Virginia students are doing it because they are not going to be duped by a person who stands up and says I am a communist, and these are my ideas, and we were right in Hungary. You’ve been told lies about Hungary, and these students aren’t going to take it and the American people aren’t going to take it. How much faith in the ideas of the Hungarian did it take to stop the communist tanks in Budapest? How much faith will it take in the ideas of freedom for the average Soviet citizen to get [Nakita] Khrushchev out of Russia? It’s not a matter of faith and ideas. It’s a matter of hard cold force against force, and fact against fact, not idea against idea. It’s a matter of a law is going to have to be necessary in this case, and a constitutional, effective, sophisticated law to handle the FCC problem with CONELRAD. A law will have to be necessary and they’ve been proposed to try to stop the Alger Hisses from going in and out of the State Department, and then exchanging their ideas with Soviet agents and with other people who then transmit these ideas to the Soviet Union. So it’s not ideas, it’s not communist propaganda ideas that we’re worried about, it isactivity. And one of the reasons that it is called the house, the House Committee on UnAmerican Activities is for this reason. It’s not on unAmerican ideas, the…very briefly about propaganda. This committee , as the Supreme Court has said time and time again, should not be judged by the mere words of its mandate. If you want to be frank, the committee doesn’t obey its mandate. And if it did, I would be for its abolition, because I share this, this conviction that Communist or Marxist ideas should not be purged from our society. The fact remains, and the the area which the committee has pursued, has been the area which I read to you, the recommended pieces of legislation which obviously have nothing to do with propaganda, have nothing to do with ideas. And the committee should be judged not by the abstract terminology of a mandate that was written 25 years ago, but by the interpretation of the committee and of Congress and of the Supreme Court on the application of committee action to that mandate, and that has been upheld favorably.
James Hund 32:47
I don’t know how your bottoms are but mine’s sore, and we’ve been here almost four hours and I think this is the end of this, this meeting, this formal meeting. Our speakers are here to talk if if you would like to come up and ask them some questions individually, I’m sure. But I think that probably we’ve been here long enough on a formal basis. We want to certainly thank them both for coming.
