answer. The committee is not going to be belabored by a long prepared statement at this point and the Chair directs that the pending question be answered.

(At this point Mr. Shepro conferred with Mr. Esterman and Mr. Marshall.)

Mr. SHEPRO. Well, first, I will not join in any arrangementMr. JACKSON. Nor will you read any statement until the question has been answered.

(At this point Mr. Shepro conferred with Mr. Esterman and Mr. Marshall.)

Mr. SHEPRO. This is my answer. I am giving you my answer. Mr. JACKSON. No. Your answer can be much more concise than that. Either say "Yes" or "No" or refuse to answer the question, whereupon we will be very happy to listen to any reasons that you may wish to present. However, the Chair must insist upon an answer to the pending question which lends itself to an answer very easily of "yes" or "no" or a declination to answer.

(At this point Mr. Shepro conferred with Mr. Esterman and Mr. Marshall.)

Mr. SHEPRO. My answer is that I claim my rights under the Bill of Rights and more particularly the following

Mr. JACKSON. Do you decline to answer the question?

(At this point Mr. Shepro conferred with Mr. Esterman and Mr. Marshall.)

Mr. SHEPRO. Will you let me finish, please?

Mr. JACKSON. I will be very happy to let you proceed as soon as we have an answer to the question.

Mr. SHEPRO. Well, I am trying to proceed, and I have given-
Mr. JACKSON. What is your answer?

Mr. SHEPRO. I am claiming

Mr. JACKSON. What is your answer? Do you decline to answer? Mr. SHEPRO. I claim my rights under the Bill of Rights.

Mr. JACKSON. Your right to what?

Mr. SHEPRO. My right to answer the question in the way I think I should answer it.

Mr. JACKSON. I am very sorry, but the committee is not going to permit you to proceed with a long harangue which you have come prepared to give and which you have before you on the table, until such time as you have answered the pending question or declined to answer it.

Now, I hope I make that clear, because I intend to, for the purpose of the record, direct you to answer the pending question or to decline to answer, following which you will be given every opportunity to explain your reasons.

(At this point Mr. Shepro conferred with Mr. Esterman and Mr. Marshall.)

Mr. SHEPRO. Mr. Jackson, my lawyers tell me that I have a right to answer the question in my own way and that I will have to decline necessarily, and I am not going to offer a harangue, as you say I am.

Mr. JACKSON. It is quite obvious, at least to the Chair, that this is an effort to delay and obstruct the course of these proceedings. Mr. Counsel, is the witness here in answer to a subpena? Mr. TAVENNER. He is.

Mr. JACKSON. Is there any reason why the witness should not be excused at this time?

Mr. TAVENNER. If he refuses or fails to answer the question, I see

no reason.

Mr. SHEPRO. I am ready to answer the question.

Mr. JACKSON. Please answer it. For the last time, will you give a direct answer to the pending question?

Mr. SHEPRO. Yes, I am going to answer it in my way. I decline to

answer

Mr. JACKSON. You decline to answer?

Mr. SHEPRO. I decline to answer the question for the following

reasons

Mr. JACKSON. Very well. It took us a long time to get to it.

Mr. SHEPRO. I didn't want to answer it that way but you are forcing me to, Mr. Jackson.

Mr. JACKSON. I am forcing you to do nothing. Let the record show that except to ask you to give an answer to the question

Mr. ESTERMAN. Will you put the gavel down while he is talking? Mr. JACKSON. I am not going to throw it.

Mr. ESTERMAN. It makes us nervous, too. Perhaps I should have a gavel so I could stop you.

Mr. JACKSON. Perhaps you can bring one with you.

Mr. SHEPRO. My first reason is: I will not join any arrangement between you and Mr. Stoddard, and certain members of the board of education in destroying free education and free elections in this community.

This is definitely Federal interference in local elections and is contrary to the tenth amendment.

My second reason is this: I have been teaching boys and girls the principle of American Government and the ideals of our democracy for more than 30 years.

There has been established between me and three generations of my students, who literally number in the thousands, a relationship of confidence, trust, and friendship. To many, many of my students I have stood in loco parentis.

To answer your question would be degrading and make me seem contemptible and cowardly in their eyes.

Mr. JACKSON. Are you reading a statement, Mr. Shepro?

Mr. SHEPRO. I am not reading the statement. I am just using my notes here.

Mr. JACKSON. You are using notes and not a previously prepared statement?

Mr. ESTERMAN. Just don't answer any questions.

Mr. SHEPRO. There are some statements on here, yes, which I am reading. I am reading some of them and talking about others. Mr. JACKSON. Very well. Proceed.

Mr. SHEPRO. To answer this question would degrade me and would make me seem contemptible and cowardly in their eyes since I have always taught that under our Constitution everyone's thought is his own and no one has the right to control another person's thought.

My second reason is that this committee does not seek subversives but aims at suppressing academic freedom. I must point out that this

31747-53-pt. 4- 3

inquiry is an attempt at political supervision in the field of education, and that such interference must reduce the standards of education. If the methods of this committee suceed, we are going to raise a generation of yes men and silent dissenting opinion.

You have compelled me to come here in order to frighten me and among all teachers you have created an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty if they do not conform to your ideas.

I must insist that as a teacher of American history for more than 30 years that our greatest heritage is freedom, freedom to think and to speak, and a teacher must stand fast on that principle and must resist all attempts to stifle this heritage.

My third reason is that I stand on the first amendment which prohibits inquiry into my association with any group of people or any organizaton or political party as a matter of principle. And as a matter of principle, I don't have to give an accounting about such matters to this or any other body.

And in the same connection under the United States Constitution you may not extract from me any ideas or thoughts or information against my will. I am not compelled to testify against myself. This is the fifth amendment and it was designed to protect the innocent. I must not violate my oath of office nor can I permit you to force me to violate my oath; nor will I join you in repudiating your oath of office to support and defend the Constitution.

My fifth reason is: I am an employee of the board of education, the State of California, which has seen fit to protect by statute the life of teachers and the children. The law is set out in full in what are commonly known as the tenure of protection to be found in division 7 of the Education Code, State of California.

As such an employee I have on numerous occasions taken an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the United States and California.

First, when I became a permanent teacher, and second, when I received my life diploma, and third, I took an oath before the Los Angeles Board of Education known as the reaffirmation oath of 1948. I took also an oath in 1950 known as the Levering Act oath. And I must also name the thousands and thousands of times that I took the oath of allegiance with my children at innumerable school exercises. This committee, therefore, has no power whatever to require from me any further oaths, declarations, or expurgations as a condition of my employment.

The ninth and tenth amendments of the Bill of Rights protects me in this.

My sixth point is the Educational Code of California, section 13230, consisting of only 5 lines, which read as follows:

Each teacher shall endeavor to impress upon the minds of the pupils the principles of morality, truth, justice, and patriotism; to teach them to avoid idleness, profanity, and falsehood. To instruct them in the principles of free government, and to train them up to a true comprehension of the rights, duties, and dignities of American citizenship.

Now, as a teacher of American government, I have taught my students that under the law Congress is forbidden to abridge or interfere with the freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly.

Since I have in good faith and conscience done my best to give them the power and the tools to think for themselves, I would indeed be

a shabby and unconscionable teacher if I sat here and permitted you to do my thinking.

These are my reasons, and I shall incorporate them in my answer to all similar questions. That is the end of my statement, Mr. Chairman. Mr. JACKSON. Thank you.

Mr. TAVENNER. I have no further questions.

Mr. JACKSON. Mr. Doyle.

Mr. DOYLE. I think I want to ask the professor just one question. I think you were in the room when I read the statement of J. Edgar Hoover which he made on April 4.

Mr. SHEPRO. Yes.

Mr. DOYLE. Wherein he said, on April 4:

There is no room in America for Communists or Communist sympathies in our educational system. Let us not permit them to poison the receptive minds of youth with their deceptions.

That is only a part of the quotation.

Now, we have cumulative evidence, Professor, that members of the Communist Party in the classrooms are not free to think other than along the Marxist line. In other words, there is no freedom in the mind of an active Communist or in his experience in our classrooms to think freely.

As stated by J. Edgar Hoover and others, there is no such freedom among the Communists.

I don't want to ask you if you agree with J. Edgar Hoover, in view of your statement that you wouldn't answer any questions. In other words, I don't want to get into the realm of your thinking, because contrary to what you state here, we are not interested in the realm of your thinking, as such. We are interested in getting your cooperation, if you can give it to us, on whether or not you are acquainted with any subversive activities of the Communist Party in our school system. I am not asking you if you are a Communist, but I am asking you if you are familiar with any such activity in our public schools. If you are, unless you feel it would subject you to an infringement of your constitutional rights; I will ask you to cooperate if you feel it does not infringe on your constitutional rights. I want you to understand that.

(At this point Mr. Shepro conferred with Mr. Esterman and Mr. Marshall.)

Mr. SHEPRO. I understand the question.

(At this point Mr. Shepro conferred with Mr. Esterman and Mr. Marshall.)

Mr. SHEPRO. Mr. Doyle, my attorneys don't quite understand the question. My attorneys say they didn't quite understand the question and would you please make yourself a little bit more clear, specifically. You mentioned a good many things.

Mr. DOYLE. But I realize you understand my question, because I heard you say you did to your counsel.

Mr. ESTERMAN. Is that fair, Mr. Doyle? Is that fair to listen in to a discussion between a lawyer and his client?

Mr. DOYLE. I couldn't help but hear it. Your client talked loud enough for me and anyone nearby to hear him very plainly.

Mr. MARSHALL. I am astonished that you would do such a thing. I am astonished that you would listen in on a professional conference.

Mr. JACKSON. Professional conferences have been going on for some time, and in quite audible tones.

Mr. MARSHALL. I am shocked, Mr. Doyle, as a member of the Board, that you say you overheard that statement.

Mr. JACKSON. Will you please be in order?

Mr. DOYLE. You are shocked at many things.

Mr. MARSHALL. I have never been more shocked than by the last remark of yourself.

Mr. DOYLE. I can understand why you are shocked.

Mr. MARSHALL. And you should understand.

Mr. SHEPRO. Would you kindly repeat the most pertinent part of the question, Mr. Doyle?

Mr. DOYLE. May I state that in spite of your statement that you feel we are interfering with your constitutional privilege, I wish to say in asking this question that I do not attempt to interfere with your constitutional rights nor do I ask you what your mental processes are and how you arrive at your answers. I am asking you whether or not during your course of teaching in the Los Angeles schools, having taught these thousands of youngsters in high school, as you stated, did you become aware of any Communist Party activities in the field of education in the Los Angeles schools?

Now, if you did, are you in a position, without feeling it would infringe upon your constitutional rights, to help the committee to the extent to which you personally observed, if you did, any activities of the Communist Party in the realm of public education?

Mr. SHEPRO. Look, Mr. Doyle, you know a person doesn't teach in a school for 30 years and handle all these youngsters, and I am a very well-liked teacher

Mr. DOYLE. I would assume you would be.

Mr. SHEPRO. I am a very well-liked teacher.

Mr. ESTERMAN. Just a minute; just a minute. Will you clear the hearing room as you promised? You said you would clear the hearing room if there was any demonstration.

Mr. JACKSON. Yes. I will repeat to the audience the admonition that was given at the beginning of the session against any demonstration, friendly or antagonistic, favorable or unfavorable.

Mr. SHEPRO. And for further clarification, not only am I a teacher but I am the head of the department, which means that there is a good deal of confidence in me.

Mr. TAVENNER. What department is that?

Mr. SHEPRO. That is the department of social studies, social studies department. Now, for 30 years I have been teaching United States history and civics, which is United States Government, and allied subjects, and I have never had any question of my loyalty.

Mr. DOYLE. I am not asking you, Professor, about your loyalty. I am asking you the frank question. I am not even asking you if you ever were or are now a Communist. I am asking you whether or not during your 30 years of fine experience as a public-school teacher in Los Angeles, Calif., you observed any activities of the Communist Party in educational fields.

Now, if you did, I assume that as an American citizen you would naturally want to cooperate with a committee of your Congress in trying to find out the extent to which the Communist Party has been active in education. I am not asking you whether or not you were a