Since the proposal to repeal the Teachers' Oath was voted down yesterday in the Legislature by only four votes, it seems likely that the active participation of Harvard in the campaign against this law might have changed defeat into victory. That the university can advance arguments to justify its decision to play a passive role in the struggle for repeal this year is undoubtedly true. For there is some question as to whether this oath does really endanger civil liberties. And, even if the law is a menace to intellectual freedom, it may not be wise for Harvard to stir once more local antagonism by advocating its repeal.

The Teachers' Oath is in theory a harmless law which requires teachers to swear allegiance to the Federal and State Constitutions. Since Section 2a of this law stipulates that "nothing herein contained shall be construed to interfere in any way with the basic principles of the Constitution which assures every citizen freedom of thought and speech," the oath does not appear to deviate too far from the precepts of democracy. But, unfortunately, this law has quite a different de facto meaning when it is enforced in a community where there is strong local feeling against alien social systems like Communism and Socialism. Using the pledge to uphold the Constitution as a convenient excuse, local authorities have time and time again made this law an effective barrier against teaching any theory or fact that might tend to alter the established order. Thus in practice the Teachers' Oath has proved a menace to the democratic system; and Harvard, as a liberal institution of learning, should actively support every effort to destroy this restriction upon intellectual liberty.

There is, however, the second consideration. The university's opposition to this bill in the past has not exactly improved its relations with local authorities, and it is only within the last two months that conciliatory measures have somewhat improved this situation. Should Harvard now join the fight for repeal of the Oath, the supporters of the law would almost certainly attempt to arouse "town-gown" feeling again. Thus, in the final analysis, the university is confronted with the dilemma of whether to defend freedom of thought and increase local animosity or to ignore officially the struggle over this bill and let the matter drop.

The answer to this question is almost inherent in the statement of the problem. No matter how harmless the law may read, the Teachers' Oath does actually qualify liberty of thought and speech. The law may not now infringe upon the freedom of the university, but that it may do so in the near future is quite conceivable. Either the present Act may expand in scope or it may simply be the wedge for more stringent laws. Obviously, in contrast to such a threat, any considerations of "town-gown" relations are insignificant. Harvard must again employ all its influence and prestige to help defeat a law which might some day destroy its own intellectual freedom.