y 4 / # / 7

' 8^ 3

FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATION S OF u

RAC IAL EXCLU SION IN GRANTIN G VISAS jOVEltNAlUINl _____________________________

Storage

iPR 2 8 1970

UISIS STATE SKIVFK’HTV HEARING

BEFO RE TH E

SUB COM MITTEE ON AF RIC A

OF TH E

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

NINE TY -FIRST CONG RESS 

SECOND SESSION *

3-

41

H

3-

H

IT

r

r-R

rR

<

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 1970

Print ed for the use of the 

Committee on Foreign Affairs

41-555

U.S . GOV ERN MENT PR INTING OFFIC E

WA SHING TON : 197 0
£.W 1

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFF AIRS

TH OM AS E. M ORGAN , Penn sylvania, Chairma n

CL EM EN T J. ZABLO CKI, Wisconsin 

W AY NE L. H A YS, Ohio 

L. H. FO U N TAIN , North Carolina 

D A N T E B. FA SC E L L, Florida 

LEO N A R D FA R B ST E IN , New York 

CH A R LES C. DIG G S, Jr., Michigan 

WILLI AM T. M U R PH Y, Illinois 

CO R N ELIU S E. G ALLA G H E R , New Jersey 

R O B E R T N. C. N IX , Pennsylvania 

JOH N S. M ON AG AN , Connecticut 

DONAL D M. F R A SE R , Minnesota 

BE NJ AM IN S. RO SE NTH AL , New Yor k 

ED WAR D R. R O Y B A L , California 

JOH N C. CU LV E R , Iowa 

LE E II. HAM IL TO N, Indiana 

JOH N V. T U N N E Y , California 

ABRAH AM K AZEN, Jr., Texas 

LE ST E R L. WOL FF , New York 

JO NAT HAN B. BI NG HA M, New Yor k 

GU S Y A T R O N , Pennsylvania

E. RO SS A D A IR , Ind ian a ' i f

WILLIAM 8. M AIL LI ARD , California 

P E T E R H. B. F R E LIN G H U Y SE N , New Jersey 

WI LL IAM S. BROOMFJ$fc»i'M?cKigMln

E. Y . B E R R Y , South Dako ta

ED W AR D J. DER W IN SK I, Illinois

F. BR A D FO R D MOR SE , Massachusetts 

V E R N O N W. TH OM SON, Wisconsin 

JA ME S G. FU LTO N , Pennsylvania 

P A U L F IN D L E Y , Illinois

JOHN BU CH AN AN , Alabama

R O B E R T T A F T , Jr., Ohio

SH ER MAN P. LL O Y D , Utah

J. H E R B E R T B U R K E , Florida

WI LL IAM V. RO TH , Jr., Delaware

B oyd C ra wf ord, S ta ff Adm inistr ato r

R oy J. Bull ock, Se nior St aff Co ns ultant

Alb er t C. F. West phal, S ta ff C on su lta nt

F rank lin J. Schu pp, S ta ff Co ns ultant

Har ry C. Cro mer , Sta ff Co ns ultan t

P hilip B. Billings, S ta ff Co ns ultant

Marian A. Czarn ecki, S ta ff Co nsultan t

Melvin O. Ben son, S ta ff Co ns ultant

Eve re tt E. Bierm an, Sta ff Co nsultan t

John J. B ra dy , Jr., Sta ff Co ns ultant

John H. Sul livan, Sta ff Co nsultan t

R obe rt J. B ow en, Clerica l A ssist an t

Jun e Nigh, Se ni or S ta ff As sist an t

Helen C. Matta s, S ta ff As sistan t

Helen L. Has ha ge n, S ta ff Ass ista nt

L ouise O’Bri en , S ta ff Ass ista nt

D ora B. McC ra ck en , S ta ff Assist an t

Jea n E. Smith, S ta ff As sist an t

Nancy P ed en, Sta ff As sist an t

P au la L. P e a k, Sta ff Ass ista nt

Sub co mm itt ee on Africa

CH A RLE S C. D IG G S, Jr ., Michigan, Chair ma n

WILLIAM T. M U R P H Y , Illinois J. IR V IN G W II A LLE Y, Pennsylvania

R O B E R T N. C. N IX , Pennsylvania F. B R A D F O R D MOR SE , Massachusetts

BEN JA M IN S. RO SE N TH AL, New York W ILLIAM S. BR OOM FI ELD ,M ichi ga n

JO HN C. C U L V E R , Iowa ED W AR D J. D ER W IN SK I, Illinois

M elvin O. Ben so n, S ta ff Consu ltant.

L ouise O’B ri en , Sta ff Ass ista nt

(II )
C O N T E N T S

LIST OF WITNESSES

February 4, 1970: Page Arthur Ashe, U.S. tennis champion___________________________ 17

James Bouton, member of the Houston Astros baseball team______ 37

Dennis Brutus, president, South African Non-Racial Committee for

Olympic Spo rts_________________________________________ 29

Oliver S. Crosby, Director for Southern Africa, Department of State. . 2

George Gowen, general counsel-designate, U.S. Lawn Tennis Association___________________________________________________ 26

Hon. David E. Satterfield III, a Representative in Congress from the

State of Virginia_________________________________________ 17

Frederick Smith, Jr., Deputy Administrator, Bureau of Security and

Consular Affairs, Department of State_______________________ 4

STATEMENTS AND INFORMATION SUBM ITTED 

FOR THE RECORD

Information sheet and classes of aliens ineligible to receive visas, furnished

by Department of State______________________________________ 6

Text of South African press release outlining reasons for denial of visa to

Mr. Ashe____________________________________________________ 19

Telegram from Jackie Robinson___________________________________ 31

Telegram from R. Walter Johnson_________________________________ 43

APPEND IX

A. Excerpt from main South African laws which affect race relations___ 45

B. Excerpt from Assembly debates, South Africa, April 11, 1967_______ 45

C. Resolution adopted by United Nations General Assembly, December 5,

1969, on apartheid_______________________________________ 47

D. Statem ent submitted by “ W’orld Tennis” magazine__________ 47

E. Article from Washington Post, November 8, 1969, by Alfred

Friendly________________________________________________ 48

F. Article from the New York Times, November 9, 1969_________ 49

h id

FOREIGN POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF RACIAL

EXCLUSION IN GRANTING VISAS

W EDN ESD A Y, FE B R U A R Y 4, 19 70

H ous e of R e pr e se n t a t iv e s,

C om m it tee on F o reig n A ff a ir s,

S ubcom m it te e on A fr ic a .

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:10 a.m., in room 225 5, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Charles C. Diggs, Jr. (chairman of the subcommittee), presiding.

Mr. D ig g s. The subcommittee will come to order.

There was an article which appeared in the pro-government Capetown, South African newspaper, Die Berger, which stated: “South 

Africa’s ultimate power lies in her ability to unleash international 

difficulties of which the end cannot be foreseen.”

I think that article properly reflects the concern of this subcommittee 

with respect to racism, South African policy in the sports area and its 

implications for United States foreign policy. South Africa is unique 

among the smaller nations in tha t it spends some upward of $10 

million on overseas propaganda which involves the subject tha t we are 

about to take up this morning. The dissemination of propaganda from 

that country is actually an industry in itself and the case is continually being made tha t South Africa with its three and a half million 

whites and 11 million blacks, and other non-whites, is a Western 

Christian Democratic s tate with all such a state implies with respect 

to freedom and safeguards.

If one will look in the dictionary under the definition of sportsmanship, you will note tha t it generally is described as something giving 

everyone a fair chance, something which judges a person on its merits 

alone, and may-the-best-man-win kind of concept. This concept 

collides with the official policy of the South African Government, 

apartheid or separate development, particularly as it relates to the 

sports field. Through the issue of sports one gets the clearest insights 

that I know into the true nature of the South African race policy and 

the way in which it is applied.

There is no question tha t there are masses of facts, decisions, testimony from various sources proving that the South African Government practices overt and universal racialism in its sports field. Moreover, the South African Government is not very subtle about it, it is 

actually part of their national policy, and therefore, part of their 

political policy. One just cannot separate the question of the denial 

of a visa to an A rthur Ashe from the political questions tha t are generally involved and which have implications for the United States.

I might add tha t this policy not only covers sports participants 

but also spectators, because by law whites and blacks in South

(1)
Africa cannot be spectators at a spoits event except on a segregated 

basis. There have been some exceptions to that, the South Africans 

are very skilled at the technique of minor exceptions, and these exceptions notwithstanding, policy has continued to be maintained.

The announcement on January 28 of this year denying Mr. Arthur 

Ashe a visa confirms my conviction tha t they maintain this policy 

and, as has been previously stated, this policy is perverse and twisted. 

Mr. Ashe, the top ranking tennis player in the United States, had 

applied for a visa to participate in the 1970 South African National 

Tennis Championships and on applying for a visa stated tha t his 

principal desire in visiting South Africa was only to play tennis. It 

is quite obvious tha t he was denied entrance solely because he is 

black because there have been other athletes tha t have been ciitical 

of South African policy and still have been permitted to come into 

tha t country and therefore this arbitrary action reinforces our contention tha t something should be done. We are hopeful tha t our 

Government is going to develop some kind of policy to implement 

the pronouncements tha t they have made here in Washington and 

other international forums tha t this policy on the part of South 

Africa is a part.

We have as the leadoff witness here today the Director for Southern 

Africa, Department of State, Mr. Oliver S. Crosby, who we hope 

will give us some enlightenment as to the implications of this matter 

for U.S. foreign policy and, hopefully, can give us some indication 

of what our Government is doing and is prepared to do in order to 

avoid this degradation which has been experienced by Arthur Ashe 

in the instant case.

STATEMENT OF OLIVER S. CROSBY, DIRECTOR FOR SOUTHERN 

AFRICA, DEPARTMENT OF STATE

Mr. Crosby. Thank you.

Mr. Chairman, members of the African Subcommittee, it is an 

honor to represent the Department of State before this subcommittee 

as it examines the question of the application of Mr. Arthur Ashe 

for a South African visa to play tennis in the South African National 

Tennis Championships. The case is, as you have said, a particularly 

unfortunate one, and one in which the Department of State has taken 

a keen interest.

From the first, it was apparent tha t Mr. Ashe would have difficulty 

in securing a South African visa. He had been given to understand in 

early 1969 that he would not be admitted to South Africa. Then, on 

December 3, 1969, South African Sports Minister Waiing, having 

learned tha t the South African Lawn Tennis Association had accepted 

Mr. Ashe’s application to compete in the National Tennis Championships this spring, had taken strong exception. Mr. Waring alleged tha t 

Mr. Ashe had made a number of unfriendly and threatening statements against South Africa, and he concluded tha t Mr. Ashe did not 

intend to go to South Africa to play tennis but rathe r to engage in 

political activity.

On December 7 Secretary of State Rogers met Mr. Ashe at an 

exhibition match in Paris. Mr. Ashe told the Secretary of his interest 

in playing tennis in South Africa and voiced concern over the visa 

problem. Secretary Rogers expressed his interest in the matter and 

said he would see what could be done.
3

Accordingly, on December 15, 1969, the same day Mr. Ashe made 

formal application for his visa at the South African Consulate General 

in New York, high level representations were made to the South 

African Government, both through its Ambassador in Washington 

and directly to the Foreign Minister in Pretoria. In both these conversations, Assistant Secretary of State Newsom and Ambassador 

Rountree made clear the Secretary’s personal interest in this case 

and his hope tha t a visa would be granted.

Our high regard for Mr. Ashe was made clear and the belief was 

expressed tha t he genuinely wanted to play tennis in South Africa, 

not to engage in politics as had been alleged. I t was pointed out tha t 

from the time this question had arisen Mr. Ashe had conducted himself 

in an entirely appropriate manner, consistent with his own stated 

reason for wanting to visit South Africa.

Reference was made to the recent cases where the South African 

Government had regrettably refused visas to prominent American 

citizens, and it was pointed out tha t discriminatory treatment such 

as this was bound to have an unfortunate effect on the atmosphere 

of United States-South African relations. Both in Washington and 

Pretoria the approach was concluded with the urgent request that the 

South African Government approve Mr. Ashe’s visa.

Ambassador Rountree followed this up with a special meeting with 

Prime Minister Vorster to reiterate our concern and interest in Mr. 

Ashe’s visa application. The Prime Minister promised to give the 

matter careful consideration and put it up to his Cabinet when it 

next met late in Ja nuary of this year.

On January 27, 1970, Prime Minister Vorster invited Ambassador 

Rountree to meet with him and Foreign Minister Muller. The Prime 

Minister reported tha t Mr. Ashe’s visa application had been thoroughly discussed in the Cabinet meeting of the day before and tha t 

it had been the unanimous decision of the Cabinet tha t the visa 

should not be granted. Once again, reference was made to hostile 

statements Mr. Ashe had allegedly made about South Africa, and 

his wish to play in South Africa was termed inconsistent with his 

support of efforts to exclude South Africa from the 1968 Olympic 

games. The Prime Minister then stated tha t if Mr. Ashe wanted to 

go to South Africa as a member of a Davis Cup team, he would be 

granted a visa.

The Department greatly regrets the refusal of the South African 

Government to allow Mr. Ashe to play in the national tennis championships. This is particularly regrettable because of the overtones 

of racial bias in the case t hat you have already mentioned. Over the 

years the U.S. Government has made clear its unalterable opposition 

to the policy of apartheid, or racial separation, in South Africa. It 

has done this in bilateral representations and in the U.N. and other 

multilateral organizations. As we have so often stated, it is our conviction tha t it is in South Africa’s deepest interests to foster foreign 

contacts and exchanges—not to shut itself off in sterile isolation.

There is unfortunately a limit to our ability to bring the South 

African authorities to a reasonable stance in such matters, as one of the 

attributes of national sovereignty is the right of a sta te to determine 

for itself who shall be allowed to enter its territory. However, this does 

not render any more tolerable the South African Government’s decision in cases such as t hat of Mr. Arthur Ashe.
4

Th e st ory is no t over as this kind of case will come up again and again 

as long as the South African Go vernme nt persists in pursu ing ap pa rently dis criminator y policies with res pect to Am erican citizens. And 

again and again we will do our ut mos t to de fend the rig hts and inter ests 

of our citizen s before the Go vernme nt of South Africa.

Tha nk y ou.

Mr. D igg s. Th an k you, Mr. Crosb y.

Will you identify for the record yo ur colleague at the witness table?

STATEMENT OF FREDERICK SMITH, JR., DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR.

BUREAU OF SECURITY AND CONSULAR OFFICERS, DEPARTMENT

OF STATE

Mr. Smith. I am Fre derick Sm ith , Jr ., Dep ut y Ad mi nis tra tor , 

Burea u of Security and Co nsula r Affairs.

Mr. D iggs. Mr. Cro sby, you stat ed wha t the comm itte e expected 

you to say ab ou t American policy on this whole que stio n, th at “u nfortu na tel y, the re is a l im it to our ability to bring South African autho riti es to a reason able sta nce in suc h m at te rs .”

Are you say ing th at there was no way in which the Un ite d State s 

can, for e xam ple, re cip roc ate in kind w ith respe ct to ath let es who come 

from th at co un try to this co un try and who have bee n com ing to this 

coun try a nd enjoying all of the b enefits pe rti ne nt thereto with ou t any 

kin d of restricti on s at all? Are y ou say ing th at o ur ha nd s are tied and 

we ca nn ot do anyth ing ab ou t this m at te r from the reciproca tion 

sta nd po int?

Mr. Crosb y. Mr. Ch air ma n, from the s tand po int of possible reciproc ation, retalia tory visa refusal, there are two general cate gories of 

con sidera tions th at pe rta in to the U.S. position, one concerning visa 

regula tions, on which I will ask M r. Sm ith to spe ak to you , and one 

of general prin ciple I would like to discuss very briefly for a moment.

I t is our strong feeling and a source of pride to us th at the Un ited 

St ates is an open c ountr y. We ch eris h this fac t and we are determined 

to keep it so. P ar t of this qu ality th at we v alue so hig hly is the objectiv e 

basis on which we ad mi t fore igners to the c ou ntry ; we b elieve th at an 

exch ange of ideas and the exc han ge of people is a fru itful thing. We 

very strongly reg ret the res tri ctions th at the South African Go vernmen t places on this, but we do n’t think th at it is in our interest to 

em ula te them in such actions, and we believe th at for policy reason s 

we should con tinue to handle these app lications for So uth African 

ath let es in the fashio n th at the reg ulati on s call for.

I think th at is enough on th at aspect of it. Mr. Sm ith could give 

you specific discussion of the reg ula tions them selves.

Mr. D iggs. W ith ou t objection, I would like to e nter into the record, 

supplem ented in any w ay you wish, the info rm ation sheet and classes 

of alien s ineligible to rece ive visas, which outline s the various classes 

of excludables and sets forth the legal fram ework th at is the basis for 

policy th at you hav e ju st e nunciated.

Mr. Smith. The se are the papers we had sent you earlier?

Mr. D iggs. Rig ht.

(The ma terial follows:)
o

Oct ober 1, 1969. C on gr es si on al Liaison Offic e,

Department of State,

Washington, D.C.

G en tlem en: W ha t is th e sta tu to ry and adm in is tr ati ve au th o ri ty for de ny ing 

an ap plica tion fo r a U. S. vis a?

W ha t are th e ou te r lim its of ou r dis cr et io n be yo nd su ch au th o ri ty to de ny a 

vis a?

Can we de ny a visa fo r “ reas on s of foreign po licy ” ? If so, w hat wo uld fall in 

th is ca te go ry ? If no t, ca n it be ad ded to th e list of ex clud ab les ad m in is trat iv el y 

or wo uld a sta tu to ry ch an ge be re qu ired ?

Can re st ri ct io ns be ex ercised w ithin a tim e fram e? For ex am ple, co uld we de ny 

a ce rt ai n ca te go ry of vis as for a pe riod of a week, or a m on th , or an y o th er p eri od ?

If yo u th in k yo u ha ve no au th o ri ty to de ny a visa in re ci pr oc ity for th e de nial 

of a vis a to an American citiz en fo r reas on s of race , et c. , w hat ch an ge wou ld yo u 

re co m m en d to ac co m plish su ch an obj ec tive , sta tu to ri ly or ad m in is trat iv el y?

I sh al l be l oo king fo rw ar d to y our re sp on se .

Sinc erely ,

C ha rl es C. D iggs , Jr ., 

Chairman, Subcommittee on A fric a,

House Foreign A ffa irs Committee.

Oct ob er 15, 1969. Hon . C ha rl es C. D iggs , Jr .,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Afr ica, House Foreign Affai rs Committee, House of

Representatives, Washington, D.C.

D ea r M r. C hair m an: I ha ve rece iv ed your le tt er of O ctob er 1, in whic h yo u 

as k five specific qu es tion s w ith re sp ec t to th e a u th o ri ty f or de ny in g an ap pl ic at io n 

fo r a U nited S ta te s visa.

In a ns w er to y our fi rst que st io n, th e a u th o ri ty f or ref us al o f v isas is c on ta in ed in 

Se ctions 21 2( a) , 22 1(g ), an d 243 (g) of th e Im m ig ra tion and N ationali ty Ac t. For 

your re ady in fo rm at io n, I en clo se a n in fo rm at io n sh ee t which in cl ud es se ctions of 

th e la w rel ati ng to c las ses of alie ns in eligible to rec eive v isas. In a dditio n, in is suing 

an d re fu sing no ni m m ig ra nt visas, th e co ns ul ar officer is go ve rn ed by th e re qu irem en ts ap pl ie d by th e s ta tu te to ea ch non im m ig ra nt ca te gory de sc ribe d in Section 

101 (a) (15) of th e Ac t.

Se co nd ly, a U ni te d S ta te s visa is r ef us ed o nly up on a gro un d spec ifica lly s et o ut 

in th e law or re gu la tion s issu ed th ere under. R es po ns ib ility fo r th e iss ua nc e or 

de ni al of a vi sa re sts w ith th e con su la r of fice r, al th ough h e is subje ct to th e guida nc e 

of th e D epart m ent of S ta te in r es ol vi ng q ue st io ns con ce rn in g i nte rp re ta ti ons of th e 

law.

W ith re ga rd to qu es tion num ber th re e, a visa m ay not be de nied fo r “ reason s 

of for eig n po lic y” . How ev er, if th e co ns ul ar officer ha s reas on to believe, th a t th e 

alien in te nd s to en ga ge in ac tivi ties wh ich “ wo uld be pr ej ud ic ia l to th e pu blic 

in te re st , or en da ng er th e welfare, sa fe ty , or se cu ri ty of th e U ni te d S ta te s” , he 

wo uld be re qui re d to refuse a visa u nder S ec tio n 212(a) (27) of th e A ct. An y ch an ge 

in th e pr es en t cla ssifi ca tio ns of aliens ineligible to rece ive vis as wou ld re qu ire a 

sta tu to ry am en dm en t.

The re is no au th o ri ty to su sp en d issu an ce of a part ic ula r ty pe of visa fo r a 

pe rio d of tim e. How ev er, a co ns ul ar officer m ust give co ns id er at io n a t any tim e 

to ev iden ce su bm itte d which in di ca te s th a t th e gro un d fo r pr io r re fu sa l of a visa 

no long er e xists . Also, th e A ttorn ey Gen er al may , purs uant to a fa vo ra bl e reco m ­

m en da tion by t he Sec re ta ry o f S ta te or a co ns ul ar officer, au th ori ze th e t em pora ry 

ad mission of an ine lig ible alie n und er su ch co nd iti on s as he m ay pr es cr ibe re gar din g th e p erio d with in which t he a lie n m ay be a dm it te d an d f or which he m ay s ta y 

in th e U ni te d St at es . How ev er, th e A ttorn ey Gen er al m ay n o t au th ori ze th e 

te m pora ry ad mission of an alien ine lig ible unde r Se ctio n 212(a ) (27) or (29 ).

W ith re ga rd to you r la st qu es tion , th er e is no sta tu to ry au th o ri ty to refuse 

visas on a ba sis of re ci pr oc ity. A ut ho riza tion for su ch a gr ou nd of re fu sa l wou ld 

re qu ire a sta tu to ry am en dm en t, pre su m ab ly by th e inclus ion of an ad ditio nal 

ca te go ry in Se cti on 221 (g) of th e Im m ig ra tion and N ati onali ty Act. How ev er, it 

m ay b e of i nte re st to you to n ot e th a t, purs uant to t he pr ov isions o f S ec tio n 212(f), 

th e Pre si den t may , whe ne ve r he finds th a t th e entr y of any aliens or of any class 

of ali en s in to th e U nited Sta te s, wou ld be det ri m en ta l to th e in te re st s of th e 

U nited Sta te s, by pr oc la m at io n, and fo r su ch pe rio d as he sh al l de em ne ce ssary, 

su sp en d th e entr y of all aliens or an y class of ali en s as im m ig ra nts or no ni m m i41 -5 55— 71 -2
6

gr an ts , or im po se on th e entr y of ali en s an y re st rict io ns which he m ay deem to be 

appro pri at e.

I ho pe th a t th e forego ing in fo rm at io n will be he lpful to yo u. Pl ea se co ntin ue 

to call on us whe ne ve r yo u be lie ve th a t we can be of as sistan ce .

Sinc erely yo urs,

H. G. T orbert, Jr .,

Actin g A ss is ta nt Secre tary for Congressional Relation s.

Enc losu re : Cla sse s of In eligib le Aliens.

D epa rtm en t of Sta te

IN FO R M A T IO N S H E E T ----CLA SSE S O F A L IE N S IN E L IG IB L E TO R E C E IV E VI SA S

Se cti on 221 (g) of th e Im m ig ra tion and N at io nali ty Ac t re ad s as fol low s:

“ No vi sa or oth er do cu m en ta tion sh al l be issu ed to an ali en if (1) it ap pe ar s 

to th e co ns ul ar officer, from st ate m en ts in th e ap pl ic at io n, or in th e pa pe rs 

su bm itte d th er ew ith, th a t su ch alien is ineligible to rece ive a vi sa or su ch ot her 

do cu m en ta tion un de r se ction 212 , or an y oth er prov isions of law , (2) th e ap pl ic ation fails to co mply w ith th e pr ov isio ns of th is Ac t, or th e re gu la tion s iss ued 

th er eu nd er , or (3) th e co ns ul ar officer kn ow s or ha s reason to be lie ve th a t such 

alien is ineligible to rece ive a visa or su ch oth er doc um en ta tion under se ction 

212, or any oth er pr ov ision of law: Pro vi de d, T h a t a visa or oth er doc um en ta tion 

m ay be issued to an ali en wh o is w ithin th e pu rview of section 21 2( a) (7 ), or 

se ction 212(a )(15), if su ch alien is ot he rw ise entitled to re ce iv e a vi sa or oth er 

do cu m en ta tion , up on re ce ip t of no tice b y th e co ns ul ar officer fro m th e A ttorn ey 

Gen eral of th e giving of a bo nd or undert akin g pr ov id in g in dem nity as in th e 

case of aliens ad m it te d under se ct ion 21 3: Pr ov id ed fu rt her, T h a t a vi sa m ay be 

iss ue d to an alien de fin ed in se ction 101 (a )( 15 )(B) or (F ), if su ch alien is oth er ­

wise en titled to rece ive a visa, up on re ce ip t of a no tic e by th e co ns ul ar offic er 

from th e A ttorn ey G en eral of th e giving of a bo nd w ith suffi cie nt su re ty in such 

su m an d co nt ai ni ng su ch co nd itio ns as th e co ns ul ar officer sh all pr es cr ibe, to 

insu re th a t a t th e ex pi ra tion of th e tim e fo r which su ch alien ha s be en adm it te d 

by th e A ttorn ey Gen eral, as pr ov id ed in section 21 4(a), or up on fa ilur e to m ai nta in th e st atu s under which he was adm it te d, or to m ai nta in any st atu s su bse qu en tly ac qu ir ed unde r se ct io n 248 of th e Ac t, su ch ali en will dep ar t fro m th e 

U ni ted S ta te s. ”

Se ction 212 (e) of th e Im m ig ra tion and N ational ity Act re ad s as fol low s:

“ No pe rs on adm it te d unde r section 101 (a) (15) (J ) [E xc ha ng e Visi tor] or acquir ­

ing such st atu s aft er ad mission sh all be eli gib le to ap pl y fo r an im m ig ra nt visa, 

or for perm anent resid en ce , or fo r a no nim m ig ra nt vi sa under se ct ion 101(a) 

(15) (H ) unti l it is es ta bl ishe d th a t su ch pe rson ha s reside d an d be en ph ys ically 

pr es en t in th e co untr y of his nati onali ty or his la st resid en ce , or in anoth er fo reig n co un try fo r an ag gr eg at e of a t le as t tw o ye ar s follo wing depart ure from th e 

U nited S ta te s: Pr ov id ed , T h a t su ch reside nc e in anoth er foreign countr y sh all 

be co nsidered to ha ve satis fie d th e re qu ir em en ts of th is su bs ec tio n if th e Se creta ry of S ta te de te rm in es th a t it ha s se rv ed th e pu rp os e and in te n t of th e M utu al 

Edu ca tion an d C ultura l Exc ha ng e Ac t of 1961: Pr ov id ed fu rt her, T h a t up on th e 

fa vo ra bl e re co m m en da tion of th e Sec re ta ry of Sta te , p urs uant to th e re ques t of 

an inte re st ed U nited S ta te s G ov er nm en t ag en cy , or of th e Com miss ione r of Im m igr at io n an d N at ura li zati on a ft er h e h as d et er m in ed th a t dep art ure fro m t he U ni te d 

Sta te s wou ld im po se ex ce pt iona l ha rd sh ip up on th e al ie n’s spou se or ch ild (if 

su ch spou se or ch ild is a cit izen of th e U nit ed Sta te s or a l aw fu lly re si den t alien) , 

th e A tto rn ey Gen er al m ay waive th e re quir em en t of su ch tw o- ye ar foreign reside nc e abro ad in th e case of any ali en wh ose ad mission to th e U nited Sta te s is 

fo un d by t h e A ttorn ey Gen eral to b e in th e p ub lic inte re st : An d pro vid ed furt her , 

T h at th e pr ov isions of th is par agra ph sh al l ap pl y als o to th os e pe rson s who 

ac qu ired ex ch an ge vis itor st atu s un de r th e U nited Sta te s In fo rm at io n and E d u ­

ca tion al Exc ha ng e Act of 1948, as am en ded.”

Se ctio n 21 2(a) of th e Im m ig ra tion and N ationali ty A ct r ea ds as follo ws :

“ E xc ep t as othe rw ise pro vid ed in th is A ct, the follo wi ng cla sses of al iens shall be 

ineligible to rece ive visa s and sh all be ex cl ud ed fro m ad mission in to th e U nited 

S ta te s:

“ (1) Alie ns wh o are m en ta lly re ta rd ed ;

“ (2) Alie ns wh o ar e in sa ne ;

“ (3) Alie ns wh o ha ve h ad on e or m or e a tt ack s of in sa nit y;

“ (4) Al ien s affli cted w ith psy ch opat hic per so na lity , or se xu al dev ia tion, or a 

m en ta l de fe ct ;
“ (5) Aliens who are narcotic drug a ddicts or chronic alcoholics;

“ (6) Aliens who are afflicted with any dangerous contagious disease;

“ (7) Aliens not comprehended within any of the foregoing classes who are 

certified by the examining surgeon as having a physical defect, disease, or disability 

when determined by the consular or immigration officer to be of such a natur e 

th at i t may affect the ability of the alien to earn a living, unless the alien affimatively establishes t hat he will no t have to earn a living;

“ (8) Aliens who are paupers, professional beggars, or v agrants;

“ (9) Aliens who have been convicted of a crime involving moral tur pit ude 

(other than a purely political offense), or aliens who admit having committed 

such a crime, or aliens who a dm it com mitting ac ts which con stitute th e essential 

elements of such a crime; except th at aliens who have committed only one such 

crime while under the age of eig hteen years may be gra nted a visa and a dm itte d 

if th e crime was c omm itted more than five years prior to the d ate of the application for a visa or other documenta tion, and more than five years prior to date of 

application for admission to the United States, unless the crime resulted in confinement in a prison or correctio nal institu tion, in which case such alien must 

have been released from such confinement more than five years prio r to the date 

of the application for a visa or other documentation, and for admission, to the 

United States. Any alien who would be excludable because of the conviction of a 

misdemeanor classifiable as a pe tty offense under the provisions of section 1(3) 

of title 18, United States Code, by reason of the punishment actually imposed, 

or who would be excludable as one who adm its the cominwsion of an offense th at 

is classifiable as a misdem eanor under the provisions off^ction 1(2) of title 18, 

United States Code, by reason of the punishm ent which mig ht have been imposed 

upon him, may be g ranted a visa and admitted to the United States if otherwise 

admissible: Provided, Th at the alein has committed only one such offense, or 

admits the commission of acts which c ons titu te the essential elem ents of only one 

such offense.

“ (10) Aliens who have been convicted of two or more offenses (other tha n 

purely political offenses), regardless of whether the conviction was a single trial 

or whether the offenses arose from a single scheme of m isconduct and regardless 

of wheth er the offenses involved m oral turpitude, for which the aggregate sentences 

to confinement actually imposed were five years or more;

“ (11) Aliens who are polygamists or who practice polygamy or advo cate the 

practice of polygamy;

“ (12) Aliens who are prostitutes or who have engaged in prostitu tion, or aliens 

coming to the United States solely, principally, or incidentally to engage in prostitu tio n; aliens who direc tly or indirectly procure or attempt to procure, or who 

have procured or attem pte d to procure or to impo rt, prostitutes or persons for 

the purpose of prostitution or for any other immoral purpose; and aliens who are 

or have been supported by, or receive or have received, in whole or in part, the 

proceeds of prostitution or aliens coming to the United States to engage in any 

other unlawful commercialized vice, whether or not related to pro stitutio n;

“ (13) Aliens coming to the United States to engage in any immoral sexual act;

“ (14) Aliens seeking to en ter the United State s, for the purpose of perform ing 

skilled or unskilled labor, unless the Secretary of Labor has determined and certified 

to the Secretary of State and to the Attorney General th at (A) there are not 

sufficient workers in the United States who are able, willing, qualified, and available 

at the time of application for a visa and admission to the United States and at 

the place to which the alien is destined to perform such skilled or unskilled labor, 

and (B) the employment of such aliens will not adversely affect the wages and 

working conditions of the workers in the United States similarly employed. The 

exclusion of aliens under this paragraph shall apply to special immigrants defined in section 101(a) (27) (A) (other tha n the parents, spouses, or children of 

United States citizens or of aliens lawfully adm itte d to the United States for 

permanen t residence), to preference immigrant aliens described in section 203(a) (3) 

and (6), and to nonpreference imm igrant aliens described in section 203(a)(8);

“ (15) Aliens who, in the opinion of the consular officer at th e time of applica tion 

for a visa, or in the opinion of the Atto rney General at the time of application 

for admission, are likely at any time to become public charges;

“ (16) Aliens who have been excluded from admission and deported and who 

again seek admission within one yea r from the date of such dep orta tion , unless 

prior to t heir reem barkation at a place outside the United States or th eir atte mpt 

to be admitted from foreign contiguous territory the Attorney General has 

consented to their reapplying for a dmission;
8

“ (17) Aliens who have been arrested and deported, or who have fallen into 

distress and have been removed pursua nt to this or any prior act, or who have 

been removed at Government expense in lieu of deportation pursuant to section 

242 (b), unless prior to their emb arkation or reem barkation at a place outside 

the United S tates or their att em pt to be ad mitted from foreign contiguous te rritory 

the Attorney General has consented to their applying or reapplying for admission;

“ (18) Aliens who are stowaways;

“ (19) Any alien who seeks to procure, or has sought to procure, or has procured 

a visa or other documentation, or seeks to enter the United States, bv fraud, or 

by willfully misrepresenting a material fact;

“ (20) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, any imm igrant who 

at the time of application for admission is not in possession of a valid unexpired 

immigrant visa, reentry perm it, border crossing identification card, or other 

valid entry docu ment required by this Act, and a valid unexpired passport, or 

other suitable travel document, or document of identity and nationalit y, if 

such document is required under the regulations issued by the Atto rney Genera] 

pursuant to section 211(e);

“ (21) Except as otherwise specifically provided in this Act, an y quota im migrant 

at the time of application for admission whose visa has been issued withou t 

compliance with the provisions of section 203;

“(22) Aliens who are ineligible to citizenship, except aliens seeking to enter 

as nonim migrants; or persons who have dep arted from or who have remained 

outside the United States to avoid or evad e training or service in the armed 

forces in time of war period declared by the President to be a national emergency, except aliens who were a t the time of such departure nonimmigrant aliens 

and who seek to reen ter the United States as nonim migrants;

“ (23) Any alien who has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to 

violate, any law or regulation rela ting to the illicit possession of or traffic in narcotic drugs or marihuana, or who has been convicted of a violation of, or a conspiracy to violate, any law or regulation governing or controlling the taxing, 

manufacture, production, compounding, tran sportation, sale, exchange, dispensing, giving away, importation, exportation, or the possession for the purpose 

of the manufacture, production, compounding, tran sportation, sale, exchange, 

dispensing, giving away, importation, or exportation of opium, coca leaves, heroin, 

marihuana, or any salt derivative or preparation of opium or coca leaves, or 

isonipecaine or any addiction-forming or addiction-sustaining opiate; or any 

alien who the consular officer or immigration officers know or have reason to 

believe is or has been an illicit trafficker in any of the aforem entioned drugs;

“ (24) Aliens (other than those aliens who are native-born citizens of countries 

enum erate d in section 101 (a) (27) (C) and aliens described in section 101(a) (27) 

(B)) who seek admission from foreign contiguous territo ry or adjace nt islands, 

having arrived there on a vessel or aircra ft of a nonsignatory line, or if signatory, 

a noncomplying transpo rtation line under section 238(a) and who have not resided 

for at least two years subs equent to such arrival in such territo ry or adjacent 

islands;

“ (25) Aliens (other than aliens who have been lawfully adm itte d for perm anent 

residence and who are retu rnin g from a temporary visit abroad) over sixteen years 

of age, physically capable of reading, who cannot read and und erstand some 

language or dialect;

“(26) Any nonimmigrant who is not in possession of (A) a passport valid for 

a minimum period of six months from the date of the expiration of the initial 

period of his admission or contemplated initial period of stay authorizing him 

to retu rn to the coun try from which he came or to proceed to and enter some 

other country during such period; and (B) at the time of application for admission a valid nonimmigrant visa or border crossing identification card;

“(27) Aliens who the consular officer or the Attorney General knows or has 

reason to believe seek to e nter the United S tate s solely, principally, or incidentally 

to engage in activ ities which would be prejudicial to the public interest, or 

endanger the welfare, safety, or security of the United States;

“ (28) Aliens who are, or at an y time hav e been, members of any of the following 

classes:

(A) Aliens who are anarchists;

(B) Aliens who advo cate or teach, or who are members of or affiliated with 

any organization th at advo cates or teaches, opposition to all organized 

gov ernment;

(C) Aliens who are members of or affiliated with (i) the Comm unist Party 

of the United States, (ii) any other totalitarian par ty of the United States,
9

(iii) th e Com m un ist Pol itic al Assoc iatio n, (iv) th e C om m un ist or any oth er 

to ta li ta ri an part y of any S ta te of th e U ni ted Sta te s, of an y foreign st ate , 

or of an y po litical or ge og ra ph ical su bd iv isio n of any foreign st ate , (v) an y 

se ct ion, su bs id ia ry , bra nc h, affil iate, or su bd iv isio n of any su ch as so ciatio n or 

p art y , or (vi) th e di re ct pr ed ec es so rs or succ essors of an y su ch as so ciatio n or 

p art y , rega rd less of w hat nam e su ch grou p or org an iz at io n may ha ve used , 

m ay now be ar, or m ay her ea ft er adopt: Pr ov id ed , T h at noth in g in th is p a ra ­

gr ap h, or in an y oth er pr ov ision of th is Act, sh all be co nst ru ed as de cl ar in g 

th a t th e Com m un ist P a rt y do es no t ad vo ca te th e ov er th ro w of th e Gov er nm ent of th e U ni te d S ta te s by f orce, vio len ce, or o th er unco nst it uti onal m ea ns ; 

( 1J) Aliens not w ith in any oth er pr ov isions of th is par ag ra ph who ad voca te 

th e eco no mic, in te rn at io nal , and g ov er nm en ta l doc trin es of w orld c om mun ism 

or th e es ta bl is hm en t in th e U ni te d Sta te s of a to ta li ta ri an di ct at ors hip , or 

wh o ar e mem be rs of or af filia ted w ith an y or ga ni za tion th a t ad vo ca te s th e 

econ om ic, in te rn at io nal , and gov er nm en ta l do ct rine s of world eo mmun i m 

or th e es ta blish m en t in th e U ni ted Sta te s of a to ta li ta ri an di ct at ors h: •>, 

eit her th ro ugh its ow n utt er an ce s or th ro ugh any w ri tt en or pri nte d pu bl ica tion s issued or pu bl ishe d by or w ith th e pe rm ission or co ns en t of or und er 

th e au th o ri ty of su ch org an iz at io n or pa id for by th e fu nd s of, or fu nd s 

fu rn ishe d by , su ch org an iz at io n;

(E) Aliens not w ith in any of th e oth er prov isions of th is par ag ra ph, who ar e 

m em be rs of or a ffi lia ted w ith any or ga ni za tion du ring th e tim e it is regi ster ed 

or re qui re d to be re gi ster ed under s ec tio n 7 of th e Su bv er sive Activiti es Con ­

trol Ac t of 1930, un les s su ch a lie ns e stab lish t h a t th ey d id n ot ha ve k no wled ge 

or rea so n to b eli ev e a t th e ti m e th ey b ec am e mem be rs of o r a ffi lia ted w ith suc h 

an or ga ni za tion (a nd did n o t th ere aft er an d pr io r to t he d ate u po n whic h su ch 

or ga ni za tion was so re gi ster ed or so re qu ired to be re gi ster ed ha ve su ch 

kn ow ledg e or a ny reas on to belie ve) th a t su ch org an iz at io n wa s a C om m un ist 

or ga niz at io n;

(F) Aliens who a dvoca te o r te ac h o r w ho a re m em be rs of o r a ffi lia ted w ith a ny 

or ga ni za tion th a t ad vo ca te s or teac he s (i) th e ov er th ro w by for ce, vio len ce, 

or oth er un co nst itutional m ea ns of th e G ove rn m en t of th e U ni te d Sta te s or 

of all form s of la w ; or (ii) th e duty , ne ce ss ity , or pro pr ie ty ot th e un lawful 

as sa ul ting o r killing of a ny o ffic er or officers (e ithe r of specific indi vi du al s or of 

officers ge ne rally ) of th e G ov er nm en t of th e U nited S ta te s or of an y oth er 

orga ni ze d go ve rn m en t, be ca us e of his or th eir offic ial ch ara cte r; or (iii) th e 

un lawfu l da mag e, in ju ry , or dest ru ct io n of pro pert y; or (iv) sa bo ta ge ;

(G ) Aliens who w rite or pu bl ish, or ca us e to be w ri tt en or pu blishe d, or wh o 

kn ow ingly circ ulate, dis tr ib ute , pri nt, or di sp lay, or kn ow ingly ca use to be 

ci rc ul at ed , dis tr ib ute d, pri nte d, pu blishe d, or di sp laye d, or who kn ow ingly 

ha ve in th ei r po sse ssion fo r th e pu rp os e of circ ul at io n, pu bl ic at io n, dis tr ib ution , or d isplay , an y w ri tt en or p ri nte d m att er, advoc at in g o r teac hi ng o pp os ition to all orga nize d gov er nm en t, or ad vo ca ting or t ea ch in g (i) th e ov er th ro w 

by for ce, vio len ce, or oth er unconst itutional mea ns of th e G ov er nm en t of th e 

U ni te d S ta te s or of all form s of law; or (ii) th e duty , ne ce ss ity or p ro pri et y of 

un la w fu l as sa ul ting or killing of any officer or officers (e ither of specific in di ­

vi du al s or of officers ge ne rally ) of th e G ove rn m en t of th e U nited Sta te s or of 

of any ot her or ga ni ze d gov er nm en t, be ca us e of his or th eir official char ac te r; 

or (iii) th e un lawfu l da m ag e, in ju ry , or des tr uct io n of pro pert y; or (iv) sa bo ­

ta ge; or (v) th e e cono mi c, in te rn ati onal, an d gov er nm en ta l do ctrine s of wor ld 

co mm un ism or th e es ta blish m en t in th e U nited S ta te s of a to ta li ta ri an 

dic ta to rs hip ;

(II) Aliens wh o ar c m em be rs of or affiliate d w ith a ny o rg an iz at io n th a t writ es, 

ci rc ul at es , dis trib ute s, pri nts , pu blishe s, or di sp lays , or ca us es to be w ritten , 

ci rc ul at ed , dis tr ib ute d, pri nte d, pu bl ishe d, or di sp la ye d, or th a t ha s in its 

po ssessio n for th e pu rp os e of circ ul at io n, dis trib ution, pub lica tion , issue, or 

di sp lay, an y w ri tt en or pri nte d m a tt e r of th e ch ara cte r de scrib ed in 

par agra ph (G );

(I) An y ali en wh o is w ith in a ny of t h e clas ses d es cr ibed in s ubpar ag ra phs (B ), 

(C ), (D ), (E ), (F ), (G ), an d (II) of th is par agra ph be ca us e of m em be rshi p 

in or affil iatio n w ith a p art y or or ga ni za tion or a se ction, su bs id ia ry , bra nc h, 

affil iate, or su bd iv isio n th er eo f, m ay , if not ot he rw ise ine lig ible, be issued a 

vi sa if su ch ali en es ta bl ishe s to th e sa tisf ac tion of th e co ns ul ar officer whe n 

ap ply in g fo r a vi sa a nd th e co ns ul ar officer fin ds th a t (i) su ch m em be rshi p or 

affil iatio n is or wa s in volu nta ry , or is or was solel y whe n under sixtee n yea rs 

of age, by op er at io n of law , or fo r pu rp os es of obta in in g em pl oy m en t, foo d 

ra tion s, or ot her e ss en tia ls of liv ing and whe n ne ce ss ar y fo r su ch pu rp os es , or
10

'(ii) (a) sinc e th e term ination of such me mb ers hip or affiliation, such alien is 

and has bee n, for a t lea st five years prior to th e da te of th e ap plica tio n for a 

visa, ac tiv ely opposed to th e doctr ine , pro gram, principles , an d ideology of 

suc h pa rt y or org ani zat ion or th e sec tion, sub sid iary, branch, or affiliate or 

sub div ision the reo f, and (b) th e admission of such alien into th e United 

State s wou ld be in t he public interest. Any such alie n t o whom a v isa has been 

issued un der th e prov isions of t his su bp arag raph may, if no t oth erw ise inad ­

missible, be ad m itt ed i nto th e United St ates if he sha ll estab lis h to t he s atisfac tion of th e Attor ney Gen eral when apply ing for adm ission to th e United 

States a nd th e Attor ney Gen eral finds th at (i) such memb ership or affiliation 

is or was inv olun tary, or is or was solely when un der sixteen years of age, by 

op eration of law, or for pur poses of ob tai nin g em plo ym ent, food rat ions, or 

othe r ess ent ials of living and when nec ess ary for such purpo ses, or (ii) (a) 

since th e term ination of s uch me mb ers hip or affiliation , such alien is an d has 

been , for a t least five yea rs prior t o th e da te of t he a pp lic ati on f or adm ission 

activ ely opp osed to the doctrine , program , prin ciples, an d ideo logy of such 

pa rty or org ani zat ion s, or th e section , sub sid iary, branch, or affiliate or sub ­

divisio n the reo f, an d (b) th e adm ission of suc h alien into th e United Seates 

would be in th e public interest. Th e Atto rn ey General sha ll pr om ptly ma ke a 

detai led repo rt to th e Con gress in th e case of each alie n who is or sha ll be 

ad m itt ed into the United States un de r (ii) of thi s su bp arag raph ;

“ (29) Aliens with res pect to whom the consula r officer or th e Atto rney Gen eral 

know s or has reason abl e ground to believe probably would, afte r en try, (A) 

eng age in activ iti es which would be proh ibite d by the laws of th e United State s 

relati ng to espiona ge, sab otage, pub lic disord er, or in othe r ac tiv ity sub versive to 

the na tio nal sec urity, (B) engage in any ac tiv ity a purpo se of which is th e oppositio n to, or th e con trol or ov ert hrow of, th e Go vernme nt of t he United State s, by 

force, viole nce, or othe r un co ns titutiona l means, or (C) join, affiliate with, or 

pa rti cipa te in the activ ities of an y org aniza tio n which is reg istere d or req uir ed to 

be reg istere d un de r section 7 of th e Subversive Activities Co ntrol Act of 1950;

“ (30) Any alien accom pan yin g an ot he r alien ord ered to be exc luded and 

deporte d an d certified to be helpless from sickness or me nta l or physical d isa bil ity 

or infanc y pu rs ua nt to section 237(e), whose prote cti on or gu ardia nship is 

req uir ed by th e alien ord ered excluded an d depo rte d;

“ (31) Any alie n who a t a ny tim e shall h ave , k now ingly a nd for gain , e nco uraged, 

induced, assiste d, abetted, or aid ed any ot he r alien to en ter or to tr y to en ter the 

Un ite d St ates in violation of law.

Not e: If you believe you are ineligible for a vis a un der one of th e classes 

enum erate d abo ve, please rea d carefully th e following exceptions an d exp lan ations 

to deter mi ne wh eth er they mi gh t be applicab le to you.

Sec tion 212(g) of th e Im mi grati on and Natio na lit y Act, pro vides th at:

“ Any alien who is excludable from th e United State s un de r pa ra gr ap h (1) of 

sub sec tion (a) of this section, or any alien afflicted with tub erc ulo sis in any form 

who (A) is th e spouse or th e un ma rried son or da ug hter, or the mi no r un ma rried 

lawfully ad op ted child, of a Un ite d St ates citizen, or of a n alien law fully ad m itted 

for pe rm an en t residence , or if an alien who has bee n issued an im migrant v isa, or 

(B) has a son or daug hter who is a United St ates citiz en, or of an alien lawfully 

ad m itt ed for perm an ent residence, or an alien who has bee n issued an im migr ant 

visa, shall, if otherw ise adm issible, be issu ed a visa an d ad m itt ed to th e United 

St ates for pe rm an en t residence in accor dan ce with suc h terms , conditio ns, and 

con trols, if any, including the giving of a bond, as th e Atto rney General, in his 

discre tion afte r con sultation with th e Surgeon General of th e Uni te d State s 

Pub lic Hea lth Service, ma y by regula tions prescribe. Any alien exc ludable under 

pa ragrap h (3) of subsection (a) of thi s sec tion bec aus e of pa st history of me nta l 

illness who has one of the sam e fam ily rel ati on ships as are presc ribed in thi s sub ­

section for aliens afflicted with tub erc ulo sis an d whom th e Surgeon Ge neral of the 

United S tates Public Hea lth Serv ice finds to have b een free of such men tal illness 

for a period of tim e sufficient in the lig ht of s uch his tor y to de mon str ate recove ry 

sha ll be eligib le for a visa in accord anc e with t he terms of this subsectio n.”

Section 212(h) of the Im mi grati on an d Natio na lit y Act, pro vid es th at:

“ Any alie n, who is ex cludab le from the United States u nd er p arag raph s (9), (10), 

or (12) of this section, who (A) is the sp ouse or child , including a m ino r un ma rried 

ad op ted child, of a Un ite d State s citizen, or of an alie n lawfully ad m itt ed for 

pe rm an en t resid ence , or (B) has a son or da ug hter w ho is a United State s citizen 

or an alie n law fully ad mitted for pe rm an en t residence, shall, if otherw ise admissible, be issu ed a visa and ad m itt ed to th e United State s for pe rm an en t residence
11

(1) if it shall be established to the satisfaction of the Attorn ey General th at

(A) the alien’s exclusion would result in extreme hardship to the United States 

citizen or lawfully resident spouse, parent, or son or daughter of such alien, and

(B) the admission to the United States of such alien would not be contrary to 

the national welfare, safety, or security of the United Sta tes; and (2) if the 

Attorney General, in his discretion, and pur suant to such term s, conditions, 

and procedures as he may by regulations prescribe, has consented to the alien’s 

applying or reapplying for a visa and for admission to the United S tat es.”

Section 212(i) of the Imm igration and Nationality Act, provides that:

“Any alien who is the spouse, paren t or child of a United States citizen or of an 

alien lawfully adm itte d for perman ent residence and who is excludable because 

(1) he seeks, has sought to procure, or has procured, a visa or other documentation, 

or entry into the United States, by frau d or misrepresentation, or (2) he adm its 

the commission of perjury in connection therewith, may be granted a visa and 

admitted to the United States for perman ent residence, if otherwise admissible, 

if the Attorney General in his discretion has consented to the alien’s applying 

or reapplying for a visa and for admission to the United Sta tes .”

Section 212(b)(1) exempts from the litera cy requirem ent of para graph (25) 

any prospective imm igrant who is the pare nt, grandp arent, spouse, daughter, 

or son of an admissible alien, or any alien lawfully admitted to the United States 

for permanen t residence, or any citizen of the United States, if accom panying 

such admissible alien, or coming to join such citizen or alien permanen t resident, 

and if otherwise admissible.

The provisions of paragraphs (11) and (25) are no t applicable to aliens who in 

good f ait h seek to enter the United States as nonimmigrants. (212(d)(1))

The exceptions under pa ragraph (28) (I) should be n oted ; these exceptions apply 

to nonimmigrants and immigrants alike.

The provisions of para graphs (9), (10), (12), and (23) above apply regardless 

of the issuance of a decree of amnesty, a foreign pardon, the expungement of 

penal records, or any other act of clemency. A visa applica nt must furnish full 

information regarding any conviction of a criminal offense regardless of the fact 

th at he may have subseque ntly benefited from an amn esty, pardon or other act 

of clemency. Failure to reveal such a conviction might result in perman ent exclusion from the United State s, or in prosecution or deporta tion in the event admission is effected on the basis of such a misrepresenta tion. An explanation of any 

amnesty, pardon or other act of clemency should be given in order th at the consular officer may have complete information as a basis for determining whether 

the conviction or convictions would have a bearing upon the applicant’s eligibility 

to receive a visa.

Additionally, the Immigration and Nationality Act contains provisions for 

waiver of certain grounds of ineligibility for nonimmigrants and persons who 

have been lawfully admitted to the United States for perm anent residence and 

who are re urning to a lawful unrelinquished domicile of seven consecutive years 

in the United States.

Penalties.

An applicant will be required to make certain stat ements under oath at the 

time of formal application for a visa and submit certain docu men tary evidence 

th at he is not among any of the ineligible classes. These statem ents and the 

evidence will be carefully examined. It should be understoo d th at willful misreprese ntation of a material fact in connection with a visa application may result 

in permanen t inadmissibility to the United States or deporta tion if admitte d.

Mr. Diggs. Do you have anything supplemental?

Mr. Smith. Yes. I might say in addition to the general policy reasons 

tha t Mr. Crosby mentioned, one facet of th at policy which this Government has quite consistently followed in the visa area is to not 

penalize or attribute to an individual alien responsibility for the actions 

of the regime in power in the country in which he may be a national.

Perhaps more important from the practical point of view with 

respect to any reciprocal action is the question of legal authority. As 

you know, the ground for denying visas are set forth in our law, 

principally in section 212(a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. 

They are quite specific, and there is very little discretionary authority 

vested in our consular officers or the Department itself to deny a visa.
12

We know of no grounds under the law in which we could legally deny 

a visa to a person coming from a particular country merely because 

that country had denied a visa to a U.S. citizen.

Mr. Digg s. Gentlemen, is it not true that there is precedent on the 

record regarding United States reciprocating and denying an American 

entrance to a foreign national?

I am thinking specifically of situations in which embassy officials 

from other countries have been denied entrance into the United States 

on a case basis because embassy officials from the United States 

have been denied entrance into another country. I am thinking 

specifically of members of the American press who have been denied 

entrance into a foreign country, and therefore we have acted in kind 

with respect to that.

In addition to that, in the communication that was sent to me last 

October in response to this whole question about visas, you specifically 

pointed out that:

“Se cti on 212(f) au th ori ze s th e P re si den t, w he ne ve r he f inds t h a t th e e ntr y o f a ny 

ali ens or of any cla ss of aliens in to th e U nited Sta te s be detr im enta l to th e inte re st s of th e U nited Sta te s, by pr ocl am at io n and for such pe rio d as he m ay deem 

ne ce ssary su sp en d th e entr y of all aliens or an y class of ali en s as im m ig ra nts or 

non im m ig ra nt s or im po se on th e entr an ce of aliens any re st rict io ns which he may 

de em to be ap p ro p ri ate .”

So, obviously, you do have that kind of discretionary authority to 

the President.

In addition to that, is there not another remedy in terms of administrative processing that there is not anything in the law— and I 

stand to be corrected as to my knowledge— that says that a visa application has to be acted on tomorrow or next week or next month or 

next year?

As a m atter of fact, this was the way in which I was originally denied entrance into South Africa, they just never acted on the visa. 

After a period of time passed, obviously, it became sort of a moot 

question.

Now would you make comments on both of these remedies, and 

also on the precedents that are already on the record affecting a 

1-for-l action which has been taken involving other countries?

Mr. Smith. I think what you may be having in mind with respect 

to officials is really in a different category. This usually occurs in 

instances where it involves an Eastern European country where we 

have mutual restrictions on the size of embassy staffs and where for 

one reason or another when one side declares an official persona non 

grata the other side feels obliged to retaliate in kind. That aspect of 

it is really not a visa matter as much as a diplomatic and political 

matter.

In the case of press people, there may have been some instances 

where we have raised problems of accreditation or qualification for a 

particular type of visa; that is the so-called “ I” information media 

visa. I am not aware of instances where we have directly retaliated, 

although again this may relate to the numbers game which we play 

with certain Eastern European countries.

As to section 212(f) that you mentioned, it is true that there is 

this provision in the law. It is difficult to sa y what sort of situation it 

was contemplated this would apply to because to my knowledge 

this provision of the law has never been invoked.
13

There was a somewhat similar provision in the 1907 act and so far as 

we have been able to ascertain it was invoked only once, in 1913, to 

keep certain Japanese and Korean laborers out of the United States.

I know of no other instances in which it has been invoked. I think 

probably it is intended to apply to situations where you want to keep 

out large numbers of people such as because there may be communicable disease in their area, such as the smallpox epidemic.

Assuming that use of this provision in a situation like this would 

be legally appropriate, you still have the policy question of whether 

this sort of retaliation against individuals from one country is a way 

you want to handle it.

With respect to administrative delay, surely we could delay processing all South African visas or selected ones. Again, as I think your 

case demonstrates, there really is not much difference in my view 

whether you refuse a visa by delay or w’hether you come right out 

and refuse it. I think again there you ju st have to decide whether you 

want to take that route, bearing in mind the other considerations tha t 

we have mentioned.

Mr. Diggs. Mr. Morse.

Mr. Morse. I have no questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Diggs. Mr. Broomfield.

Mr. Broomfield. No questions.

Mr. Diggs. Mr. Burke.

Mr. Burke. No questions, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Diggs. Do you know if there are any applications pending 

involving South African athletes for visas?

Mr. Smith. I don’t know of any tha t are pending. Mr. Player has a 

visa which expires this month some time, a multiple entry visa.

Mr. Diggs. What is the procedure with respect to these visa applications? Could you outline tha t for the record and indicate just how 

you would know if Gary Player or anybody else—when does it come 

to your attention tha t a given person from a given country has an 

application pending?

Mr. Smith. It does not necessarily come to the attention of the 

Department here unless the foreign service post at which the application is made notifies us for one reason or another. Either they have 

been alerted by us or they are using their own judgment. They may 

know that this is a case that should be referred to the Department.

Under the law, of course, the consular officer in the field is the one 

who has the final authority to make determinations of eligibility or 

ineligibility. Of course, I think if Mr. Player applied for a visa we 

would be notified, but this would not be necessarily true in other 

cases. They would not of course necessarily have to apply for a visa 

at Pretoria. They could apply at any of our foreign service posts. 

When that is done, the consular officer examines the application to 

try to determine, one, what category of visa is appropriate for this 

individual, and two, whether the individual is ineligible in any way 

under the law for tha t visa. If he finds tha t he is not ineligible, he 

grants the visa.

Mr. D iggs. Has the S tate Departmen t had any previous experiences 

of this nature where Americans have been denied entrance to foreign 

countries, any foreign country with whom we have established diplomatic relations, and ju st what have we done about it?

4 1 -5 5 5— 70 ------3
14

Mr. Smith. Yes, there have been any number of instances when 

Americans for one reason or another have been denied visas to other 

countries—Western European, Eastern European, African, Asian, 

and so forth. As a general matter, the Department has not made 

representations to the foreign government. It has not gone as far as 

it did in this case. T hat is based primarily on the rule of international 

law tha t each country has a right to determine who shall enter its 

territory, whether as a visitor or otherwise. Of course, there are any 

number of people that we refuse visas.

Mr. Diggs. In other words, unless a person has the kind of prominent 

stature as an Arthur Ashe, perhaps nothing happens.

Mr. Smith. Tha t is correct.

Mr. Diggs. And there is not any feeling on the part of our Government tha t something ought to be done about this thing? We just 

rely upon this open policy in the hopes of it having some therapeutic 

effect upon improving our relations with these countries?

Mr. Smith. I can only speak in the area of visas and immigration 

ami I think in that regard the legal and policy considerations tha t I 

mentioned before point in the direction of not taking retaliatory 

action.

I certainly imagine there are actions in the private area that can 

and probably will be taken. There, of course, may be actions which 

can be taken in other areas of the Government but I would not feel 

tha t I could talk to those.

Mr. Diggs. As you probably are aware, there have been some incidents of recent date in England regarding South African athletes. 

There have been protests, apartheid demonstrations at Rugby matches, 

and various other athletic contests. This appears to be escalating and 

there is developing, according to press reports from England and other 

overseas countries, a concern about this matter. There appeal’s also 

to be some nervousness which is getting people to review whether or 

not it might be in the national interest not to even permit these teams 

to come because they are targets of hostility. I have been informed 

through sources available to me tha t such demonstrations and protests might be anticipated here in the United States when South 

African athletes come here. Is this not a matter of concern to the Department? If such a situation begins to develop, what do you think 

the Department’s attitude would be in recommending tha t perhaps 

it may not be in the interests of our country to have these targets of 

hostility here?

Mr. Smith. 1 would ask Mr. Crosby to comment on the other aspects 

of that. From the visa angle, although I know there have been a few 

isolated instances in which Mr. Player has been subjected to certain 

harassment in golf tournaments, 1 don’t know of any disturbances 

of any magnitude. Of course if the entrance into the United States 

and the activities here of certain people could result in a threa t to 

the public safety, this conceivably could be a reason for denying a 

visa. However, that provision of the law (Sec. 212(a)(27)) is generally 

interpreted to mean threats in a security sense.

Mr. Diggs. Do you have some comment?

Mr. Crosby. Yes. 1 might add tha t short of such an extreme 

development of demonstrations or other manifestations tha t might 

represent a threat to the general public safety, we would feel the possibility of unpleasant incidents would be a consideration for the athletes
15

themselves to evaluate when they decide whether or n ot to apply for 

visas. If I may again say, it is our strong feeling that not simply 

because of expectation of any therepeutic effect as a result of maintaining our open policy, but because of the value of the policy itself 

and what it represents for the United States we should maintain tha t 

policy.

One particular consideration we have in mind when examining this 

type of problem is what the consequences would be. It is my belief 

that the consequences of rejection of a visa for Mr. Player would not 

cause the South African Government to change its policies, would 

not cause the South African Government to adopt a more lenient 

stance with regard to the issuance of visas to Mr. Ashe or other black 

Americans of any category.

And at the same time it would simply move us out of the part of 

the forest we find more comfortable and pu t us in the same category as 

the South African Government. This would not be to our advantage. 

At the same time, I think it would be to their advantage because it 

would remove, I would expect, much of the opprobrium tha t attaches 

to their arbitrary action in a case such as this one.

Mr. Diggs. Well, that is a very interesting comment because it is 

this kind of concept th at I think t hat too often in our policy vis-a-vis 

South Africa and that is whether or not it is going to have an effect 

upon South African policy. Given the intransigence of that administration and the official jxdicy of tha t Government on this subject, you 

may be correct; however, we have here in this sports subject something 

that has a little extra dimension to it because the South African people 

are great sports enthusiasts, and there is, from what I can gather, a 

developing resentment against this sort of situation.

There are some people who have spoken out, athletes and whatnot, 

who have spoken out against their government in this instance because 

of the Ashe incident, so that it has had some effect inside. But in addition to that, what about the effect? We talk about the effect on South 

African policy. Wha t about the effect on the degradation tha t this 

represents for the 30 million black Americans here in the United 

States. What about the effect of this kind of incident and the kind of 

implications of this matter with respect to the other African countries 

and their supporters. In each instance tha t the United States identifies 

itself either through some kind of policy pronouncement, that is not 

implemented or in some other fashion on the wrong side of this question, our rating in the rest of black Africa goes down another notch.

So you are confining the issue to the question of whether or not 

what we do is going to have some effect on South African policy, 

as a very disturbing state ment if it reflects the opinions of our 

administration in that matter.

Mr. Crosby. Mr. Chairman, that was par t of the comment I made, 

tha t it could not be expected necessarily to change their policy over 

the short run. There is another major reason why I believe our 

present policy is correct in relation to our own values, and this has 

to do with the view other countries take of the United States itself.

You mentioned the reaction of other African countries. I don’t 

have a reading on how they have felt about this, but I expect they 

would respect the efforts that have been made, the very high level 

and special efforts in this particular case to get a visa for Mr. Ashe.
16

At the same time, I think they would particularly respect our 

strength of character in maintaining the policy, in maintaining a 

position of openness. It is this contrast that sets us off so positively 

m comparison with the policies of the South Africans. I honestly 

believe it is not in our interest to take on the characteristics tha t 

we criticize in them. I believe this is the way a change of position 

would be regarded in Africa, because the African countries themselves 

so strongly dislike w hat is at the ro ot of the problem in South Africa.

Mr. Diggs. Well, it has not been my experience, Mr. Crosby, tha t 

they do have this reaction. We are continually criticized in all parts 

of Africa despite the pronouncements that have been correct. We 

have made all kinds. We are the greatest country in the world for 

making pronouncements tha t are correct, not only as it relates to ■*

this matter but all aspects of Africa. Yet we know these people are 

not naive, they are much more sophisticated than they are given 

credit for. We make a correct statement tha t we are abhorring apartheid and we are against racism and yet on the other hand one of 

our leading citizens is denied entrance into a country like South 

Africa and yet one of their people can come over here. I am positive 

this lack of implementing these pronouncements is seen for what it 

is, and we are not fooling anybody because I have had this kind of 

criticism directed at our Government on missions that I have made 

to all parts of Africa, not only on th e part of private individual citizens 

bu t on the part of leading members of the Government.

My colleague here, Mr. Burke, who accompanied me on a tour in 

Nigeria earlier this year, who is n ot a member of the subcommittee 

but a member of the full committee, and is present here, can recall 

many instances where these kinds of criticisms were directed at our 

policy. So it is not having the kind of effect tha t we think it is because 

it is not being implemented in those instances when it can be.

I think tha t our policymakers within the executive department 

ought to be realistic enough to face up to this kind of realism and this 

understanding of the dynamics of racism that the African nations and 

their peoples are expressing in this whole incident.

We have several other witnesses t hat are coming in who are being 

delayed because of bad weather. Mr. Ashe is coming in from Philadelphia. We have already heard from him, he is on the way. We have 

three or four witnesses coming from New York. As you know, the 

New York airports were closed down until I think 10:30, the first 

flight left there a t 10:30.

So the committee is going to declare a recess to the call of the 

Chair until these other witnesses arrive. I fully expect them to arrive 

within the next few minutes.

(Whereupon, at 10:50 a.m. the subcommittee recessed, subject to 

the call of the Chair.)

Mr. Diggs. The subcommittee will come to order again.

Our next witness will be Mr. Arthur Ashe, who is accompanied by 

Mr. Donald Dell, the former U.S. Davis Cup captain.

I am delighted also to welcome at this juncture Congressman 

David Satterfield who represents the homo community of Mr. Ashe 

and who is here out of respect for his constituent.

Did you have any preliminary comment to make?
17

STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID E. SATTERFIELD II I, A REPRESENTATIV E IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF VIR GIN IA

Mr. Satterfield. Mr. Chairman, if I might take just a moment.

Nobody can introduce Arthur Ashe, he is too well known, but I 

consider it a privilege at least to have this opportunity to present him 

to you because we are very proud of Arthur. I think that all citizens 

of this Nation can take pride in the manner in which he has comported himself on the tennis courts in many nations throughout the 

world, for certainly his sportsmanship has redounded to great benefit 

not only to himself b ut credit to his country.

As you know, Mr. Chairman, he is a man with a mind of his own, 

and he does not hesitate to express his views. As is often the case in 

that circumstance, there are some who disagree with some things 

tha t he might say. I would only want to say this, that it has been my 

personal observation that in the exercise of his right to observe, 

without exception I have observed tha t he has never been abusive 

of th at right b ut in absolute harmony with the inte nt of the constitutional provision that guarantees this right to all of us.

I wish I could hear his statement, but the drug abuse hearings 

prohibit it. I am confident, you, Mr. Chairman, will find him to be a 

completely articulate and candid witness as he expresses to you his 

own honest views. I as one welcome him and commend him to your 

judgment.

Mr. Diggs. Thank you very much, Mr. Congressman.

Mr. Ashe, you may proceed. Do you have a prepared statement, sir?

STATEMENT OF ARTHUR ASHE, U.S. TEN NIS CHAMPION, ACCOMPAN IED BY DONALD DELL, FORMER U.S. DAVIS CUP CAPTAIN

Mr. Ashe. Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, also I would like to thank Mr. Satterfield for being 

here this morning.

It may be somewhat redundan t apropos the statem ent of Mr. 

Crosby from the State Department, but I would like to give my 

personal chronological series of events leading up to the denial of 

the visa application.

An informal atte mpt was made in 1968 by my lawyer here, Mr. Dell, 

who then was U.S. Davis Cup captain, with Mr. Owen Williams 

of the South African Open in Johannesburg. This took the form of 

letters to and from Mr. Dell and Mr. Williams. Mr. Williams informed us from Johannesburg that if we did in fact file for a visa 

in 1968 the visa would be tu rned down.

I brought up the subject again at the Internatio nal Tennis Players 

Association meeting in England last summer and this is where it 

broke into the public eye for the first time.

The head of the South African Lawn Tennis Union, Mr. Alf 

Chalmers, said tha t I never applied to play in the South African 

Open for 1969, and tha t I was quite wrong in my accusation tha t 

South Africa barred me, b ut I have letters to and from Mr. Williams 

and Mr. Dell to substantiate my claim that I did in fact try. The 

only technicality in 1969 for the 1969 championships was tha t I 

did not apply for a visa. This year in preparation for the 1970 South 

African Open to be held in March, I decided to exhaust every possible
IS

legal, diplomatic, athletic, and moral channel to secure a “yes” on 

the visa application.

Owen Williams, the tournament chairman, was appointed tournament chairman at the U.S. Open at Forest Hills, and he volunteered 

to help me with my visa application. During the time of Forest 

Hills pickets were being formed by two factions, one from Chicago 

and one from New York City ’s Harlem. I personally knew tha t if 

I wanted to maximize my chances of getting a “yes” on a visa, I 

would have to get them to cool it. I pleaded with them and told them 

to give me 9 months, that is all I asked, and tha t timing was all 

important. The pickets, by the way, were being formed to protest 

the presence of Owen Williams because he is South African and he 

was tournament chairman of the biggest tennis event held in the 

United States.

So we planned to plan the entire visa procedure. Owen Williams 

would use his best efforts to secure a “yes” on my visa application in 

South Africa. Our president, Alastair Martin, president of the U.S. 

Lawn Tennis Association here, sent their South African Tennis Union 

president, Mr. Alf Chalmers, a le tter which constituted my application, and further explained the possible consequences of a “no.”

This let ter held a November 30 deadline for an answer. The answer 

came back quickly and the South African team accepted my offer to 

play in the south. The question of the visa still remained, however.

During the interim, I was scheduled for a series of exhibitions in 

France with two of my Davis Cup teammates, against members of 

the French Davis Cup team. This was arranged by my lawyer, Mr. 

Dell, and our Ambassador to France, Sargent Shriver, who is a personal friend of ours. Ambassador Shriver plays tennis every day, and 

it just so happens tha t while we were in France, so was Secretary of 

State Rogers. Ambassador Shriver brought Secretary Rogers to see 

the tennis and on December 6, Ambassador Shriver introduced all of 

us to Secretary Rogers, and then I politely asked if he would be of 

assistance. His exact words were, “I will see what I can do,” concerning 

the visa application.

I later read in the paper, and heard through my office here in 

Washington, tha t he did in fact pursue the matter and instructed our 

Ambassador to South Africa, Mr. Rountree, to personally inform 

Prime Minister Balthazer Vorster, tha t Secretary of State Rogers 

was lending his personal weight and the weight of the State Dep artment behind the application.

I think the letter and my chat with Secretary Rogers took care of 

the athletic and the diplomatic channels.

On December 15, I filed a visa application in New York City and 

held a press conference in New York City expressly to explain the 

rationale behind the visa application.

One, and most important, if I go, I go as an individual American 

citizen, a qualified tennis player, specifically not as a team member.

Two, I recognize full well all anti-South African statements I have 

made in the past, but I stated tha t freedom to criticize is a privilege 

enjoyed by all Americans, so why should I make South Africa an . exception?

For the purpose of maximizing my chances for securing a “Yes,”

I agreed not to make any political statements about South Africa 

from the time my visa application went in, December 15, until a
19

reasonable time after the tournament in March, and this was obviously because of the April elections. I was strongly urged, and I did 

sign notarized statements to this effect, tha t I would not make any 

political statements. These notarized statements are held in my 

office and they can be seen if anyone wants to see them.

This I thought was a major concession on my part to bend over 

backward to get a “Yes.” The visa application and the notarized 

statement I thought took care of all the legal channels. All the legalities were out of the way. The press conference made my position 

quite clear, and in so doing I knew South Africa would hear about it 

the next day over the wire service.

My only moral obligation now is to keep my mouth shut as I 

promised, which was quite difficult until I got a “Yes” or a “No” 

on the visa application. I did just that; I kept my mouth shut until 

I got the answer.

I left for a tour of Southeast Asia and Australia on Christmas 

Day, and on Janua ry 22 UP I in Sydney, Australia, tells me tha t I 

will probably get a “No” because of an answer to a question at a 

political rally by a close confidant of the Prime Minister of Australia.

On Janu ary 27 I learned that the answer was “No.” I conclude 

tha t the only reason they gave me a “No” in light of all I did beforehand was because I happened to be nonwhite. The only other considerations left now as far as procedures are concerned are tha t in 

March there is a meeting of the Davis Cup nations to decide the fate 

of the South African Davis Cup, and in July there is a formal meeting 

of the International Lawn Tennis Federation which will decide 

whether South Africa remains in the International Lawn Tennis 

Federation.

That is the series of events chronologically leading up to the “No” 

on January 27.

Mr. Diggs. I s tha t the end of your opening statement?

Mr. Ashe. Yes. I am free to answer questions. T hat is the situation 

as it stands.

Mr. Diggs. Thank you very much for tha t sequence of events.

Mr. Dell, would you like to make your comments now, and then we 

will submit some questions?

Mr. Dell. Mr. Chairman, I am not going to make any comments. 

I am here to assist Mr. Ashe.

Mr. Diggs. Mr. Ashe, you of course have referred to your previous 

statements which, according to the South African Government, were 

supposed to be the basis for their denial of your visa. I have a copy of 

that press release and I am going to make it part of the record.

This was issued on the 28th of Jan uary 1970. It said:

Mr. Arthur Ashe has been refused a visa to go to South Africa.

Why?

Mr. Ashe claims tha t he wished to partici pate in the South African Open Tennis 

Tournament n ot for political reasons bu t solely for the purpose of playing tennis.

Yet what has Mr. Ashe done from the political p oint of view so far?

Mr. Ashe associated himself with a movement to preven t South Africa’s 

participation in the Olympic Games in 1968. This is recorded in Un ited Nations 

Document A/AC.115/L.215 of 21 February, 1968.

Had South Africa been allowed to partici pate in the Games th at would have 

been the first time th at non-whites would have been included in the South African 

team.

Mr. Ashe m ust therefore bear a share of the responsibility for depriving Sou th 

African non-whites of the opp ortunity of taking pa rt in the Olympics.
20

Mr. Ashe has also been credited by th e press with having made some strong 

anti-So uth African stateme nts. Here are just a few.

“S outh Africa, I really burn on th at issue, I just want to take an H-bomb and 

drop it right on Johannesburg.”

“ I told them t o tru st me for another y ear to get improvem ent in South Africa 

and elsewhere in the a partheid situ atio n. I know wh at I’m doing and we’re going 

to do something. . . .

“The objectiv e is to get me into the Sou th African Open next March.”

He said he would persist in his efforts to play in South Africa a nd “p ut a crack 

in the racist wall down there.”

South Africa “is a very bigoted cou ntry, the most bigoted cou ntry in the 

world.”

Are these the actions and utterance s of someone who wishes to go to South 

Africa solely for th e purpose of playing tennis?

Had Mr. Ashe been going to South Africa as a member of a Un ited States 

team to pla y in a Davis Cup tie a visa would nevertheless have been granted to him.

Bu t the South African authorities are n ot prepared to adm it him, as a private 

individual, to p lay in the Sou th African Open.

This is over the signature of the South African Embassy here in 

Washington, dated the 28th of January 1970.

You have alluded to certain of these statements. Is there anything 

in addition to what is contained in the press release tha t you would 

like to make any comment on at all?

Mr. Ashe. Yes. Well, 1 agree th at I made all of those statements, 

and I further agree that I don’t retract any of them. I think they happen to be true. The real question at issue was the fact tha t as far as 

my statements referring to specific questions of whether or not black 

athletes could go to South Africa or not on an independent basis, the 

answer is still no.

I know of no nonwhite athlete from any part of the world who has 

ever been to South Africa on an independent basis. They are only 

allowed to go as members of a team.

Furthermore, many whites have also criticized South Africa— 

South Africa’s policy of apartheid and they have been allowed to go 

to South Africa.

As far as the Olympics are concerned, it was true in fact that South 

Africa did not allow its own black athletes to participate in integrated 

trials in South Africa. We, as black athletes here in the United States, 

myself in particular, since I am the only one involved in tennis on an 

international scale, I feel emotionally a p art of the struggle myself.

My only answer is tha t everything they have said about me and 

my accusations have turned out to be correct. T hat is, if in fact you 

are not—when I say “you” , I mean South Africa—if they are not 

prejudiced or discriminating, why didn’t you give me a “yes” on the 

visa? If in fact you do not adhere to the policies that I accuse you of, 

why didn’t I get a “yes”? I don’t take anything back, retract anything, 

I said. I think it all happens to be true, and the “no” affirms this.

Mr. Diggs. Mr. Ashe, you alluded to the Davis Cup nations meeting 

in March.

Mr. Ashe. Yes.

Mr. Diggs. And the future of South Africa’s participation in international sports is going to be the prime subject there.

Do you have any further comments to make about what you think 

may come out of that meeting, you or Mr. Dell?

Mr. Ashe. Yes. Well, this is an extraordinary meeting called by the 

champion nation. We happen to be the champion nation of the Davis
21

Cup. The champion nation is given extraordinary powers but the 

purpose of the meeting is to expressly change the rules so that the 

champion nation will be allowed to reject the application of any 

member nation tha t it deems unworthy or unfit to participate in the 

Davis Cup competition.

The basis of this rule is tha t either rule 30 or 19 of the IOTF rules 

and regulations specifically prohibit racial discrimination. I think my 

case constitutes a cut-and-dried test case and as such I expect the rules 

to be changed to allow the champion nation to be given these extraordinary powers.

Furthermore, I expect Africa to be barred from the Davis Cup 

competition at the March meeting. I expect the same results in the 

Internatio nal Lawn Tennis Federation meeting in July.

Mr. Diggs. I was going to ask you about that. The International 

Lawn Tennis Federation has also tacked this subject on their agenda 

and it is your anticipation tha t they are going to take the same action 

as the Davis Cup nations?

Mr. Ashe. Yes.

Mr. Diggs. Well, this is certainly not unusual, because, as you 

know, South Africa is now excluded not only from Olympics but from 

table tennis, from soccer, from amateur boxing, weight lifting, fencing, 

and judo. South African teams are still accepted bu t in danger of being 

forced out of wrestling, gymnastics, and squash. They are accepted 

but on a restricted scale in swimming, hockey, rugby, cricket, tennis, 

and golf.

The pressures against them are strong in these last four categories 

and are dependent upon the results of international events of this year. 

So this is not an isolated situation.

Mr. Ashe. No.

Mr. Diggs. It seems as if the forces of international sports are 

closing in.

Mr. Ashe. Mr. Chairman, I might add, though, tha t South Africa 

is one of the founding members, one of the bastions of support of 

International Lawn Tennis Federation and its influence is quite 

powerful and was visibly felt in past years when feeble attempts at 

throwing them out of the federation were tried. Jus t through sheer 

weight of their presence and long standing with the federation they 

managed to ward off these attempts.

I think again I might add tha t I think my case constitutes a very 

clearcut violation of international rules, one tha t has been tested.

I say again I bent over backward to secure a “yes” and they still 

said “no.” So I think tha t the international federation has no 

recourse this time.

Mr. Rosenthal. How did you bend over backwards?

Mr. Diggs. This is Congressman Rosenthal of New York.

Mr. Rosenthal. I represent Forest Hills, N.Y. [Laughter.]

Mr. Diggs. I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Ashe. The principal foar expressed by their administrative 

support, Mr. Fran k Waring, was of his allusions to my past antiSouth African statements and the fact that my trip was not athletic 

but it was political. To allay this I signed notarized statements tha t 

I would keep my mouth shut, I would not say anything political 

about South Africa since the time my visa went in until I got a “ no,”

41 -5 55 — 70 -------4
22

or if “yes,” until a reas ona ble tim e after the tourna men t. So I would 

come dow n the re virtu all y with a muzzle on my mouth, no t say a 

word, I would ju st play tenn is.

Of course my five senses would be hy pe rtu ne d to wha t is going on 

bu t th at would be the g ist of it. I wou ld no t say a word . So if I signed 

sta temen ts to this effect, wha t else can I do?

Mr. R osenth al. Tha t is exact ly the point .

May I continue?

Mr. D igg s. Yes.

Mr. R osen tha l. Take this ju st a lit tle furth er. Do you think 

ath letes should carry a special b urden? How do yo u feel a bo ut a thletes 

car rying the burden of lim itin g themselves on speaking ou t on p olitical 

issues? Should ath letes be seg reg ate d as a grou p in our society so th at 

the y have extra lim itations th at othe r people do n’t have in speaking 

ou t and expressing them selves?

Mr. Ash e. Oh, no. Th e adage th at politics and spo rts do n’t mix is, 

in the words of Bob L ipsit t, a silly am bition , as h e made the com ment 

yeste rday in the New York Tim es.

Mr. R osen thal. Do you think it is useful th at peop le who gain 

some pub lic attenti on , public no torie ty, who gain soc iety’s res pec t— 

particular ly the res pect of young people— do you thi nk they have a 

special respon sibility to spe ak ou t on pub lic issues?

Mr. Ash e. Yes. I do n’t like to think of myself as notorious , bu t J 

do think th at ath letes, especially bla ck ath letes, mus t use every 

possible resource at their comm and to try to rig ht things th at are 

obviously wrong, especially in their pa rti cu lar areas of respon sibility.

Mr. R osenth al. In othe r words, when the y denied the visa it was 

no t only because of color, yo ur color, but it was also because of some 

political sta temen ts they said yo u ha d made and which you acknowledge mak ing?

Mr. Ash e. Yes, bu t I fu rth er add ed th at th at is no thi ng new. I 

mea n freedom to criticize, as I said , is a privilege enjoyed by all 

Americans. I critic ize the U.S. Go vernme nt daily, if no t in my 

tho ughts ma ybe somewhere else, ye t I am allowed to con tinue spe aking freely. So why should 1 ma ke So uth Africa an exception? They 

have no rig ht to be an exc eption ju st because they have different 

laws th an we do. I am still an Am erican citiz en, I am still free to 

criticize.

Mr. R osen tha l. As an Am eric an citizen you hav e, as all of us 

have, a deep concern for the rig hts and freedom of all of our citizens 

in the Un ite d States?

Mr. Ash e. Yes.

Mr. R osenthal. Do you also have a feel for free dom throughout 

the world? Are you concern ed ab ou t living con dition s aro und the 

world and peoples’ righ ts?

Mr. Ash e. I think 1 can conside r myself a world tra ve ler hav ing 

made several trips aro und the wor ld and havin g seen alm ost every 

place there is, yes. Yes, I have a deep concern for con dition s around 

the world, especially peop le who are economically dis advantaged and 

especially people who are non white. I kno w full well wha t it is like 

to be non white and to live in the “sho rt end of the stic k, ” so I have 

great em pa thy with people who are down tro dden, especially the 15 

million non whi tes, South A fricans, who are ruled by 3 million whites.
23

Mr. Rosenthal. Do you think it is in the U.S. national interest 

that we be concerned about the rights and freedoms of citizens in 

other countries such as, for example, South Vietnam and South Africa?

Mr. Ashe. Yes, I do. I think we have a commitment to be concerned 

and I think the concern should take the form of more than just 

diplomatic attem pts to right these wrongs.

Mr. Rosenthal. Do you think in this day and age of modern 

communications and television, tha t people who have the ability to be 

recognized by the public media have a special responsibility to speak 

out on public issues?

Mr. Ashe. If they feel emotionally committed, I think they should, 

yes. Especially if these areas touch on their personal everyday lives, I 

think they have a special commitment to lend their weight to do what 

is right.

Mr. Rosenthal. Do you think tha t by doing tha t they are reaching the highest ideals of American citizenship?

Mr. Ashe. Very much so. I think they will really, truly personify to 

the fullest the potential of an American citizen. To have the potential 

to do a lot of good and not exercise this capability I think is probably 

the worst cowardice here in the United States.

Mr. Rosenthal. Let me just ask one last question: This event, has 

it had any effect or have you noticed any attitude among our colleagues in the tennis playing set toward you?

Mr. Ashe. No, nothing different. Being probably the most diverse 

cosmopolitan group of athletes in the world, coming from virtually 

every continent, race, creed, color, we frequently discuss all sorts 

of issues among ourselves—Russia, Czechoslovakia, Israel, Arab—you 

name it, we have it right there in Philadelphia, and our views toward 

one another don’t change. We have our little arguments but we are one 

big reasonably happy family. Their views toward me have not 

changed at all; they recognize the situation.

Mr. R osenthal. Do you think tha t because athletes begin to be 

one happy family—I take tha t with great reservation, but I think it is 

possible-----

Mr. Ashe. I said “reasonably” happy.

Mr. R osenthal. Right. Do you think tha t if they as a group show 

some leadership in resolving difficult political questions—as in the 

Jackie Robinson breakthrough—do you think tha t would be a healthy 

tiling for society?

In other words, if they show leadership in improving difficult social 

questions.

Mr. Ashe. Yes.

Mr. R osenthal. And if tha t is a good thing, don’t they have this 

particular special responsibility?

Mr. Ashe. Yes. I think athletics have been a tremendous icebreaker 

in all sorts of areas in the United States, especially as far as domestic 

relations are concerned. To repeat the statement I made the day 

before yesterday, I dare say tha t if it were not for some of the racially 

integrated professional athletic teams in the large cities of the United 

States, there may have been race riots all over this country. I further 

added tha t Kansas City probably feels very, very glad they have 

Mike Garret there and they would probably kiss him on both cheeks 

for lots of reasons.

Mr. Rosenthal. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
24

Mr. Diggs. Do you have any questions?

Mr. Burke. Yes, just one.

Mr. Diggs. Mr. Burke of Florida.

Mr. B urke. Mr. Ashe, I think all of us agree as Americans t hat we 

have the right to speak out against political injustices. However, 

when you make the point of speaking out in the same category by 

making political threats, then aren’t you actually going beyond the 

bounds of criticism, such as you made in your statement when you 

said you would like to drop the bomb on South Africa?

Mr. Ashe. I said this a year ago.

Mr. Burke. But you still said that you felt the same today. Even 

though i t could not be carried out, isn’t tha t a th reat to the innocent 

people in a day when we are talking about outlawing the atomic bomb? «

Mr. Ashe. What innocent people are you talking about? 1

Mr. B urke. Pardon? ,

Mr. Ashe. What innocent people are you talking about?

Mr. Burke. I think there are many innocent people in every f

country that may not share the views of their government.

Mr. Ashe. Right.

Mr. B urke. People who may very well sympathize and agree with 

you on South Africa, but particularly innocent women and children 

who would be obliterated by the dropping of a bomb.

Mr. Ashe. Right.

Mr. Burke. I would think tha t a statem ent like tha t from an 

intelligent person like you would bear some extremely self-analysis.

Mr. Ashe. Right. I really don’t think tha t you can really believe 

that I have the buttons to push an H-bomb.

Mr. B urke. No, I said as impossible as it was.

Mr. Ashe. Right.

Mr. Burke. But in this day and age when all nations are attempting 

to outlaw the bomb, I think even suggestions of that type go beyond 

the, let’s say criticism from a point of view of debate.

Mr. Ashe. Right. Well, I was not engaged in a debate, I was 

expressing my views in as strong terms as possible and obviously I 

did not mean it literally, and we are not really talking about 

bombs here today.

Mr. Burke. Yes, I understand. That is the reason I asked the 

question. However, you did make the statement.

Mr. Ashe. I was jus t trying to phrase my objection to apartheid, 

my objection to South African stated government policy of apartheid 

as strongly as possible because I am personally involved, being 

classed arbitrarily as nonwhite in this world, and the fact tha t as 

you well know, how would you like to be one of those 15 million 

nonwhites in South Africa?

Mr. Burke. I would not like to be. I am not criticizing your 

speaking out against injustices.

Mr. Ashe. I don’t think my criticism overstepped the bounds of 

reasonableness.

Mr. Burke. Well, the reason I asked it is t hat Mr. Crosby in his 

statement said that Mr. Waring alleged tha t Mr. Ashe had made a 

number of unfriendly and threatening statements against South 

Africa.

Now it is the threatening statements that I don’t know you could 

have made although I know of none except that one about the bomb
25

which could not be carried out. However, I am trying to see what 

other threatening statement, if any, Mr. Waring could mean. Your 

criticisms do not necessarily constitute threats except the one that 

I did mention.

Mr. Ashe. Right. You are asking me a question?

Mr. B urke. Yes.

Mr. Ashe. What is the question?

Mr. Burke. Other than that one statement tha t you would like 

to see the bomb dropped, would you consider anything else you said 

actually threatening against the security of the country or would 

you consider your statements as your criticism of the form of government and the inj ustices and the country itself?

Mr. Ashe. I don’t see myself as a thre at to apartheid. I certainly 

i oppose apartheid. I would like to see apartheid done away with and

I would certainly give every consideration to any reasonable avenues 

which could possibly repudiate apartheid.

I am sure you well know tha t all of the accusations are possible 

statements, anti-South African statements I made were made in the 

depths of my emotional involvement having been black or nonwhite.

Mr. Burke. I only want it for the sake of the record.

Mr. Ashe. I don’t think I really pose a threat to the internal security 

of South Africa.

Mr. Burke. I didn’t think so either, but I wanted to get the record 

straight.

Than k you.

Mr. Diggs. Mr. Ashe, there are some people that have felt strongly 

enough about the incident involving you and the incidents involving 

others like you to suggest tha t beyond the statements of protest on 

the part of our Government, tha t they ought to do something else. 

For example, they ought to reciprocate in some symbolic way involving some South African athlete who is being privileged to come to 

the United States under unrestricted circumstances.

Do you have any comments to make on that?

Mr. Ashe. Yes. I would like to say first of all my emotional answer 

to that, being a black American, is th at our State Department should 

not allow South African athletes in on an individual basis as long 

as their government continues its present policy of excluding black 

American athletes. However, after further reflection my moral 

conscience tells me that the United States should not stoop to the low 

level of the South Africans’ stated policy of racial discrimination 

because in effect I would be condoning the premise that two wrongs 

make a right.

Furthermore, more to the particular situation at hand, several of 

their players are friends of mine and I would not want them to suffer 

the same personal indignities at the hand of my Government that I 

would have to suffer at the hands of their government. But I would 

want to add tha t I would hope tha t the U.S. State Departm ent 

would use every possible resource at its command to force the South 

African Government to change its abhorrent and inhuman policy of 

apartheid.

Mr. Rosenthal. That is an excellent statement.

Mr. Diggs. Do you say tha t on a sort of a categorical basis or are 

you talking—I mentioned it in two ways. One of course is categorical, 

the other is on a selected basis as a symbolic act of our rejection of 

their policy.
26

Do you mean it on both bases?

Mr. Ashe. I do mean it both ways because I feel it both ways. My 

emotional gut reaction is don’t let any of them in, keep them all in 

South Africa. If I can’t play down there, they should not play here. 

But my moral conscience, being brought up the way I was, what I 

can’t bring myself to really say is tha t we should do to them wh at 

they do to us.

Mr. Diggs. Do you have any further questions?

Do you have any further comments, Mr. Dell?

Thank you very much, gentlemen.

Mr. Ashe. Thank you.

Mr. Diggs. The Chair now recognizes Mr. George Gowen, general 

counsel-designate, U.S. Lawn Tennis Association.

Mr. Gowen.

STATEMENT OF GEORGE GOWEN, GENERAL COUNSEL-DESIGNATE, 

U.S. LAW N TE NN IS ASSOCIATION

Mr. Gowen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Diggs. The witness will suspend until there is order.

The Chair respectfully requests that anyone who is going to remain 

be seated; those tha t are leaving, will you leave quickly so tha t the 

next witness may proceed.

You may proceed, Mr. Gowen.

Mr. Gowen. I apologize for being late. I just came down from New 

York, which has suffered a rather severe winter storm.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the U.S. Lawn Tennis Association I 

wish to thank you for your interest in this m atter, and for the opportunity of letting me discuss it with you.

Mr. A rthur Ashe is a member-----

Mr. Diggs. Excuse me. Could you at this point give us a little 

more information about what the U.S. Lawn Tennis Association is, 

who are the participants and all the rest?

Mr. Gowen. Right.

The U.S. Lawn Tennis Association is the leading tennis organization 

in the United States.

Now, there are other organizations, including professional groups, 

tha t are interested in tennis. The U.S. Lawn Tennis Association is 

approximately 90 years old. It formulates rules for the governing of 

tennis tournaments, has committees for ranking players and overseeing 

the operations of practically all phases of tennis activity in the United 

States.

Mr. Diggs. Is it interracial?

Mr. Gowen. It is interracial.

Mr. Diggs. Does it involve other countries, or is it strictly national?

Mr. Gowen. It is primarily limited to the United States. It is a 

member of the ILTF, which is the International Lawn Tennis Federation, and as such cooperates, or tries to cooperate with the international body. I t is also involved with international competitions such 

as the Davis Cup. Mr. Ashe is a very prominent member of our Davis 

Cup team.

Mr. Diggs. What is its overall purpose?

Mr. Gowen. It is to promote tennis in the United States.

Mr. Diggs. You may proceed.
27

Mr. Gowen. Some of this may undoubtedly be repetitious but as 

I have not heard what the others have said, I think you can bear with 

me.

Mr. Ashe is a member in good standing of our organization and is a 

leading tennis player, ranked No. 2 in the United States. He recently 

won the Australian Open Tennis Championships and is a member of 

the U.S. Davis Cup Team. He is universally regarded as a credit to the 

game of tennis.

Now, I might say, parenthetically, tha t this last sentence might 

sound like a hollow state ment of flattery, but I think we should all 

remember tha t there have been tennis stars in the past tha t have 

been rather sarcastically referred to as “tennis bums.” I have never 

heard this phrase applied by anybody to Mr. Ashe.

When Mr. Ashe advised the USLTA last December tha t he was 

about to apply for a visa to play in the South African Tennis Championships to be held in March 1970, the USLTA through its president, 

Alistair Martin, stated tha t it would help him in any way it could. 

We also understood th at the U.S. State Department likewise indicated 

its support. Specifically, the USLTA:

(1) Announced that Mr. Ashe’s application had its complete 

backing.

(2) Stated it appreciated the position of the South African Lawn 

Tennis Union in wanting Mr. Ashe to play there.

(3) Issued a formal call in January 1970 for a special meeting of 

the Davis Cup nations to consider the South African situation.

(4) Wrote on Janu ary 20, or thereabouts, to the African Consul 

General in New York repeating its support of Mr. Ashe, confirming 

his desire to play tennis and not politics, and concluding that a 

further delay in granting a visa would be tan tamount to the rejection 

of the visa application.

(5) Upon learning of the denial of the visa, Alistair Martin issued 

a public statem ent, which was reproduced in part in the New York 

Times, condemning the rejection and concluding that South Africa’s 

decision could only have been based upon racial discrimination.

Now tha t the visa has been denied, the USLTA at the meeting of 

the Davis Cup nations to be held this March will undoubtedly vote 

to exclude the South African team from Davis Cup competition. It 

is felt that South Africa by its own conduct has precluded itself from 

further Davis Cup competition.

We do not believe tha t South African players as individuals should 

be excluded from tournaments in this country. We do not subscribe 

to the theory tha t two wrongs make a right. We believe tha t the best 

interest of human brotherhood and international goodwill are served 

by sporting events open to individuals from all nations.

If the entry application of each individual competitor is to be 

judged in the light of the politics, policies and behavior of his Nation’s 

government, the athletes of many nations might well be rejected. We 

believe tha t by encouraging tournaments open to the world’s finest 

athletes regardless of race, creed, or political persuasion we also in 

some small way promote world peace and brotherhood.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Diggs. Thank you, Mr. Gowen.

The last statement tha t you made about permitting South African 

athletes to come to the United States to participate, when you turn
28

th at aro und and c onsider w ha t would happen if a black American was 

pe rm itted to go to South Africa, how do you conside r the fac t th at 

the se events are witn essed on a segregated basis?

Mr. Gowen. In South Africa?

Mr. D iggs. In S outh Africa.

Mr. Gowen. No thi ng I said or meant to say imp lied any form of 

su pp or t of the South African Go ve rnme nt’s policy. I think our own 

policy should be viewed and conside red in the light of o ur own ideals.

One of ou r ideals I believe is to t re at all m en equ ally . I f an individual 

who othe rwise qualifies as a decent hu man being and as a good ten nis 

pla yer h app ens to be from So uth Africa, I believe he sho uld be allowed 

to play in American tourna men ts for bas ically three reason s: One, I 

th in k our co mpetitors them selves en joy p lay ing a gains t the best in the 

wor ld and hope fully be ati ng the m. Two , I think the public enjoys 

tru ly inte rnation al matches. Th ree , if we s ta rted ex clud ing th e ath let es 

from one nation or anoth er n ation, or au tomati cally excluded ath let es 

from all nations th at had, for exam ple, b een cond emned by the U nited 

Na tio ns for any form of un wo rth y con duct, we wou ld be open ing the 

sportin g world to more pro blems th an we alr ead y have.

I believe Mr. Ashe’s conclud ing sta temen t th at I heard when I 

cam e in, on his personal feeling, and on his second tho ughts, could 

no t have been m ore appro priat e, more hones t, or more pertinent.

Mr. D iggs. M r. Burke , do you have any questions?

Mr. B ur ke. No questio ns. Tha nk you, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. Diggs. I th an k the gentlem an for his contr ibu tio n. Althou gh 

you arrived late , th at certa inly did no t affec t the qu ali ty of yo ur 

testimony .

Mr. Gowen. T ha nk y ou, Mr. Chairma n.

Mr. D iggs. The ne xt witness I would like to call is Mr. Dennis 

Brutu s.

Mr. Br utus is the presiden t of the South African No n-R acial 

Comm itte e for Olympic Sports.

Mr. Br utu s, I migh t say addit ion ally is a colored So uth African, 

was a school teache r. He formed the So uth African No n-R acial 

Olym pics Co mm itte e in an at te m pt to give all South African people 

a chance to pa rticip ate in world spo rts and in the hope th at such 

a com mittee mi gh t win rec ognition and open the way to Olympic 

gam es in South Africa.

The South Africa n Go ve rnme nt promp tly banned him. Mr. Br utus, 

who is a Britis h su bjec t and held a Rhodesian pa sspo rt—he was 

born in Rho desia, I sho uld say, fled to Swaziland in 1963 and then 

to Mo zam bique and the re the Portuguese police arr est ed him and 

des pite his Britis h pa sspo rt handed him ove r to the South African 

police at their req uest.

Ba ck in Johannesburg M r. Bru tus trie d to escape. I t should be 

rem embered th at at th at sta ge he had nev er been charged or trie d 

or convicted of anyth ing . In thi s escape at te m pt he was shot in the 

back at point-blank ran ge by the police and this wou nd of course 

still carries. He was trie d on a charge of contr avening a banning 

ord er and sentenced to 18 m on ths in prison at Ro bben Island where 

so-called political prisone rs are held. When his sen tence expired, he 

was ban ned again as soon as he was released, the terms of the ban 

bein g so severe th at Mr. Bru tu s who is a Ro ma n Catho lic, was forbid den to attend mass.
29

In 1966 he was allowed to leave South Africa, went to Britain and 

is now here in the United States I believe at the University of Denver. 

Am I correct?

I think he can be particularly enlightening with respect to this 

whole general subject.

Mr. Brutus.

STATEMENT OF DENNIS BRUTUS, PRESIDENT OF SOUTH AFRICAN 

NON-RACIAL COMMITTEE FOR OLYMPIC SPORTS

Mr. Brutus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I should like to start by expressing my appreciation for this opportunity to present to you and to your committee of the House of 

Representatives some facets which I believe are pertinent to this 

matter. I propose, sir, to put in a written submission as well and then 

to speak to it.

Mr. Diggs. Very well. Without objection, the statement will be 

included in the record.

(The statement follows:)

Dennis Brutus, President of SAN-ROC (South African Non-R acial Open Committee for Olympic Sports)

Dennis Brutus, South African exile, active in sport in South Africa in athle tics 

and other sports, and as an organizer and ad ministrator, came out of South Africa 

in 1966 on an “exit-permit” which forbids him to retu rn, after having served a 

prison sentence for his activ e opposition to racism in sport. He was secretary of 

the large st non-racial sports bodies in the country and was arrested for attending 

a meeting in the offices of the all-white South African Olympic Committee. He 

was a leading figure in the opposition before to Mexico Olympics which led to the 

exclusion of South Africa from the Games in 1968. Currently, he is visiting Lecturer 

in African Literature in the English Departme nt, University of Denver, Colorado. 

He has published widely, and has two volumes of poetry published: he has had 

work translated into more than half-dozen European languages.

Dennis Brutus will testify and make the following submissions:

1. Th at the refusal of a visa to Mr. Arthur Ashe is a denial of rights to an 

American citizen;

2. Th at this refusal is discrim inatory, being based on the fact th at Mr. Ashe is 

classified in South Africa as a “non-white” , and t ha t this refusal has not applied to 

others who are not classified as “non-w hite.”

3. Th at this decision was taken by the South African government and is a 

clear instance of a decision affecting spo rt being taken by the state administration;

4. Th at in response to this affro nt to a United States citizen, based on racism, 

the United States may justifiably, and indeed should, respond similarly by barring South African citizens from entering the U.S. for purposes of sport, until 

the position of South Africa is changed;

5. Th at in pursuance of the U.S. policy of seeking equal rights for all its citizens, all U.S. sportsmen should be barred from going to South Africa until the 

facilities there are available to all U.S. citizens without distinctio ns based on 

racism.

6. Th at any such decision would be according to the spirit of the Resolution 

adopted by the United Nations in December 1968, urging all countries to break 

off sports relations with South Africa.

I would like to express my apprecia tion to the House Subcomm ittee for giving 

me this opp ortu nity to testify before the Subcommittee on the subject of racial 

discrimination in sport, as applied by the South African government, with special 

reference to the refusal of a visa to Mr. Arthur Ashe, a United States citizen and 

a tennis-player.

I wish to make certain submissions to the Subcommittee on this issue, and 

specifically to ask the Subcommittee to recommend to the United States government th at it react to this refusal, which indicates a clearly discriminatory a ttitud e 

by the South African government, by barring all South African sportsmen from
30

participating in sporting events in the U.S. and indicating th at it is opposed to 

any United States sportsmen participating in events in South Africa until such 

time as an assurance is given th at ALL U.S. sportsmen will be welcome in South 

Africa and that none will be barred on the grounds of race.

I make these submissions in m y c apacity as a South African citizen and sportsman, exiled from my c ountry because of my opposition to racism in South African 

sport, and as the President of SAN-ROC —the South African Non-Racial Open 

Committee for Olympic Sports, which was e stablished in South Africa in October 

1962 (at Durban) and of which I was elected president a t the time of its inception.

I have been actively engaged in opposition to racism in sport in South Africa for 

more tha n 15 years, particularly since 1958, as Secretary of the non-racial South 

African Sports Association, and have worked actively with sportsmen in other 

parts of the world who are opposed to racism, including sportsmen in the United 

States, Britain, Europe and most of Africa.

I would draw the atten tio n of the Subcommittee to the fact th at the practice 

of racism in South African sport has received th e attention of many international 

sporting bodies, particu larly the Inter natio nal Olympic Com mittee, which has 

studied this matter, and which excluded South Africa from partici pation at the 

Olympic Games in Tokyo in 1964 an d in Mexico City in 1968 and th at a n umber 

of the bodies controlling par ticula r codes of sport have alre ady excluded South 

Africa from participation—these inclu de Table Tennis, Weightlifting, Boxing, 

Football (Soccer), Fencing, Jud o,— and th at others are giving consideration to 

this m atter, including Gymnastics, Athletics, Cricket, and Swimming. Numerous 

prom inent Americans have asked th at the U.S. should tak e a firm line on this 

issue; these include Mrs. Elea nor Rooseve lt and Mr. Jackie Robinson.

The question of racism in tenn is has been debated for about 8 years.

On the refusal of a visa to Mr. Arthu r Ashe, I subm it the following:

1. The refusal of a visa to Mr. Ashe was announced on Jan uary 27th by the 

South African Minister of Sport, Mr. Waring, afte r a Cabinet meeting, and reported to the U.S. Ambassador in South Africa by the Prime Minister, Mr. 

Balthaz ar Vorster;

2. Mr. Ashe’s application had been supported by the U.S. Secretary of State, 

Mr. William Rogers;

3. I t is clear from the refusal th at it was politically motivated and th at a majo r 

consideration was the fac t th at Mr. Ashe is classed in South Africa as a non-white;

4. There is no doubt t hat the decision is a political one, made by th e government 

of South Africa, and therefore one t o which it is appropria te t ha t the U.S. Government should reach;

5. Th at this act is a discriminatory one, and an affront to a U.S. citizen, and 

one which the U.S. governm ent can not countenance;

6. Th at there is a clear obligation on the U.S. to assert th at it is opposed to 

discriminatory tre atm ent of its citizens, and th at it will not condone this;

7. Th at the appropriate response to this discriminatory act is to declare th at 

the U.S. will bar the use of its sporting facilities to all South Africans until such 

time as the facilities of South Africa are open to all U.S. citizens, without any 

race barriers;

8. Th at the U.S. government should declare th at it is opposed to the use of 

S.A. sports facilities by any U.S. citizens, until such time as these are open to 

all U.S. citizens;

9. Th at the U.S. should immediately move to give support to and implement 

the resolution adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 

1968, calling on all nations to brea k off sports relations with nations which practise racial discrimination, specifically South Africa;

10. Th at these actions would be consistent with the declared purpose of the 

U.S. government to seek equality of sta tus and equality of opportu nity for all 

its citizens, without regard to racial or ethnic origins;

11. T ha t in practical imp lem entatio n of this, the national sports bodies in the 

U.S., which express the national position, should declare the ir att itu des and give 

support to the moves for the exclusion of South Africa from all inte rnational 

sport un til racism is removed from spo rt there, and th at this should particularly 

be expressed by the U.S.L.T.A.—th e body governing tennis in the United States.

In s upp ort of these submissions, I would refer to the st ateme nts of the President 

of the U.S.L.T.A., Mr. Alistair Martin; of South African tennis players—who 

recognise the prospects of exclusion; and of sports adm inistrators thro ughout the 

world, who have condem ned racism in sport, and especially in lawn tennis. I 

trus t t ha t th ese submissions, and th e s upporting st atements, will achieve a speedy 

and effective outcome.
31

Mr. Brutus. I wish to direct myself in particular to the recent 

issue of the refusal of a visa to a U.S. citizen, Mr. Arthur Ashe, but 

also to make certain general references with regard to the nature and 

structure of sport in South Africa, the extent to which it is dominated 

by political considerations and particularly the racist-political ideology 

which in fact dominates all forms of life in South Africa.

The submissions I make to the subcommittee are to ask tha t it 

should recommend to the U.S. Government tha t it should react to 

the refusal of a visa for Mr. Ashe since this refusal indicates a clearly 

discriminatory attitude by the South African Government, and tha t 

this reaction should take the form of barring all South African sportsmen from participation in sports events in the United States until 

such time as there is an assurance that all sportsmen from the United 

States would be welcome in South Africa, and tha t none would be 

barred on the grounds of their racial origins.

You have, Mr. Chairman, kindly referred to my past activities on 

behalf of nonracial sport but I think I should ju st make it clear that 

I speak now in my capacity as president of the largest and most 

representative sports body in South Africa. It is called the South 

African Nonracial Open Committee for Olympic Sports, and I was 

elected to the presidency of this body when it was formed in 1962 

in Durban.

I had been prior to tha t secretary of the largest body at that time, 

the South African Sports Association.

I have been actively engaged in opposition to racism in sports for 

more tha n 15 years, particularly since 1958, and have worked actively 

with sportsmen in other parts of the world who are opposed to racism 

in sports, including sportsmen in the United States.

I think I would like to mention here, Mr. Jackie Robinson, the 

baseball player who was a very early campaigner against racism in 

sports, as well as sportsmen in Britain and Europe and in many pa rts 

of Africa.

Mr. Diggs. We have a telegram from Jackie Robinson that I 

would like to have included in the record, by the way. It is very short.

Heartily con gratulate the committe e on its investigation in the South African 

racial policies. I support the actio n and strongly urge the Sta te Department to 

bar white South Africans from participating in American professional events 

enabling them to win thousands of dollars to be spent in th at racist coun try.

It is signed Jackie Robinson.

You may proceed, sir.

Mr. B rutus. Thank you, sir.

I should like to draw the attention of the subcommittee to the fact 

tha t the practice of racism in South African sport has received already 

the attention of many international sporting bodies, particularly the 

International Olympic Committee, which studied this matter and excluded South Africa from participation at the Olympic games, both 

in Tokyo in 1964 and again in Mexico City in 1968.

In addition to this a number of the international bodies which control a particular code of sport throughout the world have in fact 

expelled South Africa from membership. These include the world 

governing bodies, for table tennis, the International Table Tennis 

Federation; for Weightlifting throughout the world the FIH ; for 

boxing the AIBA; football—this is soccer—the FIFA; for fencing, and 

judo.
32

Other international bodies which have the exclusion of South Africa 

under consideration at present include the world governing bodies for 

gymnastics, for track and field—this is athletics generally—and for 

swimming and cricket.

I woidd ask you, sir, to bear in mind tha t almost 12 years ago 

people like Mrs. Eleanor Roosevelt were questioning the wisdom of 

sports relations with a country which made no secret of the fact tha t 

it discriminated against sportsmen on the grounds of color.

The question of tennis, which is the sport under immediate consideration, has been debated in world tennis circles for more than 8 

years, and it has taken a number of forms. There has been a series of 

formal attempts to appeal to the constitution of the world body, the 

International Lawn Tennis Federation, and ask this body to take 

action against South Africa. Unhappily, five countries command the 

majority of votes in this particular federation, they each have 12 votes, 

whereas approximately 20 countries have no votes at all. Since one 

of these countries with 12 votes is South Africa itself, they have been 

able to block any attempt to seek constitutional redress. It has been 

impossible thus to get a motion carried calling for the expulsion of 

South Africa because of the voting structure of the world federation.

In spite of this, for almost 8 years now there have been attem pts 

to get such a motion tabled, and in fact when these failed there have 

been in various parts of the world other responses to the South 

African issue.

In 1964 in Norway students invaded the tennis courts where the 

South Africans were playing and made it impossible for the match to 

continue. As recently as last year when the South African all-white 

team played the Davis Cup match against Britain at Bristol, the 

match was disrupted, bags of flour were thrown onto the courts which 

obliterated the lines of the courts and made play for a time impossible.

This kind of unconstitutional protest has only been resorted to, 

I believe, because it was evident tha t because of the voting structure, 

attempts to get constitutional reforms were almost certainly bound 

to fail. It is in this context that we must view the issue of Mr. Ashe 

because the failure to take action against South Africa has meant th at 

the evidence about this matter could never be formally voted on a t a 

meeting of the World Federation.

We have here a very clear and unmistakable case of prejudice 

against an individual sportsman, prejudice clearly based on race and 

(perhaps even more significantly) direct interference at Cabinet level, 

an instruction being given not by the sports administrators but by 

the Minister for Sport who himself decides after a Cabinet meeting 

tha t a particular individual sportsman is not permitted to enter 

South Africa.

It seems to me then that the essence of the matter rests on these 

two points: The first tha t this kind of exclusion has been practiced 

only against a person whom the South Africans call “non-white,” 

and that in making this exclusion the Minister for Sport says tha t 

“the grounds for the refusal are bearing in mind our stated policy.”

This “stated policy” which one can read in Hansard and the parliamentary records in South Africa is very explicitly one of racial discrimination in sport, tha t no black man can be allowed to play against 

a white man in South Africa, and tha t if he did he would be subject 

to arrest and to imprisonment for the crime of having h it a ball across
33

a ne t on a ten nis co urt. Th is would be sufficient to secure his 

imprison me nt.

Th ere is no doubt, I believe, th at the basis for the rejection is a 

political one, is a racial one. Ind eed , Mr. Ashe is accused of “ try ing to 

cra ck the racis t w all” and by im plication the y declare the ir d etermination to pres erve this rac ist wall. Th ey have no inten tio n of allowing 

any one to crack it.

Mr. Chairma n, as one who has negotia ted with inter natio na l sport s 

bodies for a long time, I kno w the re is a very strong and very deep 

prejudice again st any interfere nce by a Go vernme nt in the admi nis ­

tration of sp ort and I am extrem ely r eluc tant to come before y ou and 

sug ges t t ha t this is a m at te r on which the St ate Dep artm en t m us t ta ke 

a decision. No rm ally I believe sportsm en o ught to settle the affairs of 

spo rtsm en.

I think this is an abnormal case because the decision was no t ma de 

by a sports body. Th ere is very clear e vide nce t hat this was a d ecision 

take n at cabine t level, th at the decision was a politica l one, and th er efore a new sit ua tio n is cre ated where the response to a politica l ac t 

can only b e an othe r political act.

On the other occasions where g overn me nts ha ve stepp ed in, wh ethe r 

th ey are Afr ican or Co mm un ist or W est ern E uropean, as a s po rts ma n 

I have had to say th at this is un fo rtu na te and und esirable because 

sportsm en ou gh t to be allowed to ru n their own affairs. B ut here 

where the decision has come from the political cen ter, from the Governm en t itself, I believe th at the U.S. Go vernme nt must tak e cognizance of this. I do n ot th in k I am wrong in say ing this because we know 

it is common knowledge th at the applicat ion of Mr. Ashe was suppo rte d by the Se creta ry of State , Mr. William Rogers. We know too 

th at the Prime Minist er of South Africa, Mr. Ba lth az ar Vorste r, 

sum moned the U.S. Am bassador to Preto ria , Mr. William Ro un tre e, 

and advised him as a political m at te r of inform ation between go vernme nts th at Mr. Ashe was going to be refused a visa. It seems to me 

then t hat the re is no d ou bt t hat this is in fact a political issue and one 

for the at tentio n of Governm ents.

I prop ose only to ma ke two points in setting o ut w ha t I believe are 

the forms of resp onse w hich one ought to e xpe ct from the U.S. Gov ernmen t in this sit ua tio n. I belie ve first of all th at the Go vernme nt of the 

Un ited States m us t ma ke it cle ar th at it will neith er to ler ate no r c ondone d isc rim ina tor y tre at m en t of any c itize n of the Un ited States, and 

th at as long as the re ca nn ot be an assu rance of fair and equal tr eatmen t to all citizen s of the Un ited St ates the re should be activ e discou rag em ent of this kin d of sit ua tio n whe n it is so clea rly one where 

people are scrutinized and exam ined in terms of race, where o nly wh ite 

Am ericans can be ad mitted , where non white Americans ca nn ot be 

ad mi tte d. I do no t b elieve th at the Un ite d St ates should cond one or in 

any way tol era te such a stat e of affairs.

Beca use this is an affron t to a citizen of the Un ite d Sta tes , I believe 

th at the St ate Dep artm en t shou ld make it clear th at until such tim e 

as all U.S. spo rtsme n are welcome in So uth Africa, until th at tim e 

South African spo rtsmen of wh ate ver color are unwe lcom e in thi s 

coun try unless they are pre pared them selves ind ividually to say th at 

they rep udiate racism, th at the y sta nd for trea tm en t of all sp ortsm en 

on the basis of eq uality and witho ut any racial dis crimination—only, 

I believe, if such an ind ividual clearan ce can be given so th at th e
34

individual sportsman is exonerated from a racist policy, should a 

sportsman from South Africa be admitted.

I believe unless such conditions are fulfilled, no sportsman from 

my country should come to the United States.

I deliberately make this point in conclusion, Mr. Chairman, because I can anticipate one query. Do I as a South African desire the 

isolation of the sportsmen of South Africa from the rest of the world? 

My answer is no, I do not desire their isolation. But as long as they 

do not play the game the way the rest of the world plays it, as long 

as they are guilty of allowing their sport to be dictated by political 

and racial considerations, I believe they deserve to be excluded. I 

believe they deserve to be isolated and I know tha t there will be a 

change in such a situation only when they realize tha t there is a 

penalty for breaking the rules, that they have to play the rules like 

the rest of the world.

It may be, Mr. Chairman, tha t you would like to question me on 

some of these points.

I would like to express my appreciation for the comment of the 

president of the U.S. Lawn Tennis Association, Mr. Alistair Martin, 

who has said tha t he believes that the time has come for the expulsion 

of South Africa from the International Lawn Tennis Federation for 

its violation of the rules of sportsmanship.

In conclusion, if you would pardon me, Mr. Chairman, I would 

like to quote your own comment on this and place on record as a 

South African sportsman our appreciation for your opinion. According to a San Francisco paper you have said tha t Gary Player, 

for instance, should be barred from this country as a reprisal, and 

there is a quote, “The rejection reconfirms my conviction tha t the 

white minority government of South Africa is both abhorrent and 

inhuman.” And with tha t comment I would like to concur.

Thank you.

Mr. Diggs. Thank you very much, Mr. Brutus. You have added 

some special insights into this whole matter tha t I think are very 

important with respect to the committee’s deliberations.

As you probably know, there are some people tha t are troubled 

by the morality of our reciprocating in kind, as Mr. Ashe pointed 

this out and Gowen made mention of it.

I am troubled as to how you can differentiate in this matter when 

you look at it from the standpoint of the principle tha t is involved. 

If they or anybody else tha t is for the exclusion of South Africa from 

these international organizations because of their racist policies, and 

everybody who has been here has expressed himself strongly, it would 

then appear to be a logical followup tha t they would be opposed to the 

admission of anybody on an individual basis for the same reason.

I find it difficult to draw this fine line between the individual and 

the action that is going to be taken by these tournament organizations.

Further, the intransigence of the South African Government as 

so amply reflected in many statem ents, would indicate tha t unless 

there is some kind of penalty they jus t are not going to make any 

changes.

Is that a fair assumption?

Mr. Brutus. Yes. Except, Mr. Chairman, I think that I tend to 

have a certain sneaking sympathy for the individual sportsman. I 

would almost like to find an out for them: but I accept that, in
35

principle, it is extremely difficult to distinguish between the organization which is guilty of racism and the members of that organization 

who in fact are a party to that racism. It may be t hat I am bending 

over backwards in an effort to be helpful to the individual sportsmen 

but I think it is as well to remember that when these sportsmen 

have been taxed to give a firm declaration of their opposition to racism 

they have almost invariably failed to give it.

I think tha t there are people in America who have the impression 

tha t Gary Player, for instance, is opposed to racism. This is quite 

false and there is much evidence to support the belief tha t he is, in 

fact, in practice and in sympathy, emotionally as well as in principle, 

someone committed to a racist policy. I suggest they read his autobiography, in which he declares his loyalty to the South African 

Government, to the South African policy, and his complete approval 

of whatever they might do.

Mr. Diggs. That was not written 20 years ago when he was running 

for the assembly or something, was it?

Mr. Brutus. No. No, Mr. Chairman, it is comparatively recently. 

I think if it was, it might be another matter.

Also you will remember tha t a nonwhite golfer beat Gary Player in 

South Africa, and that this non white golfer was then banned, forbidden 

to play against any white golfer on pain of imprisonment. When Gary 

Player was asked to express at least some form of sympathy or opposition, he said he was not prepared to do so, that he would stand by 

whatever decision was taken, notwithstanding the fact tha t it was a 

fellow sportsman who was being penalized for his color.

So when I say tha t one ought to get this kind of declaration from 

the individual sportsman, I believe there will be very few. But if 

there are any such, I think they ought to be given a chance, a sporting chance.

Mr. Diggs. Sir, you referred to certain incidents and harassments 

tha t have been experienced by South African athletes in Great 

Britain and presumably in some other countries. Do you find this a 

growing phenomenon?

Mr. Brutus. Unquestionably. In fact, in the past 4 months in 

Britain, twice a week there has been a demonstration against a South 

African team. They have had a Springbok Rugby team playing 

matches on Saturdays and Wednesdays, midweek fixtures as well as 

Saturday fixtures, and not a single match in the entire length and 

bread th of England, Scotland, Wales, and Ireland—there was no t a 

single match where there was not a demonstration.

I saw in clippings from Britain this week that certain young people 

who got onto the crossbar in Rugby and stood there giving the Nazi 

salute to remind the public of the kind of attitude which existed in 

South Africa have been fined for doing so. But this kind of image came 

across on television for the whole of Britain, people saw it happening 

and they understood more the nature of the protest.

I think tha t last year at the time of the tennis to urnam ent when the 

match was disrupted in Britain one of the most authoritativ e sports 

papers in the United States, Sports Illustrated, in an editorial said 

tha t the American tennis authorities were praying that South Africa 

would be defeated because had they won in Britain they would have 

had to play the final match at Cleveland and it was expected that
36

there would have been at least as many disruptions in Cleveland as 

there were at Bristol.

Mr. D iggs. I think it is a fair assumption tha t given the mood of 

the black community and its supporters here in the United States, 

tha t these kinds of demonstrations could be expected against South 

African athletes tha t will have occasion to come to the United States.

Mr. B rutus. I believe so.

Mr. Diggs. Well, do you have any additional comments or anything additional for the record?

Mr. Brutus. One addition, Mr. Chairman, if you would permit 

me, and also a small item on which I would like to set the record 

straight.

It is correct to say that at the time of my escape and arrest by the 

Portuguese secret police I had not been tried nor had I been convicted, 

but it is incorrect to say I had not been charged. I had been charged 

at tha t stage.

The final point I would like to make is t hat on December 2, 1968, 

the United Nations General Assembly adopted a resolution, No. 2396, 

which called on all the countries of the world to break off relations in 

sport and culture with South Africa. Regrettably this resolution has 

been ignored in the United States. I would very much like i t to be 

given serious attentio n and to be implemented.

Mr. Diggs. You referred earlier to the debates in the Hansard 

reports. Do you know the approximate date of that? I would like to 

get hold of that and make it part of the record.

Mr. Brutus. Yes. I think, Mr. Chairman, the most authoritative 

statement from South Africa on this matter and to which reference 

is now made as the basis for the whole doctrine, is a speech made in 

1965 in the House of Parliament in South Africa by Dr. Verwoerd, 

who at tha t time was the Prime Minister, and repeated in his famous 

“hard line” Loskop Dan speech. Subsequent statements have in 

fact been based on his statement, and the latest one from the Minister 

of Planning, Mr. Carel de Wet, has again referred to Dr. Verwoerd’s 

speech on sport and has warned tha t anybody who tries to defy what 

was said in Dr. Verwoerd’s speech will get into trouble, so tha t this 

is the central document to go to, also Mr. Vorster’s speech of April 

11, 1967, in Hansard.

Mr. Diggs. The Chair would also like to include in the record a 

chapter entitled “Apartheid in Sports” from the book “The Seeds of 

Disaster” by John Lawrence, who is a British citizen who wrote a 

general survey of South Africa’s problem and its peoples and contains 

information that is pertinent to the purpose of our hearing.

Thank you very much.

The committee will stand in recess subject to call of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m. the subcommittee recessed, subject 

to the call of the Chair.)

A F T E R R E C E SS

(The subcommittee reconvened at 2:30 p.m., Hon. Charles C. 

Diggs, Jr., chairman of the subcommittee, presiding.)

Mr. Diggs. The subcommittee will come to order.

This afternoon, we are privileged to hear from Mr. James Bouton, 

who is here as an individual because of his keen interest in the general 

subject matter of racism in sports, and he has some insights with 

respect to implications of the purpose of the subcommittee’s hearing.
37

Mr. Bo uto n is a well-known ath lete in his own rig ht, a mem ber of 

the Houston Astros baseball team.

We are certainl y delighted to have him here with us and look for ­

ward with anticipa tio n to his testim ony.

STA TEM ENT OF JAMES BOUTON, HOUSTON ASTROS BASEBALL TEAM

Mr. Diggs. Mr. Bo uto n, you may proceed.

Mr. B outo n. As Ch air ma n Diggs said, I am spe aking here as a 

U.S. citizen and as a sportsm an.

In the following sta temen t, I am going to relate some personal 

experiences th at I had with some American sports officials. This 

statem en t ma y be of some value to the comm itte e in th at it has to 

do with our co un try ’s foreign relationships, parti cu larly with nonwhite nation s.

In 1968, I we nt to Mexico City on beh alf of the Am eric an Com ­

mittee on A frica. One of m y obje ctives was to he lp inform the Am erican 

sport s officials there ab ou t the pro blems of racism in South Africa in 

ath letics . I thou gh t th at these officials would be deligh ted to hav e this 

inf orm ation and would be anxious to do som eth ing ab ou t it.

In ste ad , it imme dia tely became ap pa rent th at they were alread y 

well aware of wh at was going on in South Africa. Th ey also ha d no 

intention of doing an ything ab ou t it. In fac t, they wa nte d to leave 

well-enough alone.

Th is was dis tur bin g to me as an A merica n because I knew th at the 

na tio ns of the world, and pa rti cu larly the nonwhite natio ns, expected 

from the Un ite d State s a pos itiv e stan d again st racism . W ha t 1 found 

was alm ost the reverse.

Th e variou s officials th at I spoke with, alm ost wi thou t exception, 

from the pre sid ent of the Am erican Olympic Co mmittee down to the 

As sis tan t Swim ming Ass ocia tion rep resentati ve were ac tua lly ang ry 

th at any one should wan t to do som eth ing ab ou t the problem in 

South Africa.

When I discussed this pro blem with them, their resp onse was to 

sug gest th at I might be a Co mm unist and th at civil rig hts was somehow a com munistic idea.

We sa t in on a sports fed era tion meeting and , to give you an idea 

how it we nt, they spen t all their time discussing things like the size 

and com pos ition of a pa rti cu lar ball to be used , while all que stio ns 

ab ou t So uth Africa were pos tponed .

In these mee tings, and in the at tit ud es th at I got from the rep resentatives th at I spoke with, it was clear th at the Un ite d States 

was dra gging its feet. At the sam e time I notice d th at the Russians 

seem ed to lead the way, spe aking ou t for rac ial eq uality in South 

Africa, and insisting th at som eth ing be done.

This was no t los t on the other mem bers rep res enting the non white 

nations, and it became obvious to the m ju st who the ir frie nds were. 

I think is is a shame th at a handful of Am eric an sports officials 

should determi ne wh at the world, or at l east the sport s world, thi nks 

of the Un ite d Sta tes .

Th e world pres umes th at thes e officials are speak ing for the Am erican peop le, bu t the officials, them selves, claim th at they are re ­

sponsib le only to them selves. In fact, the pre sid ent of the American 

Olympics Co mm itte e said , “I do n’t rep resent Am erica.” He said,
38

“America has no point of view of South Africa as such.” Ho said, 

“Any points of view are mine alone.”

Athletics are extremely popular all over the world, and nearsighted policies and attitudes on the part of our sports officials, 

whether they officially represent our country or not, can undo all 

the good efforts of our Government to make friends, especially 

among the nonwhite nations.

I don’t know of what help this particular information might be to 

you, but it certainly shows tha t solutions to these problems must go 

beyond the area of just sports, because tha t avenue has been tried 

and it is not successful. The people who are heads of these organizations and heads of these committees for various sports in this country 

seem to have the exact opposite viewpoints t hat I think they should 

have as Americans.

To simply say tha t it is a problem tha t should be left to the athletic 

body, themselves, I don’t think will solve the problem.

Mr. Diggs. Thank you very much, Mr. Bouton.

First of all, let me say that you have certainly put this whole matte r 

in what I consider to be the proper context, because it does go beyond 

just the question of policy within the sports world.

I think Mr. Brutus effectively focused attention on this aspect of 

the problem as a witness this morning. He brought out tha t the 

sports policy as it relates to apartheid is just part of the generally 

official policy of the South African Government and, therefore, i t not 

only permeates the entire society but does represent actually a 

Government policy and not just a m atter that is operative within the 

sports world.

And, further, since it is a Government policy, one cannot expect 

the sports world to resolve the matter by themselves.

This whole Ashe incident was the subject of a full Cabinet meeting 

in South Africa. It was the subject of considerable involvement on 

the part of high-ranking officials of the U.S. Government—our Secretary of State and our diplomatic mission in South Africa.

So, it is really out of tha t context. It is really a government-togovernment kind of relationship tha t has to be resolved at tha t level. 

I am not suggesting th at the sports world cannot make a contribution, 

because they can and have made a contribution by speaking out, as 

you are speaking out today, and also by indicating that they are 

prepared to refuse to participate in sports tournaments involving 

South Africa as long as this is the official policy of that Government.

Further, when you consider tha t action has been taken by other 

international sports organizations against South Africa’s policy on 

this question, excluding them in other areas of the sports world, it 

would appear to be consistent for some kind of an exclusion policy 

to be applied as far as tennis is concerned, because tennis isn’t any 

different in terms of sports than any other kinds of sports activities.

So, for all of those reasons, I think you arc absolutely correct in 

your evaluation of this entire matter.

There are two different points of view, apparently, with respect to 

what the United States ought to do about it. One view says tha t we 

ought to retaliate in kind; we ought to exclude, cither by class or on 

an individual basis, South African athletes from the United States 

until such time as tha t policy is changed. Or, if any of the South 

African athletes are willing to make a declaration of their opposition
39

to apartheid, then, perhaps, on that condition, they could be admitted 

here to the United States.

There is another view tha t says, in effect, two wrongs don’t make a 

right, and we have an open society, and so on, and tha t we should not 

be guilty of the same sort of practice as South Africa and, therefore, 

we should admit South African athletes to this country, South 

African policy notwithstanding.

What is your general view about these two schools of thought? 

Do you believe that we ought to refuse admission of South African 

athletes to this country as a class or on an individual basis until they 

change? Or, do you think tha t we ought to continue to admit them, 

South African policy notwithstanding?

Mr. Bouton. I like the more moderate view of giving the athletes 

an opportunity to disavow the policies of their own country. This 

could have a dual effect. It could let us know how they feel as individuals, and it could also let their followers back home know how 

they feel which could exert an influence on their Government to 

change.

If we just say tha t no athletes can come in, then none of their 

heroes are really speaking out against their country. Their heroes 

may then become, in the eyes of the South African whites, simply a 

victim of politics. Whereas, if Gary Player or some of the other ath ­

letes who make a lot of money in this country were in a position where 

they had to say, “I disagree with apartheid and my country is wrong,” 

I think this would have a tremendous effect on the people of tha t 

country.

Mr. Diggs. You mentioned the attitude of private organizations, 

specifically people in connection with the Olympic games, on this 

whole question.

Is it not true, as it is in connection with other aspects of this subject, tha t unless the Government of the United States sets the pace, 

particularly unless it establishes certain conditions precedent to 

coming over here, that private initiative is either not going to be forthcoming or it just is only going to go so far?

It is the same kind of concept tha t applies to fair employment 

practices, to discriminate in public accommodations. If we waited 

for those tha t are directly involved to voluntarily resolve this matter, 

we would still have a segregated National Capital, and we would still 

have all-white baseball teams, I would assume.

Actually, when you get into this area, the principle of the Government’s undergirding the whole concept of equal equality is the same 

in the sports field as it is in any other area.

Is tha t a fair assessment?

Mr. Bouton. Yes. My experience on the question of South Africa 

is pretty much limited to the sports area. My concern and my direction at tha t time was in the sports area. But I am sure we wouldn’t 

want to see just token measures taken to just make things equal for 

black athletes and not equal for their black fellow citizens who are 

not athletes.

In a way, it is kind of good tha t the South African Government 

called attention to the whole situation by denying Mr. Ashe a visa. 

What they could have very easily done was to have let him in and keep 

everyone else out and in this way avoided a direct confrontation and 

been able to continue their policies, which are just as evil when they
40

are pra cticed against some unknown as they are when they are practiced against A rthur Ashe.

Fortunately, for us, there are people like Mr. Ashe who have just 

so dominated their field that they call attention to themselves and to 

these problems. We wouldn’t want to see them just have some kind 

of a cure to prevent confrontations with people like Arthu r Ashe.

It is a problem that deals with the whole country and all areas of 

life. Our problem is to decide how much we feel we can influence what 

they do as a country without marching in and telling them tha t this 

is how they have to do things.

One of the obvious areas to start with is athletics. Athletics is a 

tremendous thing to people all over the world. They look up to their 

national heroes and they want to watch them participate. They want 

to see how they are doing. Something like this becomes more important 

than the game, itself.

Mr. D iggs. Your reference to the attitude of other country’s representatives in connection with your Olympic experience also enlarges 

the whole concept of what we are talking about. This is not a matter 

which is ju st representing some kind of bilateral problem between the 

United States and South Africa.

I have in front of me here, for example, an article that refers to a 

statem ent made by the Prime Minister of Jamaica, Hugh Scherer, who 

called on all countries to exclude South Africa from international 

sporting events as long as she maintains an apartheid policy. Mr. 

Scherer said a speech made by Mr. Vorster recently clearly demonstrated tha t South Africa does not intend to relent from a policy of 

discrimination and did not care whether any other national competed 

with her as far as the field of sports is concerned.

When you add this to protests and demonstrations tha t have taken 

place in England, New’ Zealand, Australia, India, Pakistan, when you 

consider t hat the United Nations adopted a resolution calling upon 

all member nations to disengage from involving themselves in sports 

contests with South Africa, then it really becomes an international 

situation and not just something which is confined to the United 

States.

1 would be interested in knowing if you can recollect just what these 

other representatives said in connection with these Olympic games, 

how they evaluated U.S. posture on this whole subject.

Mr. B outon. Any time a question of South Africa was going to be 

presented, either by one of the African nations or one of the other 

nations, the support for discussing the whole question always came 

from the Communist countries.

In fact, I asked Mr. Roby, who was the president of the American 

Olympic Committee, if any resolutions had been brought by the 

United States. I asked him, “Would it be possible for you to bring a 

resolution, if not banning South Africa from the Olympics, a t least a 

resolution that called for all nations to live up to the Olympic charter 

which forbids discrimination?”

He said, “No. The United States hasn’t been doing that. ”

1 said, “Who does?”

He said, “Well, the Russians always do.”

At the federation meeting that we sat in on, every time the African 

nations looked around for support on this issue, they always got it 

from the Communist countries and they never got any support at all
41

from the Un ite d S tat es. T he y also g ot supp or t from the ot he r nonwhite 

nations, so it was nonw hite na tio ns and Co mm unist natio ns on one 

side lining up again st the Un ite d State s, Brita in, Australia, New 

Zealand, and the mo stly white n ati ons on the o ther h and. It was very 

distu rbing to envis ion.

1 can see these dele gate s from these different sport s groups going 

bac k to their nations. I am sure the y are leaders and resp ected in 

the ir own coun tries. I can see them going back the re and expressing 

the attit ud es th at they ran into at the Olympics.

Now I can see why people aro und the world demo nstra te again st 

us, because while we say som eth ing on the one hand for publication 

in some kin d of an an nounceme nt or pro clamation, we are doing ju st 

the exa ct opposite on the othe r hand whe n it gets dow n to rea lly 

affecting people. W e’ve got the “Ugly Am erican s” doing the personto-per son work. We end up doing exa ctly the opp osite of wh at say 

we would like to do.

Mr. D iggs. T hat is a very distu rbing coa lition of forces th at were 

lined up on both sides of the question, as you mentioned. It does 

ind ica te th at this quest ion is act ually or can be actua lly involved 

in the propaganda wa r between the so-called free world and the socalled third world and the Co mm unist bloc.

I think yo ur st at em en t j ust serves to reinforce the view th at the i mplication s of this whole m at te r go far bey ond Arthu r Ashe as an indiv idu al; go far bey ond the sportin g event with which he is identif ied; 

goes far bey ond all sportin g eve nts. Some day the re is going to be a 

reckoning. Some da y som ebo dy is going to st art addin g up the pluses 

and min uses w ith res pect to Am erica’s po stu re on this ge nera l qu estion 

and our at tit ud e, our failu re to imple me nt these lofty p ron ounce me nts 

in internationa l forum s is going to find us very short. I t could have 

very un fortu na te resu lts.

Do you belive th at white Am eric an ath letes, and this is on a p riv ate 

basis, should refuse to com pete in tourna men ts with South Africa as 

long as black Am eric ans are barred?

Mr. B outo n. Definitely, I would, wi thou t hesitati ng , and I think 

th at m ost w hite ath letes if they u nderstoo d the entire sit ua tio n would 

do the same thing.

You are talkin g of profes sion al ath let es now?

Mr. D iggs. Yes.

Fo r example, suppose som ebo dy set up a p ost-season game b etw een 

the Ho uston Astros and the Joha nn esbu rg Bluebirds or som ething. 

Would you go ove r there and pa rti cipa te in such a game? or, if they 

were brou gh t ove r here, would you pa rti cipa te in such a baseb all 

game?

Mi-.Bouto n. No; I absolute ly would not. Wh en I am spe aking now 

ab ou t the problems th at we had with the ath letic officials, I wan t to 

make a dis tinction betw een the officials and the ath letes, themse lves , 

because all the ath letes th at I ’ve t alk ed w ith seem to be of an e nti rel y 

different min d th an the people who were in charge of them.

Mr. D iggs. Did this include ath letes?

Mr. B outon. Th is included ath let es from the Un ite d State s. Th ey 

seemed to be entirely divorced from the feelings of the officials. It was 

a whole new b reed, a whole new school of people. You had a sm all h an dful of officials th at had their own view, and the ath let es, themse lves , 

had an entire ly diffefen t view. If the y had pu t it up to a vote, the re
42

would have been no question tha t South Afric a wouldn’ t have been 

admitted to the games at all. Thi s is just the Amer ican athletes.

Mr. D iggs . Doe sn’ t it strik e you also that the continuation of this 

kind of problem could create some polarizing within the sports world?

In other words, if these practices continued, and black athletes are 

subject to this sort of degradation , tha t the blac k athletes will feel as if 

they must become organized in some sort of fashion in order to light 

against it?

I noted rece ntly Jackie Rob inso n formed an association of black 

athletes headquartered in New Yo rk , the purpose of which is to fight 

against racism within the sports field, I guess both dom estically and 

internationally.

I have a telegram from Dr . R. Wa lte r Johnson, who is head of a 

black tennis organization, who registers a protest on this. Perhaps the 

rationale for the establishment of the black tennis association— well, 

perhaps there wouldn’ t hav e been any ration ale had there not been 

any problems of this type, tha t the y feel they must weld themselves 

together to fight, despite the attitudes of whites such as yourself who 

have an understanding and apprecia tion for the princip le involved 

here.

Wouldn’t you think tha t this contributes to a polarization that 

might have an effect of ta king us b ack to the old days when there were 

many incidents within the sports world, within the base ball world, 

tha t I am sure we hang our heads in shame to recall these days?

Mr. B outon. I think all black athletes and man y white athletes 

are beginning to see t hat they have a common cause w ith their brothers 

all over the world. I would like to thin k tha t if there is going to be any 

polarization it would be between the athletes as a whole, both blac k 

and white, versus some sort of system or committee or set of rules.

Now you see in professional athletics, not so much on the college 

level but in professional athle tics, more white understanding of black 

problems and unification among athletes, both black and white.

Mr. D igg s. I am certainly glad to hear you say that.

Mr. B outon. Ma ybe it is wishful thinking, and may be I am saying 

what I would like to see, but I don’t see the problem among athle tes 

as I do between athle tes and the system tha t they run into.

Mr. D iggs. These kinds of incidents serve to sort of dramatize some 

of the practices and conditions under which blac k athletes have experiences away from the play ing field.

I know I am in the process right now of discussions with the baseball 

commissioner about certain incidents, abou t prev enting the recurrence 

of certa in incidents tha t happened durin g sprin g training last year. 

It jus t happened that by the time these incidents happened and by 

the time I communicated with the president of the Ame rican Leagu e 

and the president of the National Leag ue, and then the baseball 

commissioner, that the question becam e moot because spring training 

was over.

I have specific reference to the housing problem tha t Willy Horton 

had in Lakelan d last year, and then Wills went into a bar with some 

of his colleagues down in some town in Florida where tha t team trains. 

Then there was one other gentlema n whose name escapes me right 

now, but he ran into a problem.

I started communications with both leagues and with the baseball 

commissioner, asking them specifically, “Wh at are you going to do
43

about all of this? Are you going to continue to let black athletes be 

degraded in these little postage-sta mp towns down in Florida where 

most of these teams train, or are you going to serve notice, if necessary, 

on these communities that if any of the athletes continue to h ave these 

experiences you are jus t going to pull out of there and set up spring 

training some place else?”

I have renewed tha t mat ter recently in an effort to get some kind 

of definitive answer before this spring train ing begins. I am now 

awaiting word from the baseball commissioner regarding it. I am 

sure tha t the incident as it relates to Mr. Ashe will serve to sort of 

conjure up the whole subject of racism with in the sports arena, not 

only on an internatio nal basis, but these incidents tha t crop up from 

time to time on a domestic basis.

We certainly appre ciate you r contribution. I am also certain tha t 

your testim ony here tod ay will be a ver y valu able part of the record, 

and hopefully will get the decisionmakers in our Government to 

recognize this whole matter for wha t it is and proceed to do something 

about.

Th an k you ver y much.

Mr. B out on. Th an k you.

Mr. D igg s. Witho ut objection, the telegram from Mr. R. Walter 

Johnson will be included at this point in the record.

(The document to be supplied follows:)

[Telegram]

Lynchburg Va., February 4, 1970.

Congressman Diggs,

Chairman, Subcommittee on African Affairs,

Rayburn Building, Washington, D.C.:

I wish to register a protest against America competing against South Africa 

in Davis Cup competition. In reta liation against South Africa barring Ashe from 

playing in the South African championship.

D r. R . W a lter J o h n s o n .

Mr. D igg s. The subcommittee stands in recess, subject to the call 

of the Chair.

(Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the subcom mittee recessed, subject to 

the call of the Chair.)

A P P E N D I X E S

Appendix A

Excerpt from Main South African Laws which affect race relations: IX, 9, 

Separation in sporting bodies.

8. PR OCLAM A TIO N R26 O F 1965

(R A C IA L SEPA R A TIO N IN C LU B S, PLA C ES O F E N T E R T A IN M E N T , ET C .)

9. SE PA R A T IO N IN SPO R TIN G B O D IE S

On 9 February 1962 the Minister of the Interior said that as far back as 1956 

his predecessor had stated tha t whites and nonwhites should organize their sporting activities separately; t hat there should be no inter-racial competitions within 

South Africa’s borders; and that the mixing of races in teams to take part in 

competitions in South Africa or abroad should be avoided.

A few weeks later the Minister amplified his statement. He said tha t mixed 

teams would not be allowed to compete in international competitions held outside 

the country’s borders, but separate white and non-white teams might do so provided tha t the organizers were not trying thereby to make the Government 

abandon its policy of separate development.

It would be in accord with the Government’s policy, the Minister continued, if 

non-white associations were to exist and develop alongside the corresponding 

white associations. The latter could act as co-ordinating organizations between 

the two bodies at top level and serve as representatives to international organizations. One or two members of a white executive committee could attend meetings 

of the non-white committee when requested, to maintain liaison; or one or more 

members of the non-white body could attend meetings of the white committee in 

an advisory capacity when m atters affecting non-whites were being discussed.

In 1964, as a result of these decisions and the repercussions, the invitation to 

South Africa to participate in the Olympic Games in Tokyo was withdrawn, a 

tour of South African athletes to Europe was cancelled, and the Football Association of South Africa was suspended from the international controlling body. The 

Government has regulated South African participation in overseas events through 

the issue or refusal of passports; e.g. in table tennis.

The terms of Proclamation R26 of 1965 are given on page 28. If non-white 

spectators are now to be admitted to sporting contests that are open to the public 

in white areas, or vice versa, official permits must be obtained.

Appendix B

Excerpt From Assembly Debates April 11, 1967

Prime Minister: . . . South Africa’s attitude will always be tha t differences 

in domestic policy are not an obstacle to peaceful cooperation between countries. 

As far as tha t is concerned separate development therefore also applies to the 

field of sport.

I therefore want to make it quite clear th at from South Africa’s point of view 

no mixed sport between Whites and non-Whites will be practised locally, irrespective of the standard of proficiency of the participants. I am first dealing 

with our own people. Irrespective of the standard of proficiency, the position is 

simply tha t the Whites practise and administer their sport separately and that 

the other colour groups, the Coloureds, the Indians and the Bantu, practise 

their sport separately. We have had problems in that connection in the past,

(45)
46

but our views and our att itu de are quite clear—no ma tte r how proficient one 

of our own people may be in his line of spo rt, we do not apply th at as a criterion, 

because our policy has nothing to do with proficiency or lack of proficiency. 

If any person, either locally or abroad, adopts the attitud e th at he will enter 

into relations with us only if we are prepared to jettison the sep arate practising 

of sport prevailing among our own people in South Africa, then I want to make 

it quite clear that, no matt er how important those sport relations are in my 

view, I am not prepared to pay th at price. On th at score I want no misunderstanding whatsoever. I also want to say in advance th at if, after I have said on 

these matters what I still wan t to say, anybod y should see in this eith er the thin 

end of the wedge or a surrender of principles, or th at it is a step in the direction 

of diverging from this basic principle, he would simply be mistaken . Because 

in respect of this principle we are n ot prepared to compromise, we are no t prepared 

to negotiate and we are not prepared to make a ny concessions.

I am not trying to trap the hon. the Leader of th e Opposition or to do anything 

of the kind now, I do not wan t to make matters impossible or difficult for him, 

but I would apprecia te it if the hon. the Leader would tell me in due course 

whether th at is his att itu de too, in order th at we may know whether we are on 

common ground in this respect. If he thinks it is his policy then he may tell me 

so right away. In the second place our att itu de in respect of spo rt—and I am 

now merely reit erating what m y colleague Minister Maree said here on a previous 

occasion—is th at atte nda nce of members of one group at such recreational 

events of the other group takes place by way of perm it, if a t all. There are sports 

grounds where it is not perm itted, but th at is the affair of those people. Where 

it is in fact allowed, it takes place by way of permit, provided th at separate 

facilities are available and as long as it does not result in situations which are 

conducive to friction and disturbances, and I want to add, provided th at it will 

not hamper the development of their own facilities. My concern here is to grant 

every population group the same sports facilities in their own area and among 

their own people th at I gra nt the Whites. [Interjection.] The hon. member is 

bothering me.
Appen dix C

Twenty -third Session, December 5, 1969, Agenda Item 31

Resolution Adopted by the U.N. General Assembly

[On the Rep ort of the Special Political Committe e (A/7348)]

2396 (X XIII). The policies of apartheid of the Government of the Republic of

South Africa.

E X C E R P T

12. Requests all States and organizations to suspend cultural, educational, 

sporting and other exchanges with the racist regime and with organizations or 

institution s in South Africa which prac tise apartheid;

Appendix D

Statement From World Tennis Magazine

When South Africa refused a visa to Arthu r Ashe, the 1968 U.S. Open Champion 

and a member of the World’s Fir st Ten, it was an obvious expression of the 

apa rtheid policy of th at country.

The Davis Cup Nations will meet on Marc h 23 with the object of voting on a 

proposal to eliminate South Africa from Davis Cup com petition. USLTA President 

Alastair Ma rtin has asked that South Africa be suspended from membership in 

the Intern ational Lawn Tennis Federation. A numbe r of individual players have 

announced t hat they will not play in South Africa as long as the apartheid policy 

continues (Julie M. Heldman, No. 2 in the U.S. and No. 5 in the world, has 

just declined an inv itation from South Africa’s Owen Williams to compete in 

the South African Open because of her objections to the ir apa rtheid policy).

It is possible th at some players will accept invitations to compete in South 

Africa. The two Pro Promoter groups, National Tennis League (operated by 

George MacCall and Fred Podesta) and World Championship Tennis (owned by 

Lam ar Hu nt and A1 Hill Jr. and operated by Mike Davies), have made no sta tement abo ut withdrawing the entry of their players from the South African Open 

Championships, and since it is financially profitable for the Pro Prom oters to 

enter their players in Johannesburg, they may decide to play there. We find such 

a decision abhorre nt.

An Editorial in the September 1969 issue of World Tennis was written on the 

subject of South Africa and expresses the policy of the magazine. In it we stated :

“If Owen Williams once again extends an invitation to Arthur Ashe to pla y 

the South African Nationals and if a visa is again denied to Arthur, we stro ngly 

urge th at all inte rnational players join with him in refusing to play tennis in 

th at country. It penalizes the South African players and it penalizes the Sou th 

African fans; any other move would penalize Arthur and those who sym path ize 

with him. The player who allows the offer of $500 or $1000 or even $4000 to overcome his principles is to be pitied; he is selling himself and his ideals at the expense 

of self-respect. The internatio nal players now have their own organization which 

could be a powerful force for improving the game. This association lowered itself 

in public esteem by failing to take a stan d on backing Arthur in any futur e 

conflict with South Africa. If th is association is to be a force for the good and not 

simply a means to a very selfish end, the members must do what they consider 

just and honorable rat her tha n only what is profitable. The result could give the 

association strength among its members and make it the most powerful group in 

the game.”

We hope th at all players will refuse invitations to play in tou rna ments in 

South Africa because of the discriminatory barring of Arthur Ashe.

Gladys M. Heldman,

Publisher and Editor, World Tennis Magazine.

(47)
48

Ap pe n d ix E

[From the Washington Post, Nov. 8, 1969 J

S outh A fr ic a n Ver su s B r it is h T ea m s G iv e Sco tl and Y ar d N o R est

(B y Al fre d Fr ie nd ly )

L o n d o n .— An in te nd ed happy t re a t fo r B ritish r ugb y fan s— a serie s of 25 ga mes 

be tw ee n an al l- st ar (and all -w hite) South Afri can te am and va riou s loca l op ­

po ne nt s— is tu rn in g in to a di ffer en t kin d of sp or tin g, or no t-so -s po rtin g, ev en t: 

Po lic e vs. dem ons trat or s, righ t-w in g vs. le ft-w ing, To rie s vs. Lab or ites .

The n am e of th e ga me is n o long er ru gb y, but race . T he qu es tion is not wh ich of 

tw o gr ou ps of 15 “ m ud di ed oa fs” will scor e th e m os t goals b u t w het her na tiona l 

po lit ical po lic y is or is no t a fa ct or to be ta ken in to ac co un t in in te rn ati onal 

at hl et ic s.

The fir st ga me wa s play ed W ed ne sd ay be tw ee n th e Sou th Af ric an Sp rin gb ok s 

and th e Oxford Uni ve rs ity var si ty . A sim ul ta ne ous co nte st on th e sa m e field 

invo lv ed 40 0 of S co tlan d Y ar d’s f inest and a b o u t 500 anti -a part heid d em onst ra to rs . 

Ox for d a nd th e police won, by 6 to 3 in th e fir st ga me and by fo ur arr est s and 16 

he av in gs -o ut to tw o pen et ra tions ont o th e field in th e seco nd .

In t er m s of th e pro te st er s’ ob jective, to s to p th e g am e, th e d em onst ra tion wa s a 

flop. Yet t hey m ay be on th e way to w in ning t hei r ga me ne ve rthe less . Unless th ei r 

det er m in at io n flag s, th e fu tu re game s, ex te nd in g ov er th e n ext th re e m on th s, will 

be pl ay ed lik e W ed ne sd ay ’s—u nder siege co nd itio ns . As an in di ca tion , all police 

leav es ha ve be en canc ele d in Le ice ste r, whe re S atu rd ay ’s m atc h m ay or m ay not 

ta k e pla ce .

As th e pro te st er s see it, th e Spr in gb ok s ar e, as th e le ftish New S ta te sm an put 

it, “a ro vi ng e m ba ss y fo r a part heid —a nd a part h eid is n ot a g am e. ” T he te am re pre se nt s no t a nat io n, b u t th e w hi te on e-fif th of a nati on: In in vitin g it he re, th e 

British R ug by Le ag ue w as aiding , co mfo rti ng , inde ed l en di ng its sa nct io n, to th e 

ap ot he os is of ra ci al disc rim in at io n it is cla im ed .

C on se rv at iv es , ot he rs of r ig ht -o f- ce nt er pe rs ua sion a nd , of c ou rse , th e boy s in t he 

lock erro om have cried “ Foul,” an d, in th e words of one T ory m em be r of P arl ia ­

m en t, “ Self-indu lg en t hum bu g. ” The anti -a part heid grou ps , th ey ch ar ge , ha ve 

im po litica lly and uns por tin gl y in je ct ed po litics in to sp or t.

Fro m th e oth er sid e comes th e re pl y th a t it wa s Sou th Afri ca itse lf whi ch fir st 

did th a t ve ry t h in g b y fo rb id di ng i nte gra tion in all its te am s— school, am ate u r a nd 

pr of es sion al— an d on al l its fields.

Pro po ne nt s of th e m at ch es co nt en d th a t it is mad ne ss to cut off sp ort s ev en ts 

w ith a nat io n s im pl y be ca us e yo u do n ot lik e its do mes tic p oli cie s, ju st as i t wo uld 

be a n ab su rd it y t o c ut off t ra de, cu lt ura l and o th er e xc ha ng es. B rita in do es n ot re ­

fu se to se nd an a rt ex hi bi t to Spa in, to acce pt a ba llet co m pa ny from th e So viet 

U ni on or to m ount an arch eo logica l ex pe di tion in Gr eece, th ey poin t out.

T he an alog y is wr on g, op po ne nt s re pl y. T he Sou th Afri ca n te am m em be rs ar e 

not ju st citize ns wh o liv e in a la nd wh ose ra ci al polic y is abhorr en t b u t em bo dy in 

them se lv es th e th eory an d pra ct ic e of apart heid . They ar e a te am const it ute d dire ct ly by th e w or ki ng s of ap art heid . F u rt h er, th eir co un try insists on ra cial 

se gr eg atio n in th e te am s th ey m ay pla y on th eir ho me grou nd s.

The p re se nt co nt ro ve rs y is on ly p re lu de . T he ultim ate a im of th e p ro te st er s is to 

blo ck a se t of cr ic ke t m at ch es he re w ith South Af ric a sc he du led fo r ne xt ye ar . 

Sou th Africa’s re fu sa l la st su m m er t o a cc ep t a B ritish t ea m th a t in cl ud ed a hig hly 

re sp ec te d co lored (m ixe d blo od ) st ar, Basil d ’Oli ve ira , ra nk le s ca nc erou sly.

The b att le ha s al re ad y been sh ar ply jo in ed . T he British M in is te r of Spo rts ha s 

de cl ar ed himse lf op po sed to th e ru gb y to u r. T he Prim e M in iste r ha s de nied per ­

miss ion fo r a ga me on a field ad m in is te re d by th e De fen se M in is tr y.

A sta r B ritish pla yer ha s an no un ce d his re fu sa l to play wh en th e Sp ring bo ks 

m ee t his te am . Some 50 Lab or P art y M em be rs of P ar li am en t hav e sign ed a 

m ot io n ba rr in g vi si ts of te am s fro m ap ar th ei d- po licy na tion s. A nti-a par th ei d 

gr ou ps fro m all ov er Brita in ha ve an no unc ed pl an s to dem onst ra te ph ys ic al ly at 

ev er y fu tu re m at ch .

T he Ne w Sta te sm an ha s cluc ke d its to ngue at any “di sa gr ee ab le a c t” or “ dange ro us pre ce den t” th a t m ig ht ha ve to be ta ken to blo ck th e pla yi ng of th e re ­

m ai ni ng 24 ga mes. Obli ging ly, ho wev er— in case th ey had not oc cu rred to th e 

pro te st ers — it list ed a co up le: Si t-in s on th e fields, or p u tt in g th e gr ou nd s out of 

co mmiss ion w ith oil a nd tren ch es .

T he B ritish ar e reno wne d fo r th eir good sp ort sm an sh ip in at hle ti c ga mes. B ut 

in w re stlin g m at ch es ov er s ocial an d m or al iss ues th ey can pla y p re tt y ro ug h.
49

A p pe n d ix F

[From the New York Times, Nov. 9, 1969]

B r it is h P r o t e s t All-W h it e T ea m— Vis it by So u th A fr ic a n R ugby P la y ers

St ir s C o n flic t

L e ic e s t e r , E nglan d.—A new conflict over politics and sports has flared in 

Britain with the arrival of an all-white rugby team from South Africa.

The dispute has involved editorial writers, hundreds of demonstrators, tho usand s of rugby fans, Prime Minister Wilson and members of Parliam ent. Antiapartheid protesters have thre atened trouble at each of the games on the 25-game 

schedule of th e team , the Springboks.

So far, however, two of the games have been played with minor incidents. 

To day’s game here brought clashes between dem onstrators and policemen th at 

sent seve ral persons, including a police officer, to the hosp ital for tre atm ent for 

mino r injuries. Nine persons were arrested.

Police reinforcements drafted from other areas descended on this city 90 miles 

north of London as nea rly 2,000 anti-a partheid dem onstrators trie d to march to 

the stadiu m where the Springboks defeated an English team, Midland Co unties. 

The police mana ged to keep them away, and only a few dem onstrators charged 

on to the field during the game. They were jeered by large numbers in the crowd 

and were carried off by policemen.

m ore p r o t e s t s pla n n ed

Ian Nichol, a 19-year-old stu dent from Portsmouth, drove 200 miles last night 

to protest outside the Leicester rugby football club stad ium . “I feel so strongly 

about apart heid” , he said, “that it ’s no use if you don ’t pu t your thou ghts into 

action.”

He was joined by other studen ts and young people. Many said they planned 

to follow the South African team throughout the tou r to protest its selection on 

racia l grounds.

Unlike the first game, played earlier this week at London’s Twickenham 

Stadium, the site of to day’s conte st was announced well in advance. The first 

game had been scheduled to be playe d at Oxford, bu t it was canceled because the 

police felt the y could not control the dem onstrators there.

Then the Ministry of Defense was consulted about the use of army and nav y 

fields. Bu t Govermpent officials, wishing to avoid any open involvement in the 

controversy, refused to permit use of a field after the issue was taken to Prime 

Minister Wilson.

Twickenham was announce d as the site of the game 24 hours before its sta rt, 

and 7,000 turned up to watch the Oxford U niversity team upset th e Sou th Africans. 

About 15,000 atte nded the match here today.

As the controversy mounted, more than 30 Members of Parliament signed a 

motion objecting to South Africa, or any other nation, sending to Britain spo rts 

team s represe ntative of only certain races. And the Prime Minister of South 

Africa, John Vorster, appeare d on a filmed British program la st week to say, “I t’s 

not for you to say how we should play sport in South Africa.”

o