Against the rather grim cases of academic freedom violations, one stands out in comic relief. The happenings this year in Alabama would provide material for the funniest political satire since "Of Thee I Sing." It is, however, only because good sense finally won out over monumental blindness that the case can be viewed with any sort of amusement. The spirit that motivated Alabama's Act 888 is not funny.

The episode began on a hectic day in the Alabama legislature. It was the last business day in 1953 and there were many enactments and laws to consider before adjourning.

No one paid too much attention then when state legislator James B. Morgan of Birmingham presented a bill which he had written. It was called Act 888, the Schoolbook Labelling Law. The law was simple enough; it provided that authors and men mentioned in public schoolbooks who were members of communist or communist front groups should be identified and catalogued in the front of each book. Thus no child would be deceived as to the affiliations of the person mentioned in the school books.

If any of the state representatives doubted the wisdom of the bill, they were evidently reassured by Dr. W. J. Terry, the state superintendent of education and the chief sponsor of the bill.

The Senate passed the bill, 20 to 0. The House passed it, 62 to 1. Representative Wilkins of Mobile, not quite convinced by the bill and the logic of its backers, was the only Alabama legislator to vote against it.

Bill Unnoticed

The bill, passed as it was amidst much other legislation, lay unnoticed until last March when a schoolbook publishing house representative went into speak to the editor of the Montgomery Daily. Advertiser. The Advertiser shortly afterward published an editorial pointing to the restrictions and the basic absurdity of the new Act. The editorial labelled the law not a book burning act but a 'book toasting act."

At the time the Advertiser railed over Act 907 which denies the ballot to communists and to members of a communist front organization. This act also provided that communists must be fingerprinted by the Department of Public Safety and to turn in the police the names of all others who think as they do.

"Advertiser" Opposed

The Advertiser saw these two Acts as evidence of growing and enforced orthodoxy, and it asked that citizens "invariably and stoutly oppose these popular follies." The newspaper was soon supported in its crusade against Act 888 by schoolmen throughout the state.

As more examination was given the act it became clear that obeying it was a physical impossibility. The president of the Alabama Polytechnic Institute, for example, estimated that it would cost a million dollars simply to label the books in his college library in accordance with the law.

At this point even the parents of Act 888 could not defend it. As public protest and pressure mounted, even some of the men who had sponsored or voted for the bill began to attack it. By this time it was clear that if an effort were made to enforce the Act, Alabama would have no book supply at all.

Called Unconstitutional

The law was taken to Court and on May 10, 1954, the circuit court of Montgomery County held the act to be unconstitutional.

No moral need be stated explicitly in the Alabama case, the damage was small, and perhaps the warning was great. In the words of a southern editor, "The pell-mell, thoughtless enactment of this bill was simply a nervous tic from the orthodox fat-head."

But whether you blame the law on the growing conformity around the country or on the attempt of worried legislators to fight indoctrination without understanding basic issues, it remains that the Alabama legislature did pass Act 888, and it remained on the books almost a year. There can be no sharper warning for alert citizenship than this.