Evening star., 1948-11-21
Loyalty Screening Reform
To Avoid Injustice Urged
Executive Review of Policies and
Practices Believed Desirable
Bv Gerard D. Reilly

By Gerard d. Reilly
Now that the ending Of the campaign has
enabled President Truman to devote his time to
the business of the executive branch Of the
Government, one program which clamors for
reform is the administration of the system set
up by him for ousting disloyal employees from
the public service
Taking account last year of the expressions
Of fear on the part of certain Congressmen-
in some instances exaggerated, and in others
fully justified-that various departments and
agencies had been inflltrated by Communists,
the President issued an executive order to allay
these fears. His order provided for inquiries
by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, hear
ings before loyalty boards established in each
agency, and the creation by the Civil Service
Commission of loyalty review board to con-
slider appeals of persons whose dismissal had
been recommended by agency boards.
Since that time extensive investigations have
been made by the FBi and on the basis OF
these reports removal hearings in the different
agencies are in full swing.
That some method of safeguarding the Gov
ernment service from Communist intrigue was
necessary has never been seriously challenged
by any one except Soviet Sympathizers and
misguided radicals. Nevertheless the scheme
of the executive order at the time OF its lssu-
ance caused many thoughtful persons to advert
to the possibility of this program being trans
formed into an inquisition, thereby discourage
ing employees with any independence OF thought
from remaining in the Government.
The fact that the standard Of removal was
not an affirmative finding of disloyalty, but
merely finding that reasonable grounds exist
for belief than the person involved is disloyal'
oofo al
who believe that any administrative proceed.
ing should be conducted with a scrupulous
regard for the rights Of the persons accused.
1t was because of the vagueness Of this standard
that Miss Frances Perkins of the Civil Service
Commission insisted that the Loyalty Review
Board should include panel of distinguished
lawyers.
In one respect the executive order itself
recognized the dangers of agency boards con-
sidering factors of dubious relevance 1t set
forth specifically the kinds of activities and
associations which the loyalty boards were to
consider.
These were limited to six categories: (a)
Sabotage, espionage or knowing association with
spies or saboteurs: (b) engaging in or advocat-
ing treason or sedition Co advocating revolu-
ton or force to alter our constitutional form
of government; Cd unauthorized disclosure.
under circumstances indicating disloyalty, of
confidential documents or information, and (e)
performance of official duties in such way as
to serve the interests Of another government in
preference to those of the United States
The sixth ground, which was the most con-
troversial because of the broad sweep of the
language, reads as follows:
Membership in, affiliation with or sympa-
thetic association with any foreign or do
mestlc organization, association, movement,
group or combination of persons, designated
by the Attorney General as totalitarian, Fas-
clst, Communist or subversive, or as having
adopted policy of advocating or approving
the commission of acts of force or violence
to deny other persons their rights under the
Constitution of the United States or as
seeking to alter the form of government Of
the United States by unconstitutional
means"
This last ground was implemented by Attor-
ney General Tom Clark's publishing few
weeks later list of organizations which, in
his opinion, met this description. This list
included the Communist Party and also large
number OF Fascist and Communist front organ
tzations which had f1ourished only during the
period when the country was divided on the
question of United States intervention into
the war prior to the Pearl Harbor attack.
In view Of the relatively harmless quality
Of most of the organizations on the prescribed
list, however, both the President and the Attor-
ney General stated publicly that mere mem
bership standing alone would not be a ground
for removal. According to the President, such
membership would be simply one piece of
evidence which might or might not be helpful
in arriving at a conclusion" Mr.. Clark ex-
planned that the significance to be accorded
such testimony would depend on the nature
of the employees activities in the organization
and whether he was aware Of its subversive
character.
Presumably these six grounds were the only
ones to which the loyalty boards were per-
mitted to pay attention. This has not been
the case in practice, however. In number
of agencies employees have been served with
removal charges containing such allegations
as "associating with known Communists"
corresponding with members Of the Com
munist underground" "associating with Com
munist sympathizers or persons Of Communist
reputation" and "associating with members OF
Communist-front organizations"
In other cases, members OF loyalty boards
have questioned employees on the basis of gossip
organizations which were in no sense SUBJ
versive or about irregularities in their private
lives.
Unfortunately the Loyalty Review Board.
which has the dual role under the executive
order OF hearing appeals and issuing instruc-
tions to the Agency Board, has given encour-
agement to this unauthorized procedure. Its
own regulations, for example, do not limit, as
the executive order does, the kind of activities
and associations which should be considered.
The regulations restate in substantially the
same language those grounds, but state that
they are among" the things to be considered.
As conseque re, scores of employees have had
To go to the g. culty and expense in hearings
Of rebutting and explaining away associations,
which. even If proved, would not be ground
for dismissal under the standards prescribed
by the President.
, The objection to such procedure is not