Page 2
University Daily Kansan Thursday. Feb. 22, 1962
HUAC and Its Film
In the film it calls "Operation Abolition," the House Un-American Activities Committee charges that the student demonstrations against it in 1960 in San Francisco were Communist inspired. But the film has been edited and spliced together in such a way that it grossly distorts the events that took place. Scenes recorded the day after some incident took place are combined with scenes taken on the day of the event and shown as an integral part of the incident. Communists subpoenaed by the committee are shown in the crowd outside the hearing room, with the implication that they were there to lead the (duped) students in demonstrations and riots. The students, it should be noted, were approached by a Communist subpoenaed by the committee and refused to work with him. Various other distortions are found in the film.
HUAC admits that there are some honest mistakes in the film, but continues to defend it. The film is presently being shown throughout the country.
THERE HAVE been many confusing charges and counter charges in this controversy, but it is possible to construct an accurate picture of certain key factors from the reports of newsmen who witnessed the demonstrations and violence or who investigated it afterward.
To begin with, the students were not inspired to riot by Communist agents. There was not even a riot. They were simply demonstrating against the committee. There is nothing illegal in this; their right to peacefully demonstrate is guaranteed by the United States constitution.
But here is the key point in the charges that student demonstrators were responsible for the police using firehoses and clubs against them. The violence started, the committee charges, when a student leaped the barricades, seized a policeman's club and began beating him over the head with it. The student who was supposed to have done this was arrested, tried and found NOT GUILTY. None of the policemen present at
the time of the supposed incident—not even the officer supposedly attacked—would testify that the student accused or any other students were guilty of the charge.
J. EDGAR HOOVER, director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, says that a judge issued an order directing the students inside the city hall to leave because they were making so much noise he could not hold court. The students involved say that no such order was relayed to them. But whether or not an order was given by the judge to disperse is irrelevant. It cannot justify the violence that was directed at a group of non-violent demonstrators, regardless of how much noise was made. The use of firehoses and clubs against non-violent demonstrators is more consistent with the Communist way of doing things than the American way.
"Operation Abolition" is an attempt to justify an unjustifiable set of actions. "Operation Correction" does a fine job of pointing this out.
In so far as it was still possible for it to do so, HUAC thoroughly disgraced itself in the "Operation Abolition" affair. The film "Operation Abolition" deliberately distorts the events of the 1960 student demonstrations against HUAC in San Francisco. The so called honest mistakes are too numerous and too gross to be given such an innocent cover name.
HUAC'S CONSTANT Communist hunting is ridiculous. This is true not because the Communists do not need to be found, but because HUAC is not competent to find them. The FBI, the various U.S. intelligence organizations and even local police departments are better qualified to uncover evidence as to whether or not someone is a Communist than HUAC is.
The film "Operation Abolition" is a good example of HUAC's negative character. It is surprising that Congress has not abolished this committee. It is a liability to both Congress and the United States.
—William H. Mullins
Criticism of 'Operation Abolition'
(Editor's Note: the following is the statement of the Bay Area Student Committee for the Abolition of the House Committee on Un-American Activities, 1732 Francisco St., Berkeley 3, Calif. The committee was formed by a group of those students arrested on May 13, 1960, during the hearings in San Francisco and by others interested in the drive to abolish the House Committee. Because of its length, parts of the statement have been deleted.)
The film fails 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. 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 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 reserved seats.
2. On Thursday morning of the hearings, the greatest number from the general public was admitted. On that morning, at least 75 per cent 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, 1660, 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 . . .
Police hurled women down the staircase. One woman was dragged through glass from a broken door pane, San Francisco Chronicle reporter George Draper wrote: "One plump girl was shoved from the top of the stairs and tumbled and slipped down two flights to land like a bundle of clothing at the bottom." Two policemen grabbed a thin boy. A third officer clubbed him three times and with the last blow he went limp. Said Draper, "You could hear the hollow smack of the club striking . . . Police were now clubbing demonstrators at will." (San Francisco Chronicle; May 14, 1960)
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."
In viewing the film one must
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.
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.
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.
Sworn depositions, photographs and on-the-spot recording all testify to the utter fallaciousness of the film's assertions. In the face
(Continued on page 3)
Dailu Hansan
University of Kansas student newspaper
Founded 1889, became biweekly 1904,
triweekly 1908, daily Jan. 16, 1912.
7790
Telephone Viking e
Extension 711, news room
Extension 394.
Management. Daily Press Association.
Associated Collegiate Press. Reprinted by National Advertising Service. 18 East St. New York, New York 22105.
International Mail subscription rates: $3 a semester or $5 a year. Published in Lawrence, Kan., every afternoon during the university expo. Excuse travel. University holidays and examination periods. Second class postage paid at Lawrence, Kansas.
"Joe sent you?"
Group Voices Support For Operation Abolition
Q. Is the film "distorted"?
A. Numerous authorities testify that "Operation Abolition" accurately represents the events which took place during the student demonstrations against the House Un-American Activities Committee in San Francisco, in May 1960. J. Edgar Hoover has prepared a minutely detailed report which corresponds to the film's message in almost every particular. Seven ministers in the San Francisco area who attended the hearings say this film is a true and accurate representation of the activities of the hearings. The commentary is truthful. The film is not "doctored." The sound track is not distorted." George Christopher, Mayor of San Francisco, says: "The pictures I believe speak for themselves. They are true. They are authentic."
Q. THE FILM alleges that the demonstrations were Communist-inspired and Communist-directed. The Washington Post says: "Diligent inquiry has led us to a conviction that this charge is wholly unjustified." What are the facts?
A. J. Edgar Hoover covers this matter thoroughly in his report entitled "Commist Target—Youth." Hoover pinpoints the activities of Communist officials Mickey Lima, Rosece Proctor, Merle Brodsky, Douglas Wachter, Archie Brown and others in getting demonstrators to San Francisco City Hall and agitating them once there. Mayor Christopher says: "Known Communists, and I repeat this emphatically, known Communists were in the lead of this demonstration." Matthew Carberry, Sheriff of San Francisco County, says: "The people stirring the students up, and bringing them to an emotional pitch, were well-known Communists in the San Francisco area." San Francisco Police Chief Thomas Cahill testified: "A number of those who seemed to whip those people in the group into a mob frenzy were individuals who had been hostile and who had testified at the hearing."
Q. THE POST also says "the San Francisco police acted with altogether needless brutality, turning fire hoses on students whose protests were not flagrantly unruly. What are the facts?"
A. J. Edgar Hoover reports: "One of the judges in a municipal courtroom in City Hall ordered the mob dispersed because the noise made it impossible for him to hold court. When an attempt was made to carry out the order, the crowd responded by throwing shoes and
jostling the officers. An officer warned that fire hoses would have to be used if the crowd did not disperse, but the crowd, instigated by Communists who had maneuvered themselves into strategic positions, became more untruly.
"One of the demonstrators provided the spark that touched off the flame of violence. Leaping a barricade that had been erected, he grabsbed an officer's nightstick and began beating him over the head. The mob surged forward as if to storm the doors, and a Police Inspector ordered the fire hose turned on. The water forced the crowd to the head of the balustrade, and the cold water had a sobering effect on the emotions of the demonstrators."
The San Francisco Examiner and News Call-Bulletin for May 14, 1960 contained similar reports.
A. Judge Albert A. Axelrod, who released the students, said he did so because a mass trial "would not only be costly from a monetary sense but would play directly into the hands of those who created unrest." "At no time," Axelrod says, "did I conduce their conduct." And: "I very definitely agree with the view of FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover that the city hall riot last May 13 was instigated by Communist subversives."
Q. THE executive editor of the Post says: "It seems to us also that the fact that 67 of the 68 persons were released, after being charged with disturbing the peace and resisting arrest, indicates that the facts were not exactly in accord with those as presented in the film." What are the facts?
Q. DID Sherif Matthew Carberry say: "There was no act of physical aggression on the part of the students"."
(CO1
A. "No. This remark was attributed to him in an article in The Reporter magazine for November 24, 1960, by a writer named Paul Jacobs. On December 6, 1960, Sheriff Carberry issued the following comment: "I did not make that statement. I do not know the author of the article, Paul Jacobs, and have never spoken to him and have never been interviewed by him."
In a subsequent exchange in The Reporter, Jacobs cited a quotation from what is identified as a tape recording of a broadcast over station KQED-TV, San Francisco, in which Carberry makes the statement that, to his knowledge, "no acts of physical violence" preceded
(Continued on page 3)
(Cor the use of "Sherif qualified been 'told are not u the turn occasiona against a also said act hims
That C act hims this has a berry a Jacobs' o c berry p Hall on o noon reacts of v and the City Pol noon re Carberry alleged not of h to whet Jacobs' tried to thority not hap
The sl retreat, original eous an
Q. D Coast in tee, adr in the
A. N that the sequence in natu that the resenta San Fr whom 'the we aacterize
(ἐὺς of such proof the sou occurst that m the ac In spiin the H confus evel ed the p that t true.
The really room.
squeel witness
It do grande read
It c sounde the fil hearir stratic sons up of side a
The where ord. l smea Area hearing the l this i by no the e cizes a Coor teriou
Wh moti tion quite inou from Com pera to ju
We
Hou
can
legiti
vesti
infor-
dial
justi
body
Com
prod
of lo