Senator THURMOND. The last paragraph, to my mind, is the reason for the erroneous interpretation of the request in the first place. I believe it is stated: Steps have already been taken to commend this action by a field command. The public information officer in particular did a service not only to the Armed Forces and the Defense Department but to his fellow citizens as well. GUIDANCE NEEDED FOR ROTC STUDENTS It has been abundantly clear here today, I think, that the public information officer neither has the facilities nor the training to cope with propaganda, in this case a deceptively worded request for a military speaker. If the audience was to be the ROTC at the college, then your letter has done irreparable damage. The ROTC student needs clearly stated guidance on where he stands in a society which is increasingly becoming the target for antimilitary propaganda. Much of this propaganda is initiated by the Communists and is being conveyed by domestic Communist fronts to the large number of disarmament, coexistence, "Let's Be Friends With Castro," "Better Red Than Dead" groups. The ROTC student in any American college has a critical role. The military services need these men and they must not be deserted when there is a sincere request for moral support from the Active Army. BAILEY TESTIMONY ON USE OF RESERVISTS IN PUBLIC COLD WAR EDUCATION I was wondering if you had had the opportunity to read Major Bailey's testimony which deals with the need to inform, especially ROTC cadets, on issues of Communist propaganda and subversion? Mr. SYLVESTER. No, I have not, but I did not hear what you read because of that clock. I wonder if you would read it over again. Senator THURMOND. The ROTC student in any American college has a critical role. The military services need these men and they must not be deserted when there is a sincere request for moral support from the active Army. Major Bailey testified here, and I was just wondering if you had read his testimony? Mr. SYLVESTER. No, Senator. I am not aware who Major Bailey is. Senator THURMOND. An intelligence Reserve officer of the 1st Army. I would suggest that you read this officer's carefully balanced testimony, particularly this statement concerning the evaluation of cold war education in civilian-military communities. I think you would find it very helpful. He says, and I will just quote a paragraph here: I think the reservist is in an especially good position to do this [alert fellow citzens to the Communist threat] because he perhaps belongs to a number of local or civic organizations, and therefore perhaps is more likely to be invited as a speaker. He can gain ready acceptance in the local community because of the job he may hold. He can help indirectly, I think, by reading and studying materials, provide particularly good books for libraries, colleges, and high schools. He may want to suggest articles to be reprinted and disseminated throughout the community. There are a number of excellent opportunities for him to help in this field. Do you agree with the value of this type of activity of Reserve officers in civilian communities? Mr. SYLVESTER. Senator, that suggests to me on the part of Major Bailey the same misconception that you, yourself, pointed out in the case of the captain in New Haven. In both instances they seem to think that they have control of the reservist, and I take from what Major Bailey is saying here, he is trying to reach out and put his hands on the reservists who are not under his control but are complete civilians, which, if I recall correctly, was the sort of point that you made about the misconception of the officer in New Haven that we in the Defense Department had a control over the reservist. So I would suggest that Major Bailey is really going way beyond his bailiwick. Senator THURMOND. I do not think you understood that. I will read this paragraph again, because this merely points out the avenues open to the reservist. Here is what he says: I think the reservist is in an especially good position to do this [alert fellow citizens to the Communist threat] because he perhaps belongs to a number of local or civic organizations, and therefore perhaps is more likely to be invited as a speaker. He can gain ready acceptance in the local community because of the job he may hold. He can help indirectly, I think, by reading and studying materials, provide particularly good books for libraries, colleges, and high schools. He may want to suggest articles to be reprinted and disseminated throughout the community. There are a number of excellent opportunities for him to help in this field. He was just elaborating on the opportunities of a reservist in a community. Mr. SYLVESTER. The second reading, Senator, confirms my first impression. Senator THURMOND. In being of assistance in the anticommunism program. Mr. SYLVESTER. Your second reading confirms my first impression: That Major Bailey is trying to bring his influence to bear on reservists who are not under his control. I do not see his interest in bringing to bear his influence on citizens who are not under the control of the Defense Department or himself. This seems to put us right back to the point that you raised this morning in the case of New Haven, where you raised the point in the last paragraph whether we had control over reservists not on active duty, and the answer was "No." So I do not understand what Major Bailey's interest is over people Senator THURMOND. I do not think there is any parallel at all between the two. He is merely pointing out here he is a Reserve officer and the opportunities he would have and the contacts he would have in antiCommunist education. The item this morning was a different situation. It was an implementation of your memorandum, if you will remember, which created the impression that a Reserve officer's participation in education on communism conducted for civilians, became "quasi-official" when connected with his Reserve status. SYLVESTER MEMORANDUM ON PUBLIC INDOCTRINATION Your memorandum of August 2, 1961-and we will put that in the record, if there is no objection-should not have been worded in the manner you chose, or could have been worded differently. (The memorandum referred to is as follows:) ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE, PUBLIC AFFAIRS, Washington, D.C., August 2, 1961. Memorandum for: The Secretaries of the Military Departments. The Director of Defense Research and Engineering. The Assistant Secretaries of Defense. Commander in Chief, Alaska. Commander in Chief, Atlantic. Commander in Chief, Caribbean. Commander in Chief, Continental Air Defense Command. U.S. Commander in Chief, Europe. Commander in Chief, Pacific. Commander in Chief, U.S. Naval Forces Eastern Atlantic and Mediter ranean. Commander in Chief, Strategic Air Command. The assistants to the Secretary of Defense. Defense Representative, North Atlantic and Mediterranean areas. Subject: Public Affairs Guidance Re Response to Requests for Participation in Public Indoctrination. A field command recently responded to subject request in terms such that they may be helpful to others in similar situations. The substance of this response is therefore forwarded for your information and guidance and appropriate action as may fit the situation. The following outlines the command's action : A student organization at a university which has an ROTC program recently asked this headquarters to send a speaker to its campus to debate questions pertaining to the ROTC and "militarism in general." The request was refused in the following way: **** While we are extremely interested in keeping all segments of the public informed, it does not appear to me that it would be appropriate at all for any active member of the Armed Services to engage in public debate on either subject, or, for that matter, on the question of "pacifism" * * * If the debate considers such questions at all thoroughly, it means necessarily getting into very serious discussions of matters of national policy, either internal or external or both. It is my position, and I am sure it is the position of top levels of the Department of Defense, that the Armed Services are instruments of national policy, not makers of policy. As instruments of national policy it is the duty of all members of the Armed Services to support and carry out national policy as it is presented to us in the form of general and specific orders and duty assignments. "It is not within our proper province to debate publicly with you or any other group significant aspects of national policy. Since Congress actually formulates national policy and provides the means for implementing such policy, you may be able to get a member of Congress to debate these subjects with you. Members of Congress are particularly well suited to debate either side of these questions, as it is their responsibility to represent the views of the public on these matters, and to reflect such views in their legislation and appropriations. "To summarize it very briefly, we as members of the Armed Services are simply your agents, carrying out your policies as reflected in Acts of Congress and the orders of the Chief Executive through the Secretary of Defense. We are not about to debate your policies with you. It is merely our duty to carry them out as best we can with the means you give us. Accordingly, I have no other alternative than to decline your kind invitation." Steps have already been taken to commend this action taken by a field command. The Public Information Officer in particular did a service not only to the Armed Forces and the Defense Department but to his fellow citizens as well. Copies to: Secretary of Defense. ARTHUR SYLVESTER. Deputy Secretary of Defense. Special Assistant to the Secretary of Defense. Chief of Information, Department of the Navy. Director of Information, Department of the Air Force. Press Secretary to the President. Secretary of State. Director, U.S. Information Agency. Commandant, National War College. Commandant, Industrial College of the Armed Forces. Commandant, Naval War College. Commandant, Army War College. Commandant, Air University. Commandant, Army Information School. Commandant, Armed Forces Staff College. RESUMPTION OF DISCUSSION ON BAILEY TESTIMONY AND ROTC PROGRAM Senator THURMOND. The command should have been reprimanded for lack of intelligence evaluation at least, if not for lack of handling their own affairs. Let me refer again to Major Bailey's testimony as to what needs to be done in colleges that have ROTC units. Major Bailey, who is an Intelligence Reserve officer and a civilian professor, recommended that cold war education be stressed, particularly in the ROTC programs of American colleges, so that we could reach young military cadets before they were graduated from school and thus have them qualified to conduct cold war instruction upon graduation. Would you consider this expansion of cold war education into the ROTC program to be of benefit to our military preparedness? Mr. SYLVESTER. I would first suggest that I do not recognize Major Bailey as an authority, and I would say, second, on the basis of what he said, I would not agree that I had phrased this letter incorrectly. And, third, I think that our intrusion into the curriculum of our civilian colleges by the Defense Department would not be welcomed. Senator THURMOND. A few moments ago, I spoke about Major Bailey being in Intelligence Reserve, he is on active duty currently, I believe, at the time we called him in ACSI. STUDENT AGITATION AT UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Mr. Secretary, I wonder if you had heard of the student agitation at the University of Massachusetts against Col. James R. Weaver, who was a professor of military science in charge of their ROTC program. This case was discussed during Major Bailey's testimony in order to obtain his evaluation of this reaction toward the military and authority in general. In this particular case a student group had attacked Colonel Weaver for Facist tendencies and had apparently attempted to gen erate sufficient controversy to have Colonel Weaver removed. The case was referred to commanding general, 1st Army, and to the Department of Defense in January 1960. As a result of careful evaluation, Colonel Weaver not only received support, but was commended for his firm reaction to this attempted compromise. LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE ATTITUDES ON CAMPUSES Major Bailey pointed out that the key problem here is the lack of information in colleges as to what our cold war objectives are. A military officer who has ideas and convictions concerning what to do about communism is apt to become a controversial figure in the modern, liberal atmosphere in our college campuses. Do you think there is a job to be done in making ROTC cadets feel that they have a real mission in cold war education? Mr. SYLVESTER. My first response would be to the statement in there that in the atmosphere of our modern-I think you said of our modern, liberal-read that over again, will you please? Senator THURMOND. Yes. Mr. SYLVESTER. Just the last sentence, I think. Senator THURMOND. A military officer who has ideas and convictions concerning what to do about communism is apt to become a controversial figure in the modern, liberal attitudes of our campuses. Mr. SYLVESTER. I would just respond to the "modern, liberal attitudes" that recent surveys by news media have shown that, rather than a modern, liberal attitude on the campuses, there is quite a conservative attitude on the campuses. Without knowing anything about the case of Massachusetts State, I would assume that there had been some failure on the part of the officer to get across his message. Senator THURMOND. I think the attitude on the part of the students is becoming more conservative, but there are a lot of professors who still have this liberal attitude, and who are misleading the students. Mr. SYLVESTER. It is pretty hard, Senator, to mislead students on the university level. They are pretty shrewd." STUDENT AGITATION AT UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS Senator THURMOND. Were you familiar with that case at the University of Massachusetts which demonstrated positive command action, supported by the Department of Defense, which left no doubt that military men assigned as professional advisers in American colleges are neither militarists nor Fascists merely because they are anti-Communist? DISCUSSION ON COERCION OF MILITARY BY CIVILIAN OFFICIALS Mr. SYLVESTER. I am not familiar with this affair of 1960 on the campus of the University of Massachusetts. Senator THURMOND. Another case of our military being coerced by civilian officials of our Government is the case of Capt. Bill F. Francis, squadron officers course, Air University, Maxwell Field, who recently |