William Wadman is the most discussed man on the campus of the University of California at Berkeley. He teaches no classes, administers no department, forms no policy. He is the "contact man" at the University between the administration and the California Senate Committee on Un-American Activities. His precise duties are vague and hidden; Mr. Wadman is feared on the campus.

His presence was explained on March 19 of last year when Richard E. Combs, the counsel for the California Senate Committee (now the Burns Committee) testified in Washington before the Jenner Committee. Combs said that State Senator Hugh Burns had outlined a "contact plan" to the presidents of ten California colleges early in 1952.

Burns assured the presidents that he was not attempting to set up a "Gostapo." But he thought that having a man on the campus to investigate groups or professors suspected by the committee of subversive activities would facilitate his work and would provide closer liaison between Burns and the colleges. Burns suggested that all the colleges try the plan and added that he would publicly criticize any who refused.

The presidents, remembering their clash on the matter of loyalty oaths with Burns' predecessor on the Committee, accepted the offer.

Berkeley's Daily Californian was sharply critical of the University administration for accepting what it called "the nebulous Burns-Committee program."

For a year the issue seemed only academic, until in March of 1953, Combs' testimony revealed that the contact system was already in effect and 100 teachers suspected of Communist sympathies had been removed from colleges around the state.

Conflict of Testimony

Combs described in detail the work of Wadman at Berkeley, who is a graduate of the Federal Bureau of Investigation's academy, a graduate of Oxford University in England, and the veteran of 17 years of police work.

It was here that Combs' sworn testimony veered far afield from what Robert G. Sproul, President of the University of California, and others had said about the contact system. Since the inception of the system, Sproul has repeatedly claimed that the activity of the contact man would be very limited and would represent no breach of academic freedom. In a letter to the American Civil Liberties Union, which had expressed disapproval of the new plan, Sproul wrote:

"The specific duties of the University's Security Officer are: The operation and maintenance of a central security file covering only personnel engaged in classified governmental research on the several campuses of the University.

"As regards liaison between University administration and the California State Senate Committee on Un-American Activities (Burns Committee), the Security Officer has no responsibility regarding faculty members not engaged in classified governmental research. This latter is the responsibility solely of administrative officers whose names have been publicly anounced."

The Committee on Academic Freedom of California's Academic Senate backed Sproul up on this point. Mr. Wadman, this Committee announced after looking into the situation, checks only those individuals who are involved in classified research projects. The Committee also deplored the "sensational accounts of the situation at the University of California."

One account was an article in The Nation of January 30, 1954, entitled "G-Men on the Berkeley Campus." This article reviewed the situation, discounted the protestations from University officials, and concluded that both the legislature and the colleges were trying to appease the McCarthyites.

Academic Triple-Play

Certainly the position of the administration was surprising, since Combs had had such a different story to tell. According to Combs' testimony, Wadman's job was considerably more powerful than Sproul had indicated. If, after looking over charges against a professor and investigating them, Wadman thinks the man should be removed, he goes to the state Committee and discusses the case. If the Burns Committee agrees with him, the information is passed on to the president of the University, who calls for the professor's resignation. Any professor in the college--not merely those in classified research--can be dealt with in this manner. The 100 ousted teachers had all been handled through these channels.

The situation in California, then, is far from clear-cut. Testimony has been given by the chief counsel of the state Un American Activities Committee that a representative was on the campus full-time to investigate any member of the faculty. The Berkeley administration insists that the average professor, not in classified research, is under no special surveillance. Because Mr. Wadman functions much of the time in secrecy there has been no decisive way for the faculty and students at California to find out all the facts about his job. His presence on the campus is resented in some quarters; there is also fear of misrepresentation or misunderstanding between faculty and the contact man.

Perhaps most significant in the entire muddled situation was the statement of Senator Jenner, who heard Combs' testimony. To Jenner there was no doubt but that Combs was describing the system accurately and after he had heard in detail about the powerful "contact man," the Senator said he hoped the California plan could become "a model for other states."