Zeitlin has been a frequent exponent of the "we made Castro a Communist” theme.

After the 1960 riots against the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Zeitlin was part of a delegation which called on the San Francisco mayor to complain about police attempts to quell the rioters.

He also cites a report in the University of Wisconsin newspaper (December 12, 1965) that Zeitlin would address a December "sympathy rally" for the University of California "free speech rebels." The main speaker at the rally was Bettina Aptheker. (We have already testified on this.) At any rate, our report piqued the interest of the editor of Tocsin. He looked back to the San Francisco riots against the House Committee on Un-American Activities in 1960. Tocsin said, and I am quoting:

While on the Berkeley campus as a graduate student, Zeitlin in 1961 denounced the U.S. role in the Cuban Bay of Pigs Invasion and was active within the Berkeley Fair Play for Cuba Committee and as a leader of the UC Student Forum on Cuba. The Forum, according to the Communist People's World of January 14, 1961, had as its aims the restoration of U.S.-Cuban relations.

Mr. LITTMAN. Mr. Siegrist, don't you want that to go into the appendix?

Mr. SIEGRIST. We will let that ride, let me go down here.

Notable among the Zeitlin defenders was Robert P. Kaufman, now an important Marxist youth leader at UC.

It went on to say that Kaufman recently coauthored a pamphlet with Bettina Aptheker defending the "Free Speech" rebels. It was published by the W. E. B. DuBois Clubs.

It said that after the 1960 riots against the House Committee on Un-American Activities, Zeitlin was part of a delegation which called on the San Francisco mayor to complain about police attempts to quell the rioters.

One thing here was particularly interesting to me: "Zeitlin has been a frequent exponent of the 'we made Castro a Communist' theme."

This was particularly interesting to me, because in the 1-hour telephone conversation that I had with Professor Zeitlin, he told me that it was such persons in America as Bob Siegrist who had exposed Castro's Communist background, as I had done back to his participation in the Bogotá riots, who had driven a very nice revolutionary into the camp of the Communists. This was not a new line to me.

From seeing Zeitlin in action on the Capitol steps and from my hour's telephone conversation with him I must say that we cannot detract from the man's brilliance and ability to debate, which is obviously attractive and impressionable to young students.

After he had hit me with his "You-made-Castro-a-Communist theme," I pointed out to him that Castro himself had admitted this, that he had been a Communist as a student, so Zeitlin said, and this is basically an accurate quote, "Don't you know? Haven't you heard, that was a document completely fradulent? Castro never said it at all."

This is the technique used by these people on young minds who have no recourse at all. This is a typical type of technique by many of these professors. The students have no way of answering. Some students have told me, "We have got to go along with what we have to

accept, and we have to put those answers on our tests if we want to pass the course."

These extra-curricular activities very frequently show very, very seriously how a student is rated in courses which have no direct pertinency, really, to the subject at hand. There is no sharp division, no pigeonholing of how these professors think, or of where, and how, they do their thinking and express it. They are thinking basically in these terms constantly regardless of what their official assignments may be. Generally speaking, the professors take the fullest advantage of their positions and status.

Mr. LITTMAN. Dr. Possony testified yesterday, Mr. Siegrist, as you may recall, that there is vast difference in meaning when Communists and Americans use the same terms. Perhaps his lexicon

Mr. SIEGRIST. Dr. Possony's lexicon being what, sir?

Mr. LITTMAN. Would it be well that something similar to that, if not the very type of language used in contrast between the American thought and the Soviet thought, that sort of thing be used as an education measure?

Mr. SIEGRIST. Yes, but we are talking about trying to beef things up-to improve them from a pro-American viewpoint. First we have to teach the teachers. We have a generation and a half of people in America who have been imbued with the philosophy which is now being demonstrated by many professors, such as the Rices and the Zeitlins and the Phelans and others, and blindly accepted by young students.

Now I would like to say one thing, the way this interesting conversation was stimulating.

Mr. LITTMAN. With Zeitlin?

Mr. SIEGRIST. The way it ended up with Professor Zeitlin on the phone that day. It was all very friendly, and I wanted to keep it that way. I am sure the professor did. After all my business is not to be unfriendly. I was learning something. I pointed out that I had known many Cuban exiles, such as Pedro Diaz Lanz, with whom this subcommittee is very familiar, and who, after giving this subcommittee vital testimony, came out to my home in Milwaukee, and gave some interesting broadcasts in which he said Castro was a Communist. After I mentioned Pedro and my relationship with him, Professor Zeitlin suddenly resorted to a surprising logic and rationale, sort of a defense: "Some of my best friends are Čuban exiles."

With that I laughed. There were a few remarks about the nature of that remark, and the conversation was ended. But that was a peculiar, sudden falling away of the Zeitlin line, it seemed to me.

Mr. LITTMAN. Mr. Siegrist, in connection with the report to the subcommittee of your conversation for an hour on the phone with Professor Maurice Zeitlin, I observed that you are testifying from

notes.

Mr. SIEGRIST. They were notes I made at the time of that conversation. I cannot give you the specific date of that conversation, but it was at least 60 days ago.

To pick up the chronology, after I had been attacked, after Senator Leonard had been attacked, and after Senator Roseleip had been attacked when he supported Senator Leonard and supported me and, incidentally, after former Congressman Charles Kersten, former Congressman Schadeberg, formerly on the House Committee on

Un-American Activities, had been attacked: On January 28th my Newsletter triggered the controversy which began with the Cardinal, and ran through the DuBois Club, and the Committee To End the War in Viet Nam.

On January 20th Senator Leonard demanded the Board of Regents' investigation.

By February 1st Senator Leonard and I were under heavy attack, as were such supporters as Senator Roseleip and former Congressmen Kersten and Schadeberg. So were my sponsors.

By February 7th the so-called "Cardinal controversy" was raging at full pitch. Much of the controversy had been fanned by misrepresentations, by incomplete, inaccurate, and biased reporting, and by a fantastic amount of ostrichlike issue begging on the part of members of the university's administration and faculty. So, on that date, I delivered my special 1-hour radio-TV report on the facts as they My Newsletter of February 12 which I have offered in evidence was taken from the script that I used during the first half hour, which was an objective review of the first week of that controversy. The last half-hour featured my documentation of the glaring similarities between the Daily Cardinal and the Worker between December 2d and 18th.

The last few minutes of that report featured some ad lib comments in which I suggested that certain of the arguments were rather academic and semantic in view of the fact that, earlier that day, President Johnson had ordered U.S. warplanes to bomb Red North Viet Nam in retaliation for the Communists' vicious attack upon U.S. installations in South Viet Nam earlier that day.

As I recited this morning in public testimony, however, Communist Party leaders, meeting, that same afternoon, in Chicago, ordered a campaign of telegrams to Washington and of demonstrations in the streets in "condemnation" of the President's action. It was that very evening of February 7 that the student meeting to which I referred in public session was held in the Memorial Union on the University of Wisconsin campus.

From that meeting came the Ad Hoc Committee To End the War in Viet Nam, with its Capitol steps demonstrations on February 9, 13, and 14, and the subsequent actions through which the group, now known as the Faculty-Student Committee To End the War in Viet Nam is now trying to end the war, Communist fashion, if I may say so, in the Dominican Republic.

On February 10, the Cardinal published a page-one report on the February 9th demonstration. I offer a copy in evidence. (It also reports some of the things that Professors Rice and Zeitlin and others had to say that day. Further, it carries an editorial arguing for U.S. withdrawal from Viet Nam.) It also carried a picture showing Bob Siegrist with two police officers in plain clothes photographing the Capitol steps demonstration.

(The photograph referred to follows:)

Interested-Among the interested viewers of Tuesday's demonstration at the capitol protesting the U.S. bombing of North Vietnam were two Madison policemen and a local news commentator. The three, shown above, are from left: Bob Siegrist, a Madison newsman who buys time on WKOW radio each weeknight; special investigator Sylvian Kindschi; and Inspector Norman Ehle (holding camera). The policemen said they were making training films on crowd-handling techniques.-Cardinal photos by Jean Johnson and Doug Hull.

At the time the February 9th demonstration began I did not know that those gentlemen were police officers. I thought they were newsreel photographers. There was a sleet storm. Members of the press were permitted to go through the capitol office of the Wisconsin Secretary of State out onto various balconies, and to cover this demonstration.

I walked out onto a balcony with these two apparent newsreel men. I struck up a rather typical discussion in which we exchanged remarks on the estimated size of the crowd, and so forth. Suddenly, one of the men asked, "Who are you?" I said, "I am Bob Siegrist." He said, "I am Inspector Ely." He then introduced his partner, Investigator Kindschi. But that was all the Cardinal needed to imply that there was some sinister relationship. The Cardinal promptly launched a campaign charging "police intimidation" and violation of student rights, etc. It was taken up by people in the city of Madison of left persuasion. Note that this was right at the time when we were hearing a great deal about "police brutality." It tied in beautifully. Police Chief Wilbur Emery replied that the photography was in compliance with a policy which had begun in 1952; that the objective was to further a study of crowd control.

Despite the screams, the policy was continued with the February 13 and 14 demonstrations. It is worthy of note that, on the 13th, a young man from the East, whom I do not know, who was a picket captain that day, flashed a mirror to reflect the rays of the sun into the eyes and the lenses of the police photographer, Inspector Ely, arguing that the police photographer was violating his rights.

It is important to inject this observation here: This young man was something of a regular in connection with the activities of this leftwing group. I hand you a picture of him. It was taken as he and

others of that cult boarded a chartered Badger Coach Lines bus at the Memorial Union, at 11:30 a.m., on April 16th, for the April 17th March on Washington. At that time, I attempted, as on February 13th, to inquire regarding his identity. Again, he refused.

This is a good, and typical case in point, Mr. Chairman. These people forever cry loudly for "freedom." In the case of my disclosures regarding the Cardinal, they cried, "freedom of the press." They also cry, "freedom of speech," and "freedom of assembly." Yet, when a working newsman seeks to gain information from them, they refuse to cooperate. This is a part of a very significant pattern. For, among other things, these people presume that freedom is something of a one-way street. They presume that they can rush out into the streets, or onto government grounds, and place themselves squarely into the public domain, complete with "condemning" the policy of the President and the Government of the United States, just as they condemn newsmen who, as I, labor in the interest of the public's right to know. Yet, these same grossly misguided people arrogantly resent and resist every effort to photograph them in their massive public actions, or to inquire as to their identity. One cannot help, among other things, but suspect that they honestly believe that they have something to hide, that they are doing something of which, in reality, they should be ashamed. In fact, the editorial arguments by the Cardinal in opposition to police photography clearly indicated that fact. In short, they scream "democracy," but, in reality, they seem to hate any aspect of it which, at a given moment, doesn't seem to serve their narrow objective.

Mr. LITTMAN. Continue.

Mr. SIEGRIST. As regards this young picket captain, a heavy-set, dark, young man with the horn rimmed glasses seen in a picture I have here, heading for the March on Washington, as I say, I tried to talk with him after he had flashed a mirror in the eyes and the lens of police photographer Ely-who was working from within the office of the Secretary of State on February 13th. But, he would not give me his name, just propaganda about his self-assumed rights, although, incidentally, the police camera had not been trained on him as a subject-but on the crowd below the steps upon which the speakers, and this young man, and the press, were standing.

This was the same occasion on which Bill Tabb was serving as moderator. I was trying to get some information, as a working newsman, from Tabb, regarding the order of speakers, the proper spelling of their names, and so forth. Tabb was being very cooperative in that regard. Suddenly, a wild-eyed, tousled-haired, heavily bespectacled young man rushed up to Tabb. (Much later, Í was to learn that this excited young man was Fred Ciperon.)

I

Ciperon said to Tabb, "Why are you giving this man information?" Tabb, rather quietly said, "Because he is a reporter. It is Bob Siegrist" Ciperon said, "Who said he is a reporter? I have never heard him report anything. He is a Fascist."

I said to this fellow, "What is your name?" Typically, he said, "Why should you know my name?" Purely for the purpose of needling him, I said, "you have just charged me with being a Fascist before a group of people here, including reporters. If I ever want to sue you for libel I would like to have your name."

He disappeared immediately into the crowd. But this was typical of the strange thinking and conduct of these people.