Last Wednesday the American press reported a 54-page statement by the Educational Policies Commission of the National Education Association. The statement, "American Education and International Tensions," was made by "20 of the nation's top educators." The newspaper stories shocked a few people, surprised a lot more. Among those both shocked and surprised were "20 of the nation's top educators."

When educators like President Conant and General Dwight D. Eisenhower picked up their papers that afternoon, they could hardly recognize the statement they had helped to form. The newspapers and the wire services had all done the same thing. They had lifted one sentence from page 39 of the statement and "led" with it: "Members of the Communist Party of the United States should not be employed as teachers."

Less than one of the 54 pages was devoted to this issue; but the newsmen exhausted this material before moving on to the other 53. In most cases, this meant only the briefest mention of the rest of the statement.

Even in the papers' treatment of the single page on the Communist teachers issue, the "20" saw a distortion. One of the three paragraphs read, in part, "we condemn the careless, incorrect, and unjust use of such words as 'Red' and 'Communist' to attack teachers and other persons who in point of fact are not Communists, but who merely have views different from those of their accusers." Reporters either deleted this section entirely or moved it much lower in their stories. The result, for most readers, was a simple statement that Communists should be banned from the teaching profession--top educators had come around and were finally siding with the "Little Dies" committees.

Judging from the liberal records of many of the Educational Policies Commission, the "20" had an entirely different idea of what they had done. All of them undoubtedly thought they were aiding academic freedom, not injuring it. First, they had established themselves on the "right side" by condemning Communist teachers. Once on the "right side," they thought their attacks on smear tactics would be heeded. Since they sincerely believed that Communists were "unfit" to teach, they felt they should say so if, in the process, "'investigations,' book-banning, and efforts at intimidation" of non-Communists be cut down.

Unfortunately, although the "20" knew education and knew the clashing ideologies of the world today, they did not know newspapers, or, more fundamentally, what is considered newsworthy. Thus the whole statement, at least in its first fruits, completely backfired. Moreover, this backfire goes far deeper than the average newspaper reader; it goes down to the average educator, to the school board member in Green Bay, Wisconsin. This school board member will probably never read the complete statement of the "20." From his newspaper, however, he has gathered that top educators believe in tossing out the "Reds"--"Reds" exactly in the "incorrect, unjust use" which the "20" condemned.

The "20" cannot allow this misconseption of their statement to stand. President Conant, both as one of the "20" and as the head of an institution which has always meant academic freedom, cannot let this misconception stand. He must make a statement, in Harvard's name as well as his own, contradicting the impression left by the press. We are fundamentally opposed to the President's position that Communists per se are unfit as teachers, but we are confident that his ideals are completely incompatible with those of the "Little Dies" committees. We are confident he would oppose any action resembling a "witch-hunt."

But President Seymour of Yale has also opposed "witch-hunts." Instead of "witch-hunts," Yale accepted secret reports, FBI interference, and their consequence--fear. Thus, to avoid suspicion that anything of that nature will take place at Harvard, President Conant must go beyond opposition to "witch-hunts." He must state categorically what criteria will and what criteria will not be used for keeping Communists off the faculty. He must do all this first, because until he does, there will be room for doubt within the Harvard academic community. Second and most important, he must do this to re-establish Harvard as a leader in the fight to preserve the faltering integrity of the American university.