vol. 2, no. 7

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES UNION-NEWS

FREE SPEECH FREE PRESS FREE ASSEMBLAGE

“Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.”

Vol Il. SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA, JULY, 1937 No. 7

ACADEMIC FREEDOM DEFINED

Dr. Meiklejohn Re-States C.L.U. Position With Special Reference To Jewett Case

Dr. Alexander Meiklejohn, eminent educator, author and lecturer, in the following communication discusses the subject of academic freedom in relation to the “Jewett _ Case,” setting forth the position of the American Civil Liberties. Union... Dr. Meikle- john is a member of the National Committee of the A.C.L.U. and of the Executive Com- mittee of the Northern California Branch. He is the founder of the School of Social Studies in San Francisco.

Editor: In the April, 1936, number of the American Civil Liberties Union-NEWS, Clarence Rust gave an account of the trial in which the dismissal of Victor R. Jewett by the Eureka Board of Education was sustained by the State Superior Court. The general charge against Mr. Jewett was that of “Unprofessional Conduct.”” The nature of the prosecution was: described by Mr. Rust as resembling “an unconfined heresyhunt and witch-burning spectacle.”

In the June, 1937, issue of the same periodical you tell, under the heading “Aca- demic Freedom Denied,” how the decision against Mr. Jewett was upheld by the Third District Court of Appeals.

As one reads these two stories of legal discussion and decision it seems very clear that the term ‘‘Unprofessional Conduct” is ambiguous and that for this reason two very different issues are dealt with as if they were identical. To the Civil Liberties Union this confusion is exceedingly important because it would seem that a member of the Union might well be on Mr. Jewett’s side with respect to one of these issues and against him on the other. Certainly we cannot define our position on the main issue unless the confusion is cleared away.

In its first form the charge of ‘““Unprofessional Conduct” is technical. It has to do with teaching ability. In this form the charge is that Mr. Jewett, in expressing his opinions, failed to recognize that his students were “immature,’’ were ‘of an impressionable age.’ And the evidence to this effect seems to be that he has criticised the government of the United States, has extolled the government of Russia, has de- clared the innocence of Tom Mooney, etc., in the hearing of students who are not suf- ficiently mature to form judgments on such questions, and whose minds are therefore injured rather than improved by the hearing of pronouncements about them. Now it is, I think, clear that with the question as stated in this form the Civil Liberties Union has no direct concern. The governing body in charge of any system of education must have authority, subject to proper safeguards, to pass upon the ‘“‘competence”’ of its teachers, to dismiss those whom it finds lacking in knowledge, in necessary personal quality or in teaching skill. If a person does not know how to teach, a community has a right to prevent him from practicing upon its children.

At this point, however, the charge of “Unprofessional Conduct’’ may easily shift into its second form. And, asa matter of fact, it does so in the decision rendered by teach.” That oath reads, the Court of Appeals. In that decision, Mr. Jewett is condemned not so much for “‘incompetence” as for “disloyalty.” “Waiving all other circumstances,’ the Court says, “his demeanor in the class room was in violation of the oath assumed by him toobtain his credentials entitling him to swear (or affirm) that I will support the (Continued on Page 4, Col. 1)

WHAT IS THE A.C.L.U.?

It cannot be too strongly stated that the Union is a “‘united front’? of persons of very varied political and economic views who could not possibly agree on any program except defense of civil rights. The Union has no political or economic direction whatever; no connection. directly or indirectly with any political party or economic movement; and no bias except to protect orderly and peaceful progress through the ex- ercise of traditional American civil rights.

A.C.L.U. MID-YEAR FINANCIAL STATEMENT

Following is a statement of receipts and expenditures in the operating fund of the Northern California Branch of the A.C. L.U. for the six months period from January 1, 1937, to July 1, 1937:

Income: $2,041.31 Expenditures: Salaries: $950.00 Printing and Stationery 362.43 . Rent 165.00 Postage= 117.95 Traveling 105.97 Telephone and Telegraph 50.36

Furniture and Equip. .... 13.55 Miscellaneous _............ 25 25.66 $1,790.92 Cash on Hand July 1, 1997...........$ 250.39

The income of the Union during the summer months always drops off sharply. May we urge our friends to assist us in negotiating this difficult period by contributing what they can afford to the support of the Union. Our members who have made pledges can help us by paying NOW.

“I solemnly.

HERESY HUNTING IN CALIFORNIA

(Editor’s Note: The following paragraphs are excerpts from an article published in the April, 1936, issue of the A.C.L.U.-News, written by Clarence E. Rust, attorney for the Jewett defense . They disclose some of the true facts in the Jewett case.)

Before a courtroom filled to overflowing, Victor R. Jewett, teacher at the Eureka Junior High School, came to answer at the bar of Justice for teaching ‘‘opposition to war,” “opposition to R. O. T. C.,” “that munition-makers make profits out of war,’ “that the Russian five-year plan should be thoughtfully studied,” ‘“‘that saluting the flag was not really patriotic— the thing symbolized was in danger of be_ ing lost in the symbol.”

‘These phrases came thick and fast under the general charge of ‘“Unprofessional Conduct.’”’ And they represent specifically, the testimony of the “seven souls with but a single thought’’—these seven being former students under Jewett. They were uni- formly emphatic on. these phrases, but their minds were uniformly blank on everything else. And then it developed that one McGowan, a defeated, red-baiting candidate for District Attorney, had prepared affidavits embodying these expressions some one and a half years before, had procured these students to sign them and they had “refreshed their memories”’ by studying them immediately before trial..

The genius of the prosecution was, at times, quite bewildering. Indeed, one might say of the whole case that it was a comic opera of the grand style—as witness the following:

Moscow Gold is here the theme and a mysterious lady from Russia provides the human interest. The Moscow gold, in reality, consists of interest in the sum of $2.81 on a Soviet bond and the mysterious lady was a Russian teacher traveling in the United States. But under the magic wand of Gilbert and Sullivan, behold: The Russian Secret Agent comes to Eureka to converse with her agent Jewett who is about to receive $2.81 for his services. And to prove her secret agency, she announces her arrival to the local newspapers—and Jewett and she dine together in a public restaurant—and she introduces him to the restaurant owner, a perfect stranger— “__such fantastic shapes against the heavens, As make the angels weep

MORE “UNPROFESSIONAL CONDUCT”

We have just received a letter from Charles Gastineau, teacher in the Calaveras Union High School in San. Andreas, that charges of “unprofessional conduct’ . have been filed against him for “teaching the Townsend Plan and selling insurance to the pupils.”’ The Union is investigating the case.

Let Freedom Ring

A final decision in the Koci deportation case is expected sometime in July.

CITIZENSHIP DENIED

Frederic Jordan McConnel, Stanford graduate, and member of the British Royal Air Force during the war, was denied citizenship by Federal Judge Louderback in San Francisco on June 16. McConnel’s application had been opposed by the former Subversive Activities Commission of the American Legion which charged him with “radicalism.”

WIFE BAITS RED-BAITER

Lee J. Holman, waterfront red-baiter and ally of Col. Henry Roble Sanborn, editor of the red-baiting American Citizen, is being sued for divorce. The complaint charges that her husband kept a swarm of armed men around their home, which was virtually an arsenal. Mrs. Holman is represented by George R. Andersen, attorney for the International Labor Defense.

STRIKE MEETING FORBIDDEN

A. Reedley (Fresno County) dispatch states that picketing, parading and HOLDING STRIKE MEETINGS are forbidden in an anti-picketing ordinance adopted by the City Council. If the report is true, and we are trying to. verify it, the ordinance is invalid because it denies the right of peaceful assemblage.

COST OF VIGILANTISM RISES

On June 3 Berkeley’s price for the vigi— lante raids of July, 1934, went up $1,100 when the Superior Court awarded that amount to the owner of damaged property on San Pablo Avenue. No Berkeley Nationals have come forward to pay the bill.

NO RE-TRIAL OF TAR CASE

Federal Judge Michael J. Roche on June 14 denied a motion to re-try Jack Green’s damage suit against Fred Cairns, leader of the Santa Rosa vigilantes. James J. -._ Cronin, _,.-A.C.L.U. attorney, . claimed there was no basis for the jury’s verdict denying Green damages, and contended that its verdict was ‘‘due to passion, bias and partisan feeling.”

“SPAIN IN FLAMES”

Vacaville police interfered with the showing of “Spain in Flames,” on the ground that no. permit. had been secured. The permit was later issued. In Fresno. the showing of the picture was approved after it had been previewed by the Chief of Police and a committee of self-appointed censors.

—“I DON’T READ HEARST”

The United States District Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia, in a 2 to 1 decision upheld a lower court verdict denying an injunction against the Postmaster General to restrain him from banning envelopes bearing “I Don’t Read Hearst” stickers.

PEACEABLE ASSEMBLAGE VIOLATED BY LABOR GROUPS IN OAKLAND

On June 9 a group of men alleged to be members of the A. F. of L. attacked a C. 1.0. picket line in Oakland. Shortly thereafter the A. F. of L. Labor Temple was stoned by a-body of men allegedly affiliated with the G.LO.. The A.C.L.U. issued the following statement condemning the interference with freedom of assemblage:

“The American Civil Liberties Union today condemned vigilante activities on the labor front in Oakland. Acts of terrorism cannot be excused. It makes no difference that in this case the vigilantes were organized workers attacking the peaceful picket lines of a rival organization. Labor has no more right to resort to vigilantism than capital.

“The reported retaliatory attack on a Union headquarters, despite the great pro- vocation, is also to be condemned as an effort to meet vigilantism with vigilantism. That is the law of the jungle and has no place in our society. The constitutional right of peaceable assemblage must be preserved for all groups if it is to remain safe for any group.”

THE JEWETT DECISION

The decision of the Third District Court of Appeal, published in our last issue, af- firming the judgment of the Superior Court that Victor R. Jewett was guilty of “unprofessional conduct” and upholding his dismissal as teacher in the Junior High School at Eureka, is a shockingly significant happening.

It fills us with foreboding. It shows a more complete mechanization and fascistic control of the teaching profession than we have hitherto met in this state. It places the very life of the teacher in the hands of the local board of education | which in most backward communities represents the accumulated prejudices of the least intelligent part of the population.

Even this very court itself had its doubts in 1924, for in the case of Goldsmith v. Board of Education, 66 Cal. App. 172, this court said, “If the Board of Education should take advantage of these general provisions, if it attempts frivolous charges or acts arbitrarily and capriciously upon substantial ones, the courts will protect the teacher whose rights have been invaded.

Frivolous Charges

In the Jewett case the Board of Education did just what that shifty court felt was likely to happen. The judges knew their boards of education. In the Jewett case the Board of Education did attempt and push through frivolous charges, it did act arbitrarily and capriciously upon all charges. Then, what did the courts do? Did they protect the teacher whose rights were invaded? They did not. They turned on the teacher and, with an ignorance and levity almost inconceivable, they set deliberately to work to destroy the professional career of a young man whose integrity has never been whisperingly impugned. They put thumbs down on a teacher whose principal said of him in 1934 in a letter to the University of California (in the record), “In my opinion Mr. Jewett has been an excellent teacher of Social Science and has handled the Rugg Series to great advantage in our schools.

Alleged Statements Reasonable

As we examine the decision, we find that the accusations of “unprofessional conduct”’ rest upon by-expressions, made, not in class, but to individual young people of an age when their statements are, to say the least, open to grave suspicion, as every practitioner of law and practically every parent knows. But, taking them at their face value, the alleged statement that it was silly to salute a flag would receive much support in any enlightened community in the world. Hitler and Mussolini have brought saluting into bad repute among decent folk. The alleged statement that “Russia had the best government in the world,” if ever made, is a bit questionable, but it would receive the enthusaistic approval of such a prodigy in the realm of Social Science as Lord Passmore (Sidney Webb), and his equally famous wife, as well as Bernard Shaw, Professor Harold Laski and a host of most distinguished publicists. What is a poor teacher to do? The alleged statement that the United States was “the aggressor in every war we have been in” will be corroborated by Charles Beard, who is no small potato as an American historian, and even by General Hugh Johnson who only recently published an article on our Mexican behavior which, if written by a high school teacher in Eureka, would probably have brought about his lynching. For, be it noted, localities which produce Boards of Education of that calibre also produce lynchers. Jewett is accused of having disapproved of his pupils seeing a patriotic movie; so would any sensible per- ‘son, for it would be surely vulgar and probably very bad art. Pupils Mentally Disturbed Jewett is said to have circulated pamphlets on the Mooney case. Nobody could know anything about recent social history in California without knowing about the lied subjects. oa ee a6 In this decision the heel of Hitler’s heavy Mooney case. He is said to have remarked that he would “rather be a live coward than go to war.” Since when has it become “unprofessional” for a teacher of Social Science to be a pacifist? It is said that his pupils were mentally disturbed. So they should be. No education in Social Science is of any value unless accompanied ‘by mental disturbance. He is accused of being in correspondence with the ‘‘Western Worker.”’ Even the Industrial Association subscribes for it.

Court Indulges in Senile Whispering

But there is a certain degrading smallness about the opinion of the court, a senile whispering, which causes it to hint where it does not state. It talks about the pay- ment of money to Jewett through the local bank. That money, as the Court knows, was interest on an investment in Russian government bonds. Such investment was made by many thousands of people in this country and everywhere else, for the Russian government is financially sound and pays seven per cent. Such an investment is as legitimate as buying Argentine or any other bonds and a great deal safer, and when did seven per cent become “unprofessional?” And then that ghostly woman, “emissary of the Russian government!” The old men at Sacramento must have their thrills.

_ In short, the court at Sacramento in 1937 has done just what it declared in 1924 never would be done. It has allowed an “excellent teacher’ to be ruined by a Board of Education which has “attempted frivolous charges’”’ and has acted “arbitrarily and capriciously.”

The case must go to the Supreme Court. As things stand, there is no future for Social Science teaching, no future for a keen young teacher of history, economics, or alboot falls sickeningly on the face of educational enlightenment.

YOUNG SOCIALISTS ARRESTED FOR DISTRIBUTING ANTI-WAR LEAFLETS

Janet Thurman and Kenneth Bristol, members of the Young Peoples Socialist League of San Francisco, were arrested by San Francisco police on May 30 for distributing anti-war leaflets during the Memorial Day parade. They are charged with a violation of Section 5 of Ordinance No. 80 which provides that, “It shall be unlawful for any person, as- sociation or corporation to distribute or cause to be distributed, any hand-bills or dodgers upon the streets or sidewalks of the City and County of San Francisco.”’

‘The Union contends that insofar as this ordinance seeks to regulate the distribution of political literature it abridges freedom of speech and freedom of the press. By the very title of the ordinance, however, it would seem to apply only to the distribution of ordinary business handbills..

The case has been set for a jury trial in the police court at 2 P. M., Thursday, July 1. The defendants will be represented by Wayne M. Collins, A.C.L.U. attorney.

» The San Francisco Theatre Union ¥ Announces Its Play Schedule for the Month of July at the Green Street Theatre ‘ 629 Green St., off Stockton

FRIDAY and SATURDAY NIGHTS July 2 and 3,BURY THE DEAD,

by Irwin Shaw

July 9 and 10, OF MICE AND MEN, : by John Steinbeck

July 16 and 17, OF MICE AN MEN

July 23 and 24, OF MICE AND MEN

Tickets at Sherman Clay and Theatre Prices: 35c; 55c: 83c Telephone EX-8322 for Reservations

Civil Liberties Record Of Assemblymen

Editor’s Note: The following chart shows how your assemblyman voted on eleven important civil liberties issues considered by the California Legislature during the 1937 session. In alphabetical order are listed the assemblymen from most of the Northern California districts. The number Opposite each name refers to the assembly district. We will be glad to furnish additional information on the civil liberties record of any California assemblyman upon request.

1. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 18:

Granting a full and complete legislative pardon to TOM MOONEY..

(GOOD—AYE; bad—no.)

2. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 25: Setting up Assembly Committee to investigate conviction of the MODESTO DEFENDANTS. (GOOD—AYE; bad

Page 8

3. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 131: Condemning dictatorial orders of H. E. POMEROY, 8. R. A. director, and requesting dismissal if practices are continued. (GOOD—AYE; bad—no.)

4. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 55: To sustain peaceful PICKETING. (GOOD—AYE; bad—no.)

5. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 311: To repeal CRIMINAL SYNDICALISM act. (GOOD—AYE; bad—no.)

6. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 430: To extend USE OF SCHOOLHOUSES as meeting places to all groups without discrimination or restriction. (GOOD—AYE; bad—no.)

7. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 659: To prohibit charges of VAGRANCY against strikers and to reduce bail.

8. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 934: To limit issuance of INJUNCTIONS in labor disputes. (GOOD—AYE; bad— no.)

9. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 1028: Providing for issuance of common law writs of error coram nobis in cases of conviction on PERJURED TESTI

MONY. (Directed at Mooney case. ) (GOOD—AYE; bad—no.)

10. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 1238: Instituting COMPULSORY MILITARY TRAINING in State Teachers Colleges. (GOOD—NO; bad—aye.)

11. ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION No. 1427: To limit duties of HIGHWAY PATROL, and to prohibit its use in strikes and boycotts. (GOOD—AYE; bad—

—no.) (GOOD—AYE; bad—no.) no. Total Lo 2 8 ee 8 eG ES.) 9 10 | 11 Good| Bad |Abs. BEENE, A. (30) | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Abs. | Bad 0/10] 1 BREED, A. (16) Bad Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad Bad 0/11/ 0 BURNS, M. (1) Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good|| 11 | O| O CALL, H. (29) Good | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad Bad | Abs. | Bad | Bad 1 9/1 CASSIDY, J. (13) Good | Good | Abs. | Good | Abs.| Bad Bad | Good | Good | Bad | Good 6) 3.2 COTTRELL, C. (31) Bad | Bad Bad | Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad Bad |! Abs. | Bad 0|10/ 1 CRONIN, M. (25) Good | Good | Bad | Good | Abs. | Bad Bad | Good | Bad | Good | Bad 51-5 1 CROWLEY, E. (5) _—_—*|| Good | ‘Bad Bad | Good | Bad | Bad Bad | Good | Bad Bad | Abs. 327 4 DANNENBRINK (18) || Bad | Good | Bad’ | Good | Good | Good | Bad Bad | Bad Bad | Good| 5/| 61 0 -DAWSON, K. (22) _Good | Good | Bad | Bad | Abs. | Bad | Bad Bad | Bad Bad | Good S27 i DESMOND, E. (9) Bad | Bad | Abs. | Abs. Bad | Bad | Bad | Good | Bad Abs. | Abs. 1 6/| 4 DONIHUE, L. (15) Good | Good | Bad | Good | Good | Bad | Good | Good | Good | Abs. | Good 8 | 2 1 GANNON, C. (8) Bad Bad Bad | Good | Bad Bad Bad | Bad | Abs. | Bad Bad 1.9 1 HORNBLOWER (23) | Good | Good | Bad | Good | Bad Bad Bad | Good | Good | Abs. | Good 6| 4 1 JOHNSON, G. (19) Bad | Bad | Bad Bad Bad | Bad Bad | Bad | Abs. | Bad Bad || 0|10{ 1 LEVEY, E. (28) Good | Good | Bad | Good | Bad | Bad | Abs. | Good | Bad Bad | Good 5-5 1 MALONEY, T. (20) Good | Good | Bad | Good | Good | Bad | Abs. | Good | Good | Good | Good So 2 1 | McMURRAY, P. (24) * Good | Good | Abs. | Good | Good | Bad | Good | Good | Good | Bad | Abs. || 7 / 2 2 MEEHAN, H. (17) Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Bad Abs. | Abs. | Abs. | Bad | Good|| 6] 2] 3 MILLER, G. (14) Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Bad | Good “10 eee MILLINGTON (4) Bad Bad | Abs. | Bad | Bad | Abs. | Abs. | Bad | Abs. | Abs. | Bad -O0 | 625 PATTERSON (35) | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good | Good 11 | 0| 0 PEYSER, J. (27) Good | Abs. | Bad | Good | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad Bad |. Bad | Bad 21°81 1 SAWALLISCH (10) Good | Good | Bad | Good | Good | Bad | Bad_ | Good | Good | Good | Bad 7 | 4/°0 SCUDDER, H. (7) Bad | Abs. | Abs. | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad 04-91) 2 _SHEEHAN, J. (21) Good | Abs. Bad | Good | Good | Abs. | Bad | Good | Bad | Bad | Bad A 5S 2 WEBER, C. (11) Good | Good | Bad Bad | Abs. | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad | Bad Bad 2|'-8 | 1 WILLIAMSON (26) Good | Good | Bad | Good Abs. | Bad | Bad | Good | Bad | Abs. | Abs. 4| 4| 3

ANTI-NAZI PICKETS ARRESTED FOR CARRYING SIGNS .

Six men were arrested by San Francisco police on June 12 while picketing the Ger‘man consulate in a protest against Nazi interference in the Spanish Civil War. A large squad of uniformed police and some twenty detectives, under the command of Captain Engler, permitted between 50 and 60 persons to march back and forth in front of the German consulate for 45 minutes but arrested those who insisted upon carrying signs denouncing Hitler. They were charged with a violation of Ordinance No. 80, adopted in 1900, “Regulating and Restricting Advertising in the City and County of San Francisco.”

Section 2 of the ordinance makes it unlawful “To appear on the streets of the City and County of San Francisco carrying banners or boards, or placards with | advertisements; provided the provisions of this section shall not apply to notices or advertisements by labor fraternal or charitable organizations of their meeting, acts or other affairs.”’

The A.C.L.U. issued a statement denouncing the arrests as an open defiance of the law by the police. “The repeal of the anti-picketing ordinance,” said the statement, “leaves no prohibition against picketing so long as it is orderly. The arrests were clearly illegal, even if the police charge the pickets with carrying banners or placards. If the police will read the law, they will discover that it applies to the carrying of banners with business advertisements, and specifically exempts ‘notices or advertisements by labor, fraterhal or charitable organizations of their meeting, acts or other affairs.’ No business or product was advertised. The pickets had the right to express their disapproval of Germany’s conduct in the Spanish situation, and to interfere with that right constitutes a denial of freedom of speech and assemblage.”

The defendants have pleaded “Not Guilty” to the charges filed against them, and the case will be tried by a jury in the police court in about a month. The Civil Liberties Union took motion pictures of the demonstration which have’ been offered to the defendants for use in their defense.

A.C.L.U. FILES BRIEF IN BERKELEY PEACEFUL PICKETING CASE

The American Civil Liberties Union joined with the International Juridical As- sociation in filing an amici curiae (friends of the court) brief in the First District Court of Appeal in the Fels case, testing the validity of Berkeley’s ordinance pro- hibiting peaceful picketing. The City of Berkeley appealed a lower court decision holding the ordinance unconstitutional.

The brief contends that, “The prohibition of loitering and peaceful picketing is unconstitutional because it is an unwarranted and unjustifiable interference with liberty of speech and action which violates the right of collective bargaining recog- nized in this state.”

Oral arguments are expected to be heard py the court early this fall.

HARPER KNOWLES HEADS LEGION “RADICAL RESEARCH COMMITTEE”

The California American Legion has blossomed forth with a “Radical Research Committee.” Department Commander Thomas J. Riordan appointed San Francisco’s enthusiastic red-baiter, Harper L. Knowles, as chairman of the committee.

-Cther members of the committee are

George M. Stout, of Sacramento, vicechairman; George G. Cloney, Eureka; Walter J. Lee, Berkeley; Archie M. Closson, Lodi; Claude S. Young, San Luis Obispo; Clarence Willis, Lemoore; Claude Hallock, Van Nuys, and Hugh T. Osborn, of El Centro, one of the leading Imperial Valley vigilantes of 1934.

According to the California Legionnaire

of June 15, “The committee will take over — the activities of the former Subversive Ac- tivities Commission which was merged with the work of the Americanism Commission at the last state convention at Hollywood.

“The function of this committee will be to collect, evaluate and disseminate data on the subversive activities throughout the | state in line with the mandates of the Na- tional and Department Conventions.

“The committee has established headquarters in the Veterans Building in San Francisco and it solicits the cooperation of the entire membership of the Department in obtaining reliable information on the matter of subversive activities. The committee in turn will be available to supply information to qualified persons.”

American Civil Liberties Union News

Published monthly at 484 Mills Building, San Francisco, Calif., by the Northern California Branch of The American Civil Liberties Union.

Phone: EXbrook 1816 ERNEST BESIG. PAULINE W. DAVIDS................---.-....Associate Editor Editor Subscription Rates—Fifty Cents a Year. . Five Cents per Copy. Academic Freedom

(Continued from Page 1, Col. 2) Constitution of the United States of America, the Constitution of the State of California, and will, by precept and example, promote respect for the flag and the statutes of the United States and of the State of California, reverence for law and order, — and undivided allegiance to the government of the United States of America.” Mr. Jewett is condemned by the Court of Appeals on the ground that he has, first, taken and, second, violated that “loyalty” oath...

Now the primary concern of the Civil Liberties Union is with this second form of the charge of ‘““Unprofessional Conduct.” What do the terms “loyalty” and “allegiance” mean in the work of the class room? I do not see how any one can deny that a teacher must be loyal to the country which he serves, and to its government. But does this mean that teachers must conform to -eurrent popular opinion? Does it mean that in social questions, all the teachers must be on the side of the majority? Does it mean that with complete unanimity, our teachers must assert that in no respect is any other government superior to our own? Does it mean that teachers may say that Tom Mooney is guilty but may not say that he is innocent? Does it mean that teachers are forbidden to point out defects in the theory and practice of American government? As I read the decision of the Court of Appeals, the judgment of the Superior Court, the action of the Board of ___Rdueation, they all seem to me to give to_ the loyalty oath that interpretation. And if that is true, then the Civil Liberties Union must, in defense of fundamental American principles, enter vigorous protest. It must condemn both the “loyalty oath” and the actions and decisions based upon it. The loyalty which we Americans seek to develop in our children, which we therefore require of our teachers, is not the mechanical conformity of puppets. It is the loyalty of a free people. which not only welcomes from outside its own ranks the criticism of its ideas:and conduct but also seeks to cultivate in all its members, old and young, the capacity for keen, lively, fearless questioning of their government and of themselves. The oath as interpreted by the Court may have been violated by Mr. Jewett but to say only that is to praise him as a teacher rather than to condemn him, because such an oath has no proper place in American life and especially in American education.

But the Civil Liberties Union has also a secondary interest in the charge of “Un- professional Conduct” brought against Mr. Jewett. That charge is, as we have said, ambiguous. It may mean either “incompetence as a teacher” or “disloyalty as a per- son” and it is this ambiguity which makes it useful for the purposes of “heresy-hunt- ing’ and “witch-burning,”’ to which Mr. Rust refers. When the charge of disloyalty is clearly stated Americans can both see and feel its essential contradiction of our fundamental principles. But if it can be shifted to mean “incompetence,” ‘‘technical unfitness to be a teacher” then, as suggested above, no one can deny that the Board of Education has both the right and the duty to take action against an offender. But the plain fact is that “incompetence” and “disloyalty” are not identical. And in this cases we face the terrible danger that a Board will decide that a teacher is incompetent simply on _ the ground that he believes and expresses opinions with which the members of the Board do not agree. Is the Board of Education as alert and severe in judging the competence of teachers who blindly approve our scheme of government. as in What Happened in the California Legislature

California’s 52nd legislature—the ‘do nothing legislature,” is ended. Little was expected of it; practically nothing was acecomplished—particularly in the field of civil liberties; and everyone is happy that

Little was-expected because the legislature was divided against itself. For the first time since the turn of the century the Democrats controlled the Assembly, but whatever liberal legislation passed that body met instant death in a reactionary and overwhelmingly Republican Senate elected from the cow counties.

The Assembly failed to live up to the hopes and expectations held out for it. Many of the old Epics, who had come to Sacramento to do or die for the cause of social justice, were again on hand, but minus their fighting spirit. Some had. be-: come cautious and conservative, intent upon re-election, while others were grown cynical and ready to “get theirs” along with their more “practical” brothers.

Speaker William Moseley Jones, an erstwhile Epic, at the very beginning made things comfortable for the conservatives in the Assembly by appointing only one liberal committee, that on Labor and Capital; then he assigned the majority of the liberal bills to the most reactionary committees. But the sponsors of liberal legislation were not content to have measures killed in committee. Resorting to the expedient of moving to withdraw bills from committee, they forced reluctant legislators to place their votes on record.

No Red Baiting Bills

The civil liberties lobby this year faced problems quite different from those it en- countered at the 1935 session. Then, the red-baiters appeared in Sacramento with an extensive program which they aggressively pursued and which the Union successfully fought. This year saw no redbaiting bills introduced, and relatively few measures constituted a direct threat to civil liberties. The effort of the American Legion to impose compulsory military training on the State teachers colleges was perhaps the most serious challenge to liberty. But strong opposition in the Assembly finally resulted in the substitution of optional for compulsory drill. The Women’s Inter- national League for Peace and Freedom, and particularly its legislative chairman, Mrs. Kenneth Hayes, played a prominent part in contending with the powerful American Legion lobby.

Civil Rights Bills Defeated

While the red-baiters were inactive, the Northern and Southern California branches of the A.C.L.U. joined forces in presenting a civil liberties program to the legis- lature. Ernest Besig, Northern California Director of the Union, spent many weeks in Sacramento as lobbyist for the Union. Though the program was unsuccessful in the matter of direct legislation, it got judging those who criticise that scheme?

Does it measure by the same professional standards those who find merits in the Russian plan of living and those who regard it with abhorrance? Surely it is true that if a student is too immature to listen to attacks upon our institutions then he is also unfitted to hear and judge arguments in favor of them. And if, under the guise of a demand for competence, our school authorities do not give to differing opinions equal treatment, if teachers who “‘criticise” are therefore judged to be inferior to those who “accept,” if teachers who hold unpopular beliefs are therefore declared unfit to teach, then ‘““Academic Freedom” is completely destroyed. And this means not only that the individual rights of a single teacher have been taken away, but also that the community has shown itself, through its official representatives, unfit to carry on the education of its children in accordance with the principles which the Constitution of the United States has prescribed for our scheme of government.

ALEXANDER MEIKLEJOHN.

much farther than in 1935. The vote to withdraw from committee the bill to repeal the criminal syndicalism law showed 2S assemblymen in favor of repeal; 21 voted to remove discriminatory provisions of the Civic Center Act, although a similar bill introduced in the Senate died in committee. A proposal to amend the vagrancy law to make it inapplicable to persons on strike gathered 23 votes. The measure to permit the reopening, after judgment, of convictions secured on perjured testimony obtained 31 votes, and another bill limiting the strike-breaking activities of the State Highway Patrol received 30 votes. Thirty-two votes were cast for a bill providing that contempt charges shall be tried before a judge other than the one before whom the contempt was committed. An Assembly Committee tabled the constitutional amendment to establish optional drill at the University of California by a 6 to 4 vote. Likewise a bill-creating municipal responsibility for the death or injury of any person caused by mobs or riots went to a painless death in the Assembly Municipal Corporations committee. Three bills protecting academic freedom were defeated in the Assembly Education Committee. One bill sought to remove criminal syndicalism as a ground for dismissal of a teacher; a second prohibited school boards from enquiring into the political affiliations or religious beliefs of applicants for teaching positions, while a third prohibited the dismissal of teachers for political activities occurring outside of school teaching hours.

The Brighter Side On the brighter side of the picture, the Civil Liberties lobby can be credited with several achievements. A resolution drafted in behalf of the “Modesto Defendants’ was favorably voted upon by the Assem= bly. Over the opposition of the Standard Oil Company, a committee was appointed to investigate charges of prejury and subornation of perjury in the trial of the defendants. The majority report of this committee found the defendants had been framed and recommended an executive pardon. The A.C.L.U. also supported the various Mooney pardon resolutions that passed the Assembly, and was responsible for the introduction of a resolution condemning Harold E. Pomeroy, State Relief Administrator, for orders prohibiting welfare workers from lobbying on their own time and in their private capacity. The hearings on the resolution resulted in the re-instatement of two dismissed employees who violated Pomeroy’s gag order. —

A number of civil liberties bills weathered the Assembly but died in Senate com- mittees. A measure regulating the use of injunctions in labor disputes, another de- fining the right of peaceful picketing, a third prohibiting the taking of fingerprints. — except in cases of arrest or conviction on criminal charges, a fourth limiting the jail sentence for contempt of court, and a fifth prohibiting disbarment of an attorney for criticisms of a judge during election campaigns, were all pigeonholed.

Gag Laws Fail

On the other hand, several bills limiting civil liberties were defeated in committee. In this group are a compulsory flag salute measure, a bill establishing compulsory health inspection of persons entering California, a Senate bill licensing and regulat- ing any private school wherein a foreign language is taught, and a bill compelling fingerprinting of all automobile drivers.

Assemblyman Cecil R. King, at the instance of the A.C.L.U., agreed not to take up three measures he had introduced which abridged civil liberties. One of these prohibited the publication of “false’’ news, another forbade the publication of the race or color of a person accused or convicted of a crime, and a third enjoined the or ganization of uniformed political groups and provided for the licensing of parades of any uniformed groups.