Keyword
in
Collection
Date
to
Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 3, March 1955
File 036
Citation
MLA
APA
Chicago/Turabian
Facts Forum. Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 3, March 1955 - File 036. 1955-03. University of Houston Libraries. University of Houston Digital Library. Web. October 29, 2020. https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/769/show/735.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum. (1955-03). Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 3, March 1955 - File 036. Facts Forum News, 1955-1956. University of Houston Libraries. Retrieved from https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/769/show/735

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

Facts Forum, Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 3, March 1955 - File 036, 1955-03, Facts Forum News, 1955-1956, University of Houston Libraries, accessed October 29, 2020, https://digital.lib.uh.edu/collection/1352973/item/769/show/735.

Disclaimer: This is a general citation for reference purposes. Please consult the most recent edition of your style manual for the proper formatting of the type of source you are citing. If the date given in the citation does not match the date on the digital item, use the more accurate date below the digital item.

URL
Embed Image
Compound Item Description
Title Facts Forum News, Vol. 4, No. 3, March 1955
Series Title Facts Forum News
Creator
  • Facts Forum
Contributor
  • Evans, Medford
Publisher Facts Forum
Date March 1955
Language eng
Subject
  • Anti-communist movements
  • Conservatism
  • Politics and government
  • Hunt, H. L.
Place
  • Dallas, Texas
Genre
  • journals (periodicals)
Type
  • Text
Identifier AP2.F146 v. 4 1955; OCLC: 1352973
Collection
  • University of Houston Libraries
  • Facts Forum News
Rights No Copyright - United States
Item Description
Title File 036
Transcript In 1948 a young scientisl al AEC's Brookhaven National Laboratory talking to Theodore H. While aboul Dr. E. (J. Condon — called by thc House In- \merican Activities Committee "lhe weakest link in our alomie security" said, "My God, no matter what the score on Condon could be. you just can't have a bunch of dumb jerks like lhal passing on the- credentials of scientists." The credentials in question were nol scientific. The statement means that scientists should in every way he above tbe criticism of members of Congress. When AEC took over atomic energy from the Army in 1917. an initial problem was business accounts and audits of scientific operations. The "Loofbourovi Report" suggested thai scientiits he held to a minimum of financial and property responsibility. About a year later Ihe "l.oomis Report" urged maximum pen rales and privileges for scientific personnel. Bul the main light centered on security. Here unwillingness to admit any check on Science was encouraged to the hill by Communists and other pro-Soviel groups. Susceptibility of scientists to such influences has been meted hy Richard I.. Meier, former executive secTetarj of tin' Federati if American Scientists. who has written, "The physicist by nature is politically radical." and by C. P. Snow. English authority on scientific personnel, who in The New Men has discriminated between engineers and scientists: "...th,- physicists, whose whole intellectual life- was spent in see-king new truths, found il uncongenial to slop seeking when they had a look at society. They wen- rebellious, questioning, protestant, curious for the future and unable to resisl shaping il. The engineers buckled to their jobs anil gave no trouble, in America, in Bussia. in Germany; il wa- nol from them, bul from lhe scientists, thai came heretics, forerunners, martyrs, traitors." Oppenheimer in 1919 testified before ihe Joint Committee on Atomic Energy about lb,- advisability of exporting radioisotopes produced in American atomic energy plants and laboratories. Here, said Oppenheimer, "is one- of the few areas In which we are- free- lei act the way we would like- lee ait. generously, imaginatively ami decently; in the things thai involve security we are inhibited from doing that . . .' This emotional revulsion from security as nut "decent" hail ;i logical corollary. Dr. Oppenheimer told the Graj Board in April 1951. speaking eef his association with sometime Communisl David Hawkins. "I discussed security with him many times. His views and mine were in agreement. ' Lewis I.. Strauss had quite other \iews. On ace,emit ol them he losl favor wilh an important segment of lhe Ame-r- Page 34 ican press which ill 1910 had praised his appointment lo lhe AEC. Bul he won tbe respect of Congress and of Eisenhower, lb' was appointed anil enthusiastically confirmed as AEC chairman in the summer of 1953, after an absence of three years from tin- AEC executive offices al 1901 Constitution A\ e'llllC. Ill The' severest criticism of Admiral Slrauss is lhal of Joseph and Stewart Alsop. who have written: "We aei use- Oppenheimer's chief judge, the Ch.finnan eel the Atomic Energy Com- mission, Admiral Lewis Strauss, ...of venting thc bitterness of "l'l disputes through the security system ol this country." This charge' means, logically, either that Strauss ought to he impeached or the Alsop brothers convicted of libel. It is a serious charge against the honesty and patriotism of a man wilh a distinguished public record of honesty and patriotism. The' -\lsops" accusation <,l Strauss ob- viousl) stems from their hysterical attachment lo Dr. Oppenheimer. The) see him on his return from Europe in 1929 with first-class training in the Nev, Physics a- "the- In ing, r ,el a revelation." Such a point of view must he curious I,, Arthur Compton, 1929 Nobel Prize winner, and to E. 0. Lawrence, Nobel laureate in 19>9 for his earlier invention of the' cyclotron on the same campus which Robert Oppenheimer appeared to the Msops I but nol to the Nobel Prize committee) t" dominate, I'lie Msops feel that the' decision in lln' Oppenheimer case a 7-2 decision at tin- highest levels "did ii"t disgrace Robert Oppenheimer; it dishonored ami disgraced tin- high name of American freedom." They see hope that the "forces in America which have created the climate in which Oppenheimer was judged may . . . break their teeth anil power on the Oppenheimer ease." IV The Oppenheimer case is one of the greal events ol recent history. It is probable that from 1945 to 1952 Robert Oppenheimer was lhe mosl powerful man in tin- world. Thai is based on the assumptions, 11 l lhal he was lhe mosl influential man in the I .S. alomie energy project. t2i lhal the Soviel atomic energy project was to us,- Oppenheimer's own word "imitative" of the I . S. project, (3) that tin- power relation between the I . S. ami the Soviel i nieen was the greal world issue of those years. The' 1 .S.-S.l . power relation is slill lln- great issue, anil tin- Soviel atom i- -till probably imitative "I the I . S. atom. For that matter. Roberl Oppenheimer still has a gn-ai deal of influence. Bul In- mi longer has an AEC "Q" clearance, and In' is no longer lln- mosl influential man in lhe project. Slrauss is by no means solely responsible for Oppenheimer's downfall. Harry Truman was the firsl official to a''1 against Oppenheimer, whom he would not reappoint to lln- General \dvisorJ Committee in 1952. Ami when tin- Com' mission came to vote in June 1951 it was met Lewi- Slraii-s win, wa- a minority of one. It wa- Henry Sim th. ph\si- ,-ist. Against Oppenheimer ami will' Slrauss were not only Joseph Campbell hut also Eugene Zuckert, often considered a Fair Deal administrator, am' Thomas I-!. Murray, another Truman appointee, who has opposed Strauss o" other issues. Yel it cm hen,IK be denied thai '& anyone- excepl Lewis Slrauss had been made Chairman in 1953 Oppenheime' would have retained till toda) his am" of infallibility. Ordinari, rules do not wink in tl" Oppenheimer ease-. Conviction of perjury sent Ili-s to jail and Vlsopian •"' cusation senl Paul Crouch to (loventry. Circumstantial rumors of extra-marital romance an- ordinaril) considered damaging to officeholders. Bul Oppenheiffl' er, who has admitted adulter) and a* milled the mosl elaborate and deliberate lying in the most serious cin-nnislan'''" quite over and above admitting l'"' most involved, intimate, and prolong''' association with Communists is still called "seer and saint." Men- astonishment, or outrage, is h"1 an eiele-ipiiiti- response lo ibis phcnoll"" noil. Why saint? That anyone can publich call Opp<'"' heimer a saint after all thai has I"'1'1 published aboul him means thai the- p-v cholog) of Roberl Oppenheimer ma) '" a good deal less complex and nnsleii""" than the psycholog) of the •.merit*11 public. iel he has had a greal Fall, and neither the king's horses, men. nor Fel»"i' I!. Murrow can quite put his form? reputation together again. Only, il '" worth noting thai lhe Humph Dump1! who survives such a fall cracked i"1' recognizable was hard-boiled in ''''' firsl place. Robert Oppenheimer maj yel come •'' the wen over. Hi- life ha-' been <l""''j -,' long. His two professorships -in"1 taneously, one al Berkeley and one ■' Cal-Tech; his philosophic preoccup" linn with "complementarity." the I11'"' ciple b) which logicall) antagonistic ''"._' ories are both accepted in practice; ''' ambiguous relationship with Comm0/'' nists and communism, supporting ',' Party, favoring its members, befrie"' ing Bernard Peters, yel refusing to j""'' condemning it- principles, and de- '.''. ing Peters to the I n- American \'liv'"'|' Committee all thi- suggests thai "' FACTS FORUM NEWS, Marel , Proti '"'M'Ts
File Name uhlib_1352973_v004_n003_036.jpg