Finally, I would like to point out that "Immunizing the Lubells" is an incorrect title for your editorial. Since "immunize" means 'to protect' you certainly do not propose the immunizing of may brother and me since by your so-called reasoning we are already 'diseased'. But it must be the Law School and the legal profession that is to be protected. It is hard to believe that the editors of the CRIMSON have taken such a position for they must know that the vigor of our democracy stems from and depends on the American people having a opportunity to examine and choose from varying ideas and ideas. I was also under the impression that the CRIMSON editors had sough confidence in that ideas and a low enough estimate of the ideas which they appear to believe I hold to allow for their free circulation.

I hope that this letter will be seriously considered. It is more than my reputation, more than the CRIMSON's name that is in issue. Viewed in perspective it is whether this attack on political liberties, perhaps the broadest in out history, shall be defeated.  Jenathan Lubell 3L.

Mr. Lubell, as well as his recent defenders, seems to be asking the Law Review to apply legal standard in it decisions, as if election to the Review were some sort of civil right deniable only by judicial process. But innocence of crimes is but one of the qualifications for a position of honor and trust. He also insists that one who is a member of and recruiter for the Communist party--and these are not lease but overt sets--will net use what influence and experience he can got from positions like editorship of the Review to harm to the future the legal profession. This view grows more patently naive with each year of the Cold War. We borrowed the term "Communist-dominated" not from McCarthy, but from the Harvard Corporation's policy on Professors Furry and Markham. It does not refer to these who think things which Communists else think, but these who knowingly take instructions from the Communist Party.

Lubell's belated avowal that his is willing to testify as to his loyalty, his interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, his condemnation of investigations, and his reference to religious and ethical reasons for not testifying against others do not change our opinion that the Law Review's decision was correct, because his performance before the Jenner Committee was both childish and harmful to this community.

It is all very well to fall back on the legalistic implications of the Fifth Amendment. But an intelligent individual remembers that this country, to which Lubell professes devotion, is in an extraordinary period of its history, in which a powerful Communistic system threatens its form of government. That Senator McCarthy says this dose not modify its truth, no segregation makes segregation more just. Individuate associated with universities do not represent only themselves when they testify. Lubell easy he does not want to incriminate others, yet he falls to realize that in the public eye his refusal to testify about Communist affiliation harms a close community such as Harvard almost as much as direct evidence. Not refusal to testify, but frank testimony on such matters, will end the "inquisitorial" tend. Silence adds vehemence to the investigators and the public supporting them.

If Lubell were convinced that the inquiry was "repugnant to the spirit of the First Amendment" and if he wished to avoid implicating others, he might have adopted the tactics of calculated attempt, successfully adopted by Irving Goldman of Sarah Lawrence College, among others, without any reprisal on the part of the Jenner Committee. That is to say, Lubell might have spoken freely about has own past, stated that he is not under Communist direction, and then refused to speak about anyone else. Of course, this subjects him to a possible contempt charge, but there are many lawyers looking for just such a charge with the strong desire of fighting it in the courts.

Instead, he answered some questions, refused others, and left the impression that he was a junior cloak and dagger man, fighting the committee because of some juvenile idea that he would be acclaimed a liberal here. In doing so, he ignored certain responsibilities to the Law School and the University, showing himself as one who could not be trusted. With the avowed policy of the American Bar Association, we can sea no reason why the Law Review should jeopardize its members' professional possibilities for the sake of an individual who has erred so greatly in his judgment. Neither can we see entrusting him with any position of high esteem. If another year in the law School can provide him with a little judgment to complement his high natural ability, that will be all to the good--EC