Evening star., 1954-06-03
Dr.. Oppenheimer Is Barred

Dr.. Oppenheimer Is Barred
DR.. J. Robert oppenheimer contributed as
much as any man to the development Of our
atomic bomb. That he should now be barred
from access to classified atomic information
is an ironic-one might say tragic commentary
on the times in which we live.
To many people this will seem like sense
less thing. They will not understand why DR..
Oppenheimer If he is a loyal American-and the
board which heard his case has found that he
Is wholly loyal-should be deprived of his secu-
rity clearance The dilemma which this posed
for the board was difficult one. AS the ma
jority report said: 1--WE are acutely aware that
in a very real sense this case puts the security
system of the United States on triad, both as
to procedures and as to substance"
In approaching this phase of the matter,
the ground rules under which the board
functioned must be kept in mind. It's function
was not merely to ascertain whether DR..
Oppenheimer has been a loyal American. The
board was also obliged to determine whether
DR.. Oppenheimer is a security risk under,
among other things, criteria published by the
Atomic Energy Commission. And the authors
of the report took pains to point out that these
criteria "are, of course, binding on this board"
In other words, there was not necessarily any
heimer is loyal to this country, and (2) that
he is enough of security risk to justify
under the applicable rules-his exclusion from
access to security information. This means that
the differences Of opinion - and they will be
numerous and heated-muSt turn on whether
the facts justify the board majority in saying
that they are unable to arrive at the conclusion
that reinstatement of Dr. Oppenheimers secu-
rity clearance would be clearly consistent with
the security interests of the United States"
This adverse report seems to rest mainly
on three points cited in the majority report.
One was an admission by DR.. Oppenheimer that
he lied to an investigating security officer in
1943-after he had become director of the Los
AlamoS laboratory. DR.. Oppenheimer admitted
that he knew his Justification impeded the inves-
tigation, and his explanation for lying was that
he twas an idiot"
The second point concerned testimony he
gave in 1949 at closed session of the House
Committee on Un-American Activities. He tes-
tiied in substance, that friend of his was a
dangerous Red and former Communist. After
this had been published, DR.. Oppe4lheimer wrote
letter to newspaper which, in effect repu-
dated his testimony before the committee He
indicated to the board that he felt the impor-
tant thing was to protect his friends profess
Sional status.
The third point and one which seems to
have carried much weight with the board, dealt
with DR.. Oppenheimer's account of his part
in the decision to develop the H-bomb. This
was in the autumn of 1949-when the Russians
tested their first atomic device, test which
must have indicated to DR.. Oppenheimer, from
things he had said previously, that the SovietS
might eventually make an H-bomb
DR.. Oppenheimer was one of many, how
ever, who opposed the H-bomb project in 1949
In his current hearing he testified that what
he opposed in the fall of 1949 was a "crash"
or rush H-bomb project. The majority report
noted, however, that "the record reflects that
DR.. Oppenheimer expressed the opinion in
writing that the super bomb should never be
produced and that the commitment to this
effect should be unqualified" The majority
report commented that "Dr. Oppenheimers
candor left much to be desired in his discussions
with the board of his attitude and position in
the entire chronology of the hydrogen bomb
problem. 1t seems to have been this point,
rather than an alleged lack of enthusiasm or
personal convictions based on moral considera-
tions, that impressed the board majority
These, then, are the main supports of the
adverse conclusion reached by the respected
majority members-President Gordon Gray of
the University Of North Carolina and Thomas
A. Morgan, former president of the Sperry
Corporation. Arrayed against them are the
views Of the equally respected dissenting men,
Der, DR.. Ward v. Evans of Loyola University
in Chicago.
The case now passes on for review by the
members of the Atomic Energy Commission
They will make the final decision and they
are welcome to the task In this conspiratorial
world it is perhaps necessary, in the larger
interest of the security Of the Nation, to try
to probe the hearts and minds of men to seek
motive and to test loyalty. But it is hard
and thankless task-especially If the result is
to blight the career and reputation of one who
whatever his mistakes, has done so much to
arm his country against its enemies.
Please Note, Senator
Dras dn,f