Chair's position. If you get to the point you want to talk about the activities of a particular individual, leave that to executive session. Mr. MOORE. All right, sir. Well, I will say that the gentleman who led these demonstrations, who was the acknowledged spokesman, had no subversive background as far as I could determine. But it was very clear to me that he was manipulated by the hierarchy of the W.E. B. DuBois Club from the San Francisco Bay area.

Mr. LITTMAN. Mr. Moore, we are going to jump now to point this up. Has the intent of the Communist Party officially ever abated in this program of which you have spoken?

Mr. MOORE. No, sir; certainly not, not at the University of California, nor at universities across the country. The W. E. B. DuBois hierarchy has attempted and has established, I understand, a number of chapters in the universities in California and in some other universities in the country.

Mr. LITTMAN. Yes, sir.

Mr. MOORE. And as the Senator has said, this is an obvious Communist apparatus, the W. E. B. DuBois Club.

Mr. LITTMAN. Now, in support of your statement, I direct your attention, Mr. Moore, to the Worker, the official mouthpiece of the Communist Party for the past, and particularly the past few weeks, to indicate that interest remains very much alive on the part of the CP, USA, and ask you to identify the two prominent articles appearing May 11 and May 16, Sunday, of the Worker, 1965.

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir; I have seen these.

Mr. LITTMAN. Now, for the purpose of the record, would you describe each of the articles please, sir?

Mr. MOORE. Page 3 is a

Mr. LITTMAN. What date?
Mr. MOORE. I am sorry.

Mr. LITTMAN. The date.

Mr. MOORE. May 16, yesterday. This is a story relative to the recent revolt on the University of Ohio campus, Ohio State University, actually, wherein the students are concerned because there is a ban on allowing certain speakers to appear on the campus, in this case, Aptheker, who is a top Communist Party functionary. I might say that the University of California has no such ban, of course.

Mr. LITTMAN. Keep your voice up, please.

Mr. MOORE. The University of California has no such ban, of course, and the students out there were complaining that they did not have free speech and yet they have had representatives from every viewpoint and philosophy one can think of from Nazis to Communists speaking on the campus and still, they have rioted, seeking so-called free speech on that university campus.

Mr. LITTMAN. Now, the second article?

Senator DODD. You want to put that in the record?
Mr. LITTMAN. Put them in as one exhibit.

Senator DODD. All right.

Mr. LITTMAN. Describe that too, Mr. Moore, the date.

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir. This is an article from the Worker of May 11 in which, as usual, the FBI is condemned for its comments concerning and its interest in the W. E. B. DuBois Clubs. I think it is natural to find this in the Worker.

Mr. LITTMAN. All right, sir, we would offer, Senator, these articles from both the Worker of May 11 and May 16, 1965, as an exhibit. Senator DODD. Let me see them. All right.

(The articles from the Daily Worker are as follows:)

[From the Worker, May 16, 1965]

REVOLT ON OHIO UNIVERSITY CAMPUS FIGHTS BAN ON APTHEKER

By Mike Davidow

A democratic revolt is shaking Ohio State University, a bastion of McCarthyite repression.

The target of the upsurge is the university's 115-year-old gag rule adopted during the hysteria of the 1950's and only slightly amended since it gives the president of the university the power to determine what speakers can be invited on the campus.

The issue that triggered off the latest and most powerful wave of rebellion was the OSU administration's refusal to permit Dr. Herbert Aptheker, historian, to speak on the campus.

Aptheker was invited to speak May 10 on "The Civil Rights Movement: A Marxist Analysis," by a campus group, the Students for Liberal Action.

The fight for the right to hear Aptheker has transformed this huge university of some 30,000 students and faculty into a battleground for free speech.

The struggle, appropriately, is led by the Free Speech Front which in a few weeks conducted two sit-ins, one all night-held 4 rallies involving more than 8,000 students and faculty members, secured the support of one-third of the faculty of 509 professors, and mustered over 6,000 student signatures on a petition against house bill designated to reenforce the gage rule (as a State financed university Ohio State is subject to legislative measures).

The student senate also unanimously opposed the restrictive legislation.

The free speech struggle has developed into a contest between most of the student body and faculty on one side and the longstanding outside pressure of Ohio reactionary forces grouped particularly around the Republican Party, on the other. And in the middle stands the unhappy but thus far quiescent administration led by President Novice G. Fawcett.

The aim of the Free Speech Front is to rescind the speakers ban rule and end the 15-year reign of reactionary pressure that has kept one of the Nation's largest universities a prisoner of McCarthyism long after most others managed to free themselves in large measure from the restraints of the fearsome 1950's. Judging from the broad character of the movement which has arisen, and the determined nature of the struggle, Ohio State may soon enter the independent 1960's.

What is particularly impressive in this free speech fight is the large scale support of the faculty.

One hundred and twenty-seven professors and assistant professors, including practically the entire history department, supported the right of students to hear Aptheker on the campus in a three-quarter page advertisement in the Ohio State Lantern, the university publication.

Among the signers was Prof. Foster Rhea Dulles, nephew of John Foster Dulles, Secretary of State in President Eisenhower's administration.

The statement sponsored by the Committee for Study of Alternatives, pointed out, "Dr. Aptheker is one of the foremost Marxist scholars in the country-a man who is obviously qualified to speak to us about "The Civil Rights Movement: A Marxist Interpretation."

It urged students and faculty to raise the cry "Let us hear the alternatives," and declared: "The danger to our society is greater from those who would bar those who have alternatives to suggest than is that posed by those who suggest the alternatives."

The Lantern, April 28, reported that five recipients of Ohio State's alumni awards for distinguished teaching for 1965 called for the rescinding of the gag on speakers and supported Aptheker's right to be heard on university grounds. Prof. James F. Fullington, one of the signers, said that "if a student can't hear a Communist's views as told by a reputable Communist, how is he to understand communism?"

A letter in the same issue of the college newspaper signed by a group of faculty members largely made up of assistant professors of political science noted: "Dr. Aptheker possesses special qualifications to present a particular interpretation and evaluation, not otherwise readily available, of the vital public issue of civil rights, in the understanding of which we need all the help we can get. Furthermore, his qualifications make him a particularly appropriate spokesman for his point of view to university audiences: he holds the Ph. D. degree from Columbia University; he has published a number of books and articles related to the topic of his given lectures on many university campuses throughout the country.

Finally, nine assistant professors asked the university's permission to invite Aptheker to speak under their auspices as "a fellow scholar." The administration which based part of its defense of the speaker gag rule on the grounds that this would shield political unsophisticates, turned down their request. The significance of the active role played particularly by the assistant professors can be fully grasped when it is borne in mind that they do not have tenure.

The representative character of the student struggles was noted by the Ohio State Lantern April 26 which pointed out that the 300 students and faculty members who staged a sit-in April 23 in the administration building were a "cross section of university citizens."

It said that "among the students were dozens of the university's academic best, including several honors program participants and residents of the stadium scholarship dormitory" and "one of Ohio State's only two Woodrow Wilson fellowship winners this year."

The Woodrow Wilson fellow, Robert Jamison, said he was "willing to risk suspension or expulsion." He pointed out that he tried "signing petitions, picketing and so forth, and its gotten nowhere."

Outside, pickets carried signs quoting Locke, Voltaire, Montaigne, and F.D.R. One sign asked: "Could Socrates speak at OSU?" Before leaving the building the sit-inners sang "We Shall Overcome."

Typical of the sentiment of the demonstrators was the remark made by Sherry Johnson who declared that "if no one sticks behind their convictions then the American way isn't worth much."

The administration, recognizing the tidal wave of opposition to the speaker gag rule, attempted to appease the student and faculty body by promising objective reconsideration of the rule at the July meeting of the board of trustees.

Mrs. G. Fontana, chairman of the faculty advisory committee, in a statement published in the Lantern, April 26, acknowledged that the "climate has changed rapidly with regard to the board of trustees view." By delaying the issue until July the administration wanted to postpone the resolution of the issue to a time when most of the students and faculty have left the university.

The Free Speech Front insisted that the board of trustees act to rescind the gag rule before the summer. A Jeffrey Schwartz, one of its leaders, urged in addition that Aptheker be permitted to speak and that some support for the change in the speakers rule be indicated by the administration and the board of trustees.

The council of graduate students passed a resolution urging the board of trustees to modify its speakers rule at their May meeting or at a special meeting sometime during the month. It called the gag rule "detrimental to the best interests of the university."

The free speech fight in Ohio State demonstrates that the democratic upsurge on the Nation's campuses is universal and is now penetrating even those centers of learning still in the grip of the repression of the fifties. The day of the teachin can hardly tolerate the shackles of McCarthyism.

Aptheker delivered his lecture Monday, May 10, to an enthusiastic overflow crowd of 500 at the Universalist Church, East 16th Street.

The church is just at the edge of the campus.

The meeting which was conducted by the Students for Liberal Action was also supported by the Free Speech Front (a full account of the meeting will appear in the next issue of the Worker).

Aptheker left Columbus to lecture at Antioch and Oberlin Colleges. There he will address students and faculty on college grounds.

[From the Worker, May 11, 1965]

DUBOIS CLUBS CONDEMN FBI INVESTIGATION

OF STUDENT ACTIVITIES

The reported intention of the FBI to investigate student peace activities on New York City campuses was denounced last week by the W. E. B. DuBois Clubs as an attempt to curb any challenge to the Johnson administration's policy of "war escalation in Vietnam and intervention in the Dominican Republic."

The Journal-American reported Sunday, May 2, that the FBI would investigate student and DuBois Clubs peace activties.

"The preparations for the Korean war produced the Red scare of the fifties and the nightmare of McCarthyism," the DuBois Clubs declared in a statement to the press.

"The DuBois Clubs of New York, a socialist youth organization, is proud to say that they, along with hundreds of others on campuses and in communities throughout the country, have sponsored teach-ins, sit-ins, rallies, marches, and the huge demonstration of over 25,000 Americans in Washington, D.C., last April 17 to protest the war in Vietnam.

"We believe, as do many Senators, Congressmen, educators, trade union leaders, and clergymen, that this war is immoral and illegal. We believe it threatens the peace of the world."

The DuBois statement expressed the hope that the President would be turned away from the "insane war policies of the Goldwaters and ultrarightists and toward the policies of peace that the overwhelming numbers of Americans voted for in the 1964 election."

Mr. LITTMAN. Mr. Moore, you referred, or you quoted in one of the big headlines in the Worker, the name of Aptheker. You described this party as what?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir; Herbert Aptheker is an avowed top Communist Party functionary who resides in Berkeley, Calif. Well, he has had a relative involved in the demonstrations at the University of California in very high position as a matter of fact.

Mr. LITTMAN. Directed and counseled these demonstrations?

Mr. MOORE. Right; in a strategy role in this demonstration at the University of California. In fact, it was very clear that this person was behind Mario Savio-if you will pardon me again-after the spokesman whipped the drive into a frenzy, this young lady would get up and start expounding upon the Communist line and what the students should do at the University of California.

Mr. LITTMAN. Mr. Moore, this, too, was well publicized?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTMAN. What was his or her name?

Mr. MOORE. Her name is-the first name does not come to me, but the last name is Aptheker.

Mr. LITTMAN. May I suggest it might be Bettina?

Mr. MOORE. That is right, Bettina.

Mr. LITTMAN. Surname is?

Mr. MOORE. Bettina Aptheker, a student at the university and a member of the DuBois Club, and one of the founders out in California of the clubs.

Mr. LITTMAN. Yes, sir. Now, Mr. Moore, you suggested that this is by no means limited to the campus and by this, the interrogator means a program and interest on the part of the Communist Party of the United States.

Did any one of these people that you have already mentioned appear at more than one campus, thus demonstrating an interest in this Communist program at more than one campus?

The

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir; after the first disruption at the University of California, the leader of the revolt, along with Bettina Aptheker and two other leaders of the FSM movement, came across country. leader actually had his way paid across country by a broadcasting firm.

Mr. LITTMAN. The leader had his way paid?

Mr. MOORE. Yes, sir.

Mr. LITTMAN. By whom, sir?

Mr. MOORE. By the American Broadcasting Co., because he was appearing on the "Les Crane Show" in New York, as I recall.

Mr. LITTMAN. You established that fact, out of his own mouth? Mr. MOORE. Oh, yes. He admitted this; yes, sir.

Senator DODD. Wait a minute. I am not sure I understand you. You said he was paid through something.

Mr. MOORE. Excuse me, sir; his expenses across country to appear on this particular television show were paid by the broadcasting company, according to him.

Senator DODD. That has nothing to do with what went on in the university.

Mr. MOORE. No, sir; except that it did give him an opportunity to stop off and appear at a number of other university campuses across the country.

Senator DODD. Well, I know, but I think we must keep the record straight. It is one thing for a man to make a trip for which he is paid and have an opportunity to stop off and do some other things that are necessary.

Mr. MOORE. No, sir; I did not mean to imply that the American Broadcasting Co. paid his way across the country so that he could spread the word of the FSM.

(The following letter and its acknowledgment were subsequently ordered into the record):

Hon. JAMES O. EASTLAND,

MAY 20, 1965.

Chairman, Internal Security Subcommittee, Committee on the Judiciary of the U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C.

Dear Mr. EASTLAND: According to the New York Times of May 18, 1965, Mr. Charles E. Moore of the International Association of Chiefs of Police appeared and testified before your subcommittee on May 17, 1965; and with reference to Mr. Mario Savio, spokesman for the free speech movement in the student demonstrations at the University of California last fall, it was indicated by Mr. Moore that the American Broadcasting Co. had paid the expenses of Mr. Savio to come East to participate in a program and that Mr. Savio used the trip to visit other campuses.

We do not have Mr. Moore's actual testimony in this matter, but in view of the statement in the Times we are taking this opportunity to provide you and your subcommittee with the facts concerning Mr. Savio's appearance on the Les Crane program to which Mr. Moore had reference.

The "Les Crane Show" a program series telecast over the ABC Television Network from 11:30 p.m. to 1 a.m., New York time, Monday through Friday each week, during the period from November 9, 1964, to February 26, 1965. The premise of the program was to present in a conversational format current topics of interest or newsworthiness to the viewing audience. In presenting this program in journalistic fashion, various guests were brought to our studios in New York from time to time to discuss with Les Crane matters which were controversial and stimulating.

In this instance, when the producer of the program determined that the controversy surrounding the activities of the free speech movement was such a matter, he invited Mr. Savio and several of his associates representing the free speech movement to appear on a segment of the program which was pre