University Daily Kansan Friday. March 31, 1961
8 0 g l
UDK FOCUS
On these two pages will be found the first in a series of "Focus" sections dealing with current issues. In these sections, the Kansan will attempt to present a balanced view of the issues it treats with articles, reprints and excerpted material.
THIS FIRST FOCUS IS ON THE STUDENT riots at the San Francisco House Un-American Activities Committee hearings on May 12-14, 1960, and the resulting film of the demonstrations, "Operation Abolition," produced by the Committee.
Anyone viewing the film yesterday should have been disturbed to a degree by the arguments of both sides—the committee and the students. Even those unfamiliar with the HUAC before seeing "Operation Abolition," would leave disgusted after seeing the ridiculous propaganda tactics employed. As is, the picture makes a strong point and it would appear that the committee was justified in its "Communist inspired" and "Communist-duped students" accusations
despite the overzealous propagandist presentation.
But when one gains access to documented evidence of what happened, he stands aghast at the distortion and misrepresentation shown. And when one finds out how the film was made, how it was distributed and backed, he begins to wonder which was worse, the performance of the demonstrators and the witnesses, or the Committee.
THE ARGUMENT HERE IS NOT WITH THE legality, jurisdiction or right of the HUAC for now, but with the filming procedure itself. Because of the heat and hysteria of the two-day hearings, a smokescreen has gone up and has yet to settle. It is hoped that by the material presented here, some insight can be gained so as to determine the right and wrong of the two factions concerned, and also to clear some of the smoke.
The Editors
Report of Bay Area Students
(Editor's Note: Following is the statement by the Bay Area Student Committee for the Abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, March 25, 1960. The student committee was formed by a group of those arrested on May 13, 1960, during the hearings in San Francisco and by others interested in the drive to arrest the House Committee. We also asked us to reprint only part of the statement. Notations indicate where the statement was edited.)
The propaganda film "Operation Abolition" was made by carefully editing and selecting parts of news film subpoenaed from San Francisco television stations by the House Committee on Un-American Activities (H.C.U.A.). These films were used in "Operation Abolition" without the knowledge or the permission of the owners,
KPIX-TV and KRON-TV.
Note that no credits are given: there has been no one willing to take responsibility for this shamefully distorted film . . .
NOW, WHAT of the film itself? It attempts to portray the recent San Francisco demonstrations against the H.C.U.A. as a Communist-incited riot in which thousands of students were duped into defying law and order.
This is probably the conclusion you will reach if you make the mistake of relying on this film as your sole source of information. The H.C.U.A., in this sorry attempt to discredit legitimate criticism of itself as a Communist plot, has omitted or distorted innumerable important facts.
More important than what this film says is what it does not say.
THE FILM FAILED TO TELL US about the now famous "white cards." These passes were issued in advance to organizations favored by the Committee, at the expense of individuals who had waited patiently in line for admittance to hearings which had been announced as open to the public. No notice had been given to the public that passes would be necessary or available. This practice, despite repeated protests by those unfairly excluded was largely responsible for the demonstrators' increasingly vocal opposition to the hearings.
UNIVERSITÉ
Dailu Hansau
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904,
trieweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
Telephone VIkking 3-2700 Extension 711, news room Extension 376, business office
Member Inland Daily Press Association.
Associated Collegiate Press.
Represented by National Advertising
Group. Served at N.Y. News service; United Press International. Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a published. In Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the University year except Saturday,
and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
NEWS DEPARTMENT
NEWS DEPARTMENT
John Peterson ... Managing Editor
EDITORIAL DEPARTMENT
Frank Morgan and
Dan Felger ... Co-Editorial Editors
Dan Felger ... Co-Editorial Editors
DEPARTMENT
BUSINESS DEPARTMENT
John Massa Business Manager
The rigging of the seating was so clearly unfair that San Francisco County Sheriff Matthew Carberry agreed to intervene on behalf of the public and attempted to change the "white card" discrimination so that the public could attend the hearings on a "first come, first served" policy.
ONE OF the many purposeful misrepresentations in the film is that statement that only 100 passes were issued for admission to a hall which is alleged to hold 400 people. By this misrepresentation, the film attempts to mislead those who see it into assuming that only one-fourth of the hall was filled by those sympathetic to the H.C.U.A. while the rest of the seats were available to the general public. The facts of the matter reveal a completely different situation.
1. Each of the passes issued by the Committee could admit as many as six people. In short, 100 passes could mean as many as 600 restricted seats.
2. On Thursday morning of the hearing $ \sigma $ , the greatest number from the general public was admitted. On that morning, at least $ 75\% $ of the hearing room was filled with guests invited by the Committee.
These last two facts were both admitted by William Wheeler, West Coast investigator and spokesman for the H.C.U.A., August 9, 1960, on "The Goodwin Knight Show," KCOP-TV, Los Angeles.
THE FILM FAILS TO TELL US of police brutality. Such incidents were carefully deleted. Observed New York Post correspondent Mel Wax, "Never in 20 years as a reporter have I seen such brutality."
The film attempts to convince us that only the "Communist and pro-Communist" press asserted police brutality and that this assertion was untrue. This is but one more of the film's purposeful distortions. In fact, such publications as the San Francisco Chronicle, the New York Post, Frontier, the Californian, and the Oakland Tribune reported that the police action was unduly brutal. This is hardly a list of Communist or pro-Communist publications. . . .
The California Federation of Teachers Executive Council thanked the students for "their dedication and courage to protest, even in the face of brutal and unjustifiable coercion and arrest."
State Attorney General Stanley Mosk was asked by 65 Berkeley and 88 Stanford faculty members for an "impartial inquiry" into police activity during the riot.
IN VIEWING the film one must remember that in spite of the assertions of the provably false commentary on the sound-track,
the films have been edited, and parts of the original film footage which disprove the film's assertions were not produced. According to news members of KPIX-TV, footage which shows unjustified use of police clubs on demonstrators was deleted from the movie. Once again the facts reveal the movie to be a purposefully distorted account of the truth and brings into serious question the honesty of the members of H.C. U.A. who by their appearances in the film, endorse its assertions.
THE FILM FAILS TO TELL US the truth about student behavior. Listen carefully to the film's commentator. He asks you to believe that students were violent, that they induced a stroke in a 61-year-old policeman by knocking him down, and that they invited the fire hoses by charging the barricade and by attacking another policeman and striking him with his billy.
THESE CHARGES HAVE BEEN DENIED. No witnesses have been produced who can verify them. Note that there are no pictures of these "events". You see nothing on the screen to suggest that these "events" occurred.
HOW CAN THE FILM BE ACCEPTED as a true report of the San Francisco demonstrations when ever the Chief Investigator for the Committee on the West Coast succumbs to the overwhelming evidence to the contrary and admits that the film distorts the events of May 12-14?
THE FILM FAILS TO TELL US what really went on inside the hearing room. The film does show the squelched attempts of dissenting witnesses to read their statements. It does not show the freedom granted to "friendly" witnesses to read theirs.
It does not inform us that the sound-track which accompanies the film which was shot inside the hearing room during the demonstrations of the subpoenaed persons was a composite track made up of several tapes taken both inside and outside the hearing room.
WHAT IS THE COMMITTEES REAL MOTIVE IN SUPPORTING THE DISTRIBUTION OF THIS FILM? The answer is quite simple: In the face of an ominous groundswell of opposition from highly reputable sources the Committee has been driven to desperate almost hysterical attempts to justify its existence.
We must keep in mind that the House Committee on Un-American Activities can have but one legitimate function: to conduct investigations which would provide information for necessary remedial legislation. That is the sole justification for any legislative body.
WHAT HAVE been the results?
The Committee's activities have
(Continued on page 3)
HERBLOOM
MARSHALL UNION FARM
(一 cartoon courtesy of Herblock, The Washington Post.)
Abolition Movie; Hoover's Reply
Reprinted from "The Individualist" by C. M. M. Hewitt, an inter-collegiate Society of Individualists.
By J. Edgar Hoover
Following are excerpts from a report by J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI, illustrating Communist strategy and tactics in the rotting which occurred during the House Committee on Un-American Activities hearings, at San Francisco, May 12-14, 1960.
It is vitally important to set the record straight on the extent to which Communists were responsible for the disgraceful and riotous conditions which prevailed during the HCUA hearings. It is vitally important that not only the students involved in that incident, but also students throughout the nation whom Communists hope to exploit in similar situations, recognize the Communist tactics which resulted in what experienced West Coast observers familiar with Communist strategy and tactics have termed the most successful Communist coup to occur in the San Francisco area in 25 years.
WHEN THE decision of the HCUA to hold hearings May 12-14, 1960, in San Francisco was announced, it was mandatory for Communists to (do) . . . everything possible to disrupt the hearings as part of the overall aim to destroy the HCUA.
The first objective of the party was to fill the scene of the hearings with demonstrators. The second was to incite them to action through the use of mob psychology.
The first stage of the party's plan of action began to unfold after word was received on April 26, 1960, by party officials that subpenas had been issued for local Communists to appear for the hearings scheduled to take place May 12-14, 1960. One of the recipients of a subpena was Douglas Wachter, an 18-year-old sophomore at the University of California. Wachter, incidentally, had attended the 17th national convention of the Communist Party in December 1959 as an official delegate from northern California.
PARTY OFFICIALS decided to build a major part of their plan of attack around Wachter Immediately after receiving a subpena, Wachter proceeded to the University of California campus to organize student demonstrators. Mickey Lima, chairman of the Northern California District of the Communist Party, instructed Roscoe Proctor, a member of the district committee, to also contact certain students at the University of California and enlist their support. Lima was assured that student
support would be forthcoming from Santa Rosa Junior College.
Members of the San Jose Club of the Santa Clara County Community Party circulated petitions and arranged for the publishing of a protest advertisement in the local San Jose newspapers.
Oakland Communist Party members arranged for radio broadcasts and publication of protest advertisements in their area newspapers.
On the evening of May 6, 1930, party leaders held a meeting to assess their progress and plan further activity.
FUND DRIVES were initiated.
Lima then issued orders that each club representative in the area assume the responsibility of contacting every club member to insure that massive demonstrations would take place at the hearings.
A telephone campaign was conducted by party members to solidly opposition to the HCU and was designed specifically to reach 1,000 people. Merle Brodsky, an active leader in Communist Party affairs in California for more than 20 years, boasted that he was calling everyone he had ever known, enlisting support for the demonstrations.
WHEN THE day arrived for the hearings to begin, the party was set to go into action to accomplish its second objective of inciting the mob. A few key party members were to play major roles as agitators.
As soon as the hearings began, party members began to play their predetermined roles. The belligerent and insulting behavior of some of the 36 uncooperative witnesses was so aggravating it became necessary to order their forcible removal from the hearing room to preserve order and decorum. Archie Brown and Merle Brodsky, acting according to plan, were sullen and contemptuous.
An organized clique of sympathizers in the hearing room aided them in their roles. Approximately 25% of the spectators in the room were individuals under subpena and their relatives, friends, attorneys, and sympathizers. This group applauded and cheered the antics of Brown and Brodsky and booed, hissed, and ridiculed the committee at every opportunity. Archie Brown's disruptive tactics became so intense that it was necessary to forcibly remove him from the scene.
AFTER THE luncheon recess, Brown and Brodsky went into action again. Shortly before the afternoon session was to be given, they grabbed a microphone at the
(Continued on page 3)