• U.S.

National Affairs: THE ISSUES BEYOND THE INDIVIDUAL

7 minute read
TIME

In finding Robert Oppenheimer a security risk, the Gray board decided “to examine some of the great issues and problems brought into focus by the case” because “many of these are perhaps more important than the outcome of this inquiry.” Excerpts from the board’s statement of such “General Considerations”:

Can a Loyalty Risk Be Rehabilitated?

WE, as a board, firmly believe that this can be the case, and, if we may be permitted something in the nature of a dictum, we believe that this principle should be a part of the security policy of the United States Government. The necessary but harsh requirements of security should not deny a man the right to have made a mistake if its recurrence is so remote a possibility as to permit a comfortable prediction as to the sanity and correctness of future conduct . . .

Can an Individual Be Loyal and Still a Security Risk?

Because the security interests of this country may be endangered by involuntary act, as well as by positive conduct of a disloyal nature, personal weaknesses of an individual may constitute him a security risk . . . even though in every case accompanied by a deep love of country.

There remains also an aspect of the security system which perhaps has had insufficient public attention. This is the protection and support of the entire system itself. It must include an understanding and an acceptance of security measures adopted by responsible Government agencies. It must include an active cooperation with all agencies of Government properly and reasonably concerned with the security of our country. It must involve a subordination of personal judgment as to the security status of an individual as against a professional judgment in the light of standards and procedures when they have been clearly established by appropriate process. It must entail a wholehearted commitment to the preservation of the security system and the avoidance of conduct tending to confuse or obstruct.

The board would assert the right of any citizen to be in disagreement with security measures and any other expressed policies of Government. This is all a part of the right of dissent which must be preserved for our people. But the question arises whether an individual who does not accept and abide by the security system should be a part of it.

Should Security Decisions Be Influenced By Possible Impact Upon Other Scientists?

The board takes cognizance of the serious alarm . . . that denial of clearance to Dr. Oppenheimer would do serious harm in the scientific community. This is a matter of vital concern to the Government and the people.

We should express our considered view that, because the loyalty or security risk status of a scientist or any other intellectual may be brought into question, scientists and intellectuals are ill-advised to assert that a reasonable and sane inquiry constitutes an attack upon scientists and intellectuals generally. This board would deplore deeply any notion that scientists are under attack in this country and that prudent study of any individual’s conduct and character within the necessary demands of the national security could be either in fact or in appearance a reflection of anti-intellectualism.

The board has taken note of the fact that in some cases of this sort groups of scientists have tended towards an almost professional opposition to any inquiry about a member of the group. They thus, by moving in a body to the defense of one of their number, give currency, credence and support to a notion that they as a group are under attack.

We know that scientists, with their unusual talents, are loyal citizens, and, for every pertinent purpose, normal human beings. We must believe that they, the young and the old and all between, will understand that a responsible Government must make responsible decisions. If scientists should believe that such a decision in Government, however distasteful with respect to an individual, must be applicable to his whole profession, they misapprehend their own duties and obligations as citizens.

In this connection, the board has been impressed, and in many ways heartened by the manner in which many scientists have sprung to the defense of one whom many felt was under unfair attack. This is important and encouraging when one is concerned with the vitality of our society. However, the board feels constrained to express its concern that in this solidarity there have been attitudes so uncompromising in support of science in general, and Dr. Oppenheimer in particular, that some witnesses have, in our judgment, allowed their convictions to supersede what might reasonably have been their recollections.

How Large Should Be the Role of Technical Advisers In Policy Decisions?

We must address ourselves to the natural constraints and the particular difficulties inherent in the AEC program itself. As a nation we find it necessary to delegate temporary authority with respect to the conduct of the program and the policies to be followed to duly elected representatives and appointive officials as provided for by our constitution and laws. For the most part, these representatives and officials are not capable of passing judgment on technical matters and. therefore, appropriately look to specialists for advice. We must take notice of the current and inevitable amplification of influence, which attaches to those giving advice under these circumstances. These specialists have an exponential amplification of influence which is vastly greater than that of the individual citizen.

It must be understood that such specialists did not. as scientists, deliberately create this condition. For example, Dr. Oppenheimer served his Government because it sought him. The impact of his influence was felt immediately, and increased progressively as his services were used. The nation owes these scientists, we believe, a great debt of gratitude for loyal and magnificent service. This is particularly true with respect to Dr. Oppenheimer . . .

Any man, whether specialist or layman, of course, must have the right to express his deep moral convictions; must have the privilege of voicing his deepest doubts. We can understand the emotional involvement of any scientist who contributed to the development of atomic energy and thus helped to unleash upon the world a force which could be destructive of civilization . . . Emotional involvement in the current crisis, like all other things, must yield to the security of the nation.

Dr. Oppenheimer himself testified: “I felt, perhaps quite wrongly, that having played an active part in promoting a revolution in warfare, I needed to be as responsible as I could with regard to what came of this revolution.”

We have no doubt that other distinguished and devoted scientists have found themselves beset by a similar conflict.

It is vitally important that Government and scientists alike understand the need for and value of the advice of competent technicians. This need is a present and a continuing one. Yet, those officials in Government who are responsible for the security of the country must be certain that the advice which they seriously seek appropriately reflects special competence on the one hand, and soundly based conviction on the other, uncolored and uninfluenced by considerations of an emotional character.

In evaluating advice from a specialist which departs from the area of his specialty, officials charged with the military posture of our country must also be certain that underlying any advice is a genuine conviction that this country cannot in the interest of security have less than the strongest possible offensive capabilities in a time of national danger.

More Must-Reads from TIME

Contact us at letters@time.com