Regarding The Weavers blogs

Shortly after publishing the Addition to The Weavers blog below, I received an e-mail from the Manager of Information Services for The Education and Research Institute in Washington, D. C. who had tried to post a comment to it but got an error. I will quote below the highlights of his correspondence.

"McCarthy never tried to impose any loyalty oath. Loyalty oaths first appeared in the United States in the 1930s in connection with President Franklin Roosevelt's National Recovery Administration. They became common and in some cases mandatory during World War II. In 1947, President Truman promulgated executive order 9835, requiring loyalty oaths for current and prospective employees of the Federal government, and Civil Service Commission rules extended this to include employees of institutions funded by the Federal government. McCarthy had nothing to do with the loyalty oath of 1947, and in fact did not even enter the fray until his infamous Wheeling speech of 1950.

"Several states had their own state laws requiring loyalty oaths for employees of state government and institutions funded by state government. Among these was California, which required that instructors at state universities such as the Universty of California, Berkeley, take loyalty oaths. Needless to say, McCarthy had nothing to do with any of this.

"It's a shame that McCarthy routinely gets falsely blamed for the acts not just of HUAC, but of Truman, while Truman himself is generally lionized as a good Cold War liberal, as opposed to an evil McCarthyite. I agree with you that Evans' book is a much-needed antidote for this sort of thing."

It is unfortunate that the true story of the McCarthy years has been mostly hidden all these years, intentionally I believe. The media and many others share the responsibility for that. M. Stanton Evans' book, referred to in the blog below, corrects that record. It is troubling that even today individuals, who continue to throw "McCarthy" labels so carelessly at others, are not better informed.

As a new teacher in the State of Washington in 1962, mentioned also in the blog below, I signed a loyalty oath. I never have considered it intrusive or a violation of my rights. Since the state was ultimately my employer, requiring my signature on a loyalty oath was well within its purview. I did not have to sign; I could have sought employment elsewhere. Obviously, many thought loyalty oaths were intrusive, a violation of their rights, and made another decision regarding signing. There are lots of employer requirements for prospective employees that may be or seem onerous, such as drug testing, but employers are in control and well within their rights to make such requirements. Loyalty oaths were/are only one such requirement. In sensitive positions, and that could include colleges and universities receiving federal funds for certain projects, they should be mandatory. Requiring them for other positions is another matter, although I had no problem at a much younger age with signing the loyalty oath--one did not teach in the State of Washington without signing in 1962. I do think they are intrusive, onerous, and a violation of personal rights.

Copyright 2008 by Don Emerson