Letters, Jul. 5, 1954

(2 of 4)

Your comparison ... is an outrage. What is more, you are plenty bright enough to know it. To set himself above the Constitution, as McCarthy has done ... is tyranny. To seek new truths about the universe, as Oppenheimer has ever sought them ... is democracy in its noblest form . . .

MARGARET LEE SOUTHARD Hingham, Mass.

Sir:

The point of your article ... seems to be that no man has a right to place his own judgment above that of the state. Anything is "justified in the name of national interest and national survival." Such statements disturb me deeply. How is such a philosophy different from totalitarianism ? My ancestors came to this country as religious dissenters over 150 years ago to escape just such thinking. They wanted the freedom to obey their own consciences rather than the dicta of government . . .

ELAINE SOMMERS RICH North Newton, Kans.

Sir:

Atomic scientists who work their way conscientiously through the razor-sharp distinctions of the Gray report will have no illusions that it was conceived by anti-intellectuals. Trying to think up rebuttals to its spare, muscular propositions, as they will find out, is an exhilarating, exhausting mental workout.

(THE REV.) Ross CALVIN

St. James' Church Clovis, N. Mex.

Sir:

. . .The anti-intellectual battle is on ...

JOHN LEVINE Moncton, N.B.

Sir:

Credit to Gordon Gray for squarely facing the issues involved. The board has made it clear that their decision cannot be regarded as '"anti-science." But they have made it equally clear that their decision is ''anti-individual." In demanding that the individual relinquish responsibility for his actions, the decision should be regarded as "anti-religion."

It is drawing a thin line to grant "the right to express . . . deep moral conviction" and "the privilege of voicing . . . deepest doubts," but to deny "emotional involvement." The privilege to express and voice is surely an empty one, if the privilege to act is withheld . . .

JAS. P. HUSTON Toronto, Ont.

Sir:

Of the few editorial voices raised in support of the Gray board, TIME'S defense of its finding that Dr. Oppenheimer is a security risk is by all odds the ablest, most nearly persuasive. Yet even it fails to convince; for the board has dynamited its own findings in two particulars. First, in saying that Dr. Oppenheimer's loyalty plus a high degree of discretion are not enough. National security must be absolute, says the board. But to call for absolute security in a relative world is to erect a standard that only dull, timid, mediocre men can satisfy by their absolute conformity.