Late in August, Secretary of State Dulles made a serious error when he committed himself to the policy that "every American citizen has an obligation to be responsive to United States foreign policy."

Put into practice, this dictum makes all Americans, particularly those abroad, into small megaphones for the State Department. Dulles implements his belief by reserving to himself the right to limit travel to conform to State Department whims.

Carried to an extreme, of course, the policy would set arbitrary itineraries for American travelers--shopping sprees in depressed areas, careful avoidance of neutralist or "immoral" nations. In its present phase the Dullesian doctrine entails only punitive measures--passport seizure--for those who defy passport restrictions.

Like a number of the unspoken rights Americans have continued to take for granted, the right to a passport has only recently been constricted. It has nearly reached the point where it permits only the pure in heart to travel to those countries where it permits only the pure in heart to travel to those countries where a liberal does of moral DDT has been applied.

While this protectionism by the Secretary certainly furthers his foreign policy, it denies the fundamental American belief that the individual has the ability and the right to seek the truth. Secretary Dulles, in his haste to further State Department aims, has brushed aside the right of free inquiry, which is more important than his Department's policies. In time of war, it is conceivable that the government must limit public knowledge for purposes of security. But such drastic action--and limitation of individual rights to knowledge is always drastic--should not be invoked arbitrarily by the State Department to support a policy which is certainly open to question and in need of free investigation.

Were Dulles to adopt a more realistic view of overseas Americans--that they are entitled and able to think for themselves--he might abandon what is becoming an increasingly untenable position. By announcing that he cannot be responsible for the safety of Americans in countries where no official United States delegation exists, and by requiring adult travelers entering such territories to sign waivers of U.S. protection, Dulles can effectively wash his hands of those who he seems to think are advancing to their death.

As it is highly unlikely that Americans will pour into Iron Curtain nations where they have not been invited, there seems little rationale for the Secretary's fears. Assuming that those travelers who do waive their protection are responsible enough to avoid starting trouble, there can be no reason for punishing them on their return home.

Although Communist countries may be able to gain a certain propaganda advantage by admitting Western travelers, the United States can gain no less an advantage by demonstrating its willingness to let its citizens see formerly forbidden sights. There is even the possibility that the State Department might benefit from the activities of unofficial observers. Not even Secreary Dulles has been to Red China.