All officers of instruction are subject to removal by the Corporation only for grave misconduct or neglect of duty." Statutes of Harvard University, Section 3

Wendell Furry's actions before the House Un-American Activities Committee yesterday pose a problem to the Corporation which its members had hoped they would never face. A professor whose tenure is permanent has refused to state whether he is a Communist. Because the three headed investigation of education might begin thinking over what standards, what policies should apply.

If Professor Furry taught at Rutgers, Brooklyn College, or Queens, he would now find himself out of a job. Harvard's statutes, though, state expressly that a permanent members of the Faculty can be fired only if proven guilty of either misconduct or incompetence. In effect, the statutes are virtually clauses in a contract which binds the University. They, and most especially the one quoted above, are the context for the Governing Boards' decision on this case. Therefore, these are the questions the Administration must ask itself.

First, is Furry competent to teach? As far as we can tell, judging from the original decision to appoint him and from the comments of students whom he taught Physics, the answer is yes. When questioned, his students said he had never injected ideology into his lectures. In fact, on one or two occasions he deliberately brushed off questions with political overtones. If Furry actually is a Communist (which has, of course, yet to be proven), this has not marred his professional ability as it would have an instructor in more subjective fields such as the Social Sciences.

Irrelevant Beliefs

Second, is Furry guilty of "grave misconduct?" Not on the evidence dug up so far. Even if he had been proven a Communist, his tenure should be safe for, except in Georgia, there is nothing illegal in being a CP member. The University should not consider his actions examples of "grave misconduct" until he has been proven guilty of breaking the law--whether it is a matter of perjury, robbery, treason, or any other substantive crime. In other words, a professor's political beliefs should be considered wholly irrelevant except where they influence his ability to teach and to research his subject.

We agree with Professors Sutherland and Chafee that a citizen should willingly give information to his government. But, regardless of the hasty generalization of public opinion, the refusal to incriminate oneself is not incriminating in itself. It is not a crime to keep one's mouth shut. In fact, it is a Constitutional privilege, framed to protect those who feel that any statement about certain subjects, be it confession or denial, will do them damage. We do not pretend to know why Furry wished to use his Constitutional right, but the reasons, through the history of American law, have been many.

From all the evidence now public, then, there is clearly no proof that Furry has violated his contract with the University. Further testimony and investigation may dig up new facts, but until then the Corporation should neither dismiss Furry or suspend him.

For the University's public relations, this is the hard way out. It will add to the arsenal of the University's opponents: They will howl that there is now a man on the Faculty who will not say he is not a Communist. But for the legal and moral foundations of the tenure rules, it is a necessity. It will be a black day for American education when this University is frightened enough to break the contract of a man so far innocent in order to placate a more cowardly public. It has never done so in the past, and we are sure it will never do so in the future.