To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

From a newspaper clipping I learn that a group of alumni has formed a committee whose aim is to cause the University to reconsider its appointment of J. Robert Oppenheias William James Lecturer. The basis of their opposition, so it is reported, is what they call his "highly questionable moral background."

I assume this allegation refers to the findings of the A.E.C. Personnel Security Board which in 1954 denied Dr. Oppenheimer security clearance. One of the counts against him in the majority opinion found his moral character defective because in one instance he had lied to the security officers.... Nevertheless, it is worth recalling the nature and circumstances of the incident. Dr. Oppenheimer was approached by a friend, Prof. Haakon Chevalier, while he was director of the atomic research program at Los Alamos, who suggested that it might be a good idea to keep our Russian allies abreast of the progress of the research. He volunteered to help transmit such information "informally." This proposal was summarily rejected by Dr. Oppenheimer on the ground that any such suggestion would have to be implemented through appropriate governmental channels....

Dr. Oppenheimer did not report the incident at the time of its occurrence. Later, in an interview with the security officers he volunteered information which represented the incident, but in a disguised and misleading form. He named only a man named Eltonton who, he said, had approached three people on the project, through a harmless intermediary, with this proposal. He added that Eltonton had "a lot of experience in microfilm work, or whatever the hell" and contact with a Soviet Embassy man attached to a local consulate. Shortly thereafter, on being prodded to supply details, he said in fact that only one man had been approached, namely himself, and that the intermediary had been a "Professor X." He told the security officer that he was loath to reveal the name of the professor because it would get him into trouble (Chevalier was a French national, apparently interested in securing American citizenship) even though he was certain, on the basis of his knowledge of the man's character, that he had intended nothing improper.

At no point in the hearings did the security officers assert that Dr. Oppenheimer's final version either minimized the nature of the proposal or was in any sense untrue.....

Another count against him involves a similar principle, although not in the eyes of the review board majority, which apparently identifies moral character with telling the whole truth to the security officer. It was asserted, and confirmed by the all too innocent scientist, that he maintained relations with Communists and ex-Communists, specifically with his brother, whom he visited more than once a year. Again, of course, no one alleged that these contacts did in fact involve him in any breach of secrecy whatever....

In the space of a letter it is impossible to go further into the many ramifications of what is certainly one of the most important trials in American history. I am confident that fair minded people conected with Harvard, whatever their politics, will agree that there is nothing in Dr. Oppenheimer's public record which should bar him from any honor or any appointment which Harvard can confer. I am therefore more concerned lest there be such a reaction to this protest that whatever Dr. Oppenheimer will say in his lectures will be drowned in a tide of sympathy.... Sanford A. Lakoff