Report on Blacklisting : 1 Movies

$1.25 reporton BLACKLISTING JOHN COGLEY THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC, INC. From the collection of the n z7_ m Jrrelinger i a JJibrary San Francisco, California 2006 V^L -L reporton BLACKLISTING I Movies JOHN COGLEY THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC, INC. Copyright 1956 by The Fund for the Republic, Inc. CONTENTS Acknowledgment v Foreword vii The 1947 Hearing 1 Communism in Hollywood 24 Labor in Hollywood 47 The Hollywood Strikes 60 "Clearance" in Hollywood 74 The Mass Hearings 92 The American Legion 118 How To Write a Letter 144 Blacklisting : An Institution 1 6 1 The Legal Aspects 174 by HAROLD W. HOROWITZ Communism and the Movies: A Study of Film Content 196 by DOROTHY B. JONES Index 305 111 Acknowledgment THIS REPORT would not have been possible without the support of a devoted staff of researcher-reporters. I am particularly indebted to Elizabeth Poe and Paul Jacobs, both of Los Angeles. Edward Engberg and Margaret Bushong, though their efforts were concen- trated on the radio-television industry, made many valuable contributions. James Greene served as secretary for the entire project. He and Michael Harrington, my assistant, deserve a special word of thanks. I am grateful to all these co-workers, to the Fund for the Republic, which sponsored this study, and to some two hundred interested persons who gave freely of their time for lengthy inter- views. The conclusions found in these pages are mine alone. They do not necessarily reflect the judgments of any other person. JOHN COGLEY Foreword MOST AMERICANS ARE CONVINCED that loyalty-security investiga- tions of people working for the government in sensitive positions or seeking key federal jobs are necessary to protect the government from the infiltration of persons who might try to destroy it. But when loyalty tests are applied by private groups to people in private industries and people are barred from jobs because they are "controversial" many citizens become alarmed. The present report (with its companion volume dealing with the radio television industry) embodies the results of a study initiated by The Fund for the Republic in September, 1954, when many Americans had become disturbed by the revelation of blacklisting practices in the radio, television, and motion picture industries. At the time this study was launched, such blacklisting was a subject of vigorous public controversy, involving civil liberties issues of a serious kind. It raised questions of freedom of thought and speech, of due process, of the protection of the individual against group pressures and of the community against the disloyalty of the individual. It was a controversy in which all participants commonly spoke in the name of the Constitution and civil liberty, but in violently conflicting terms. Those who advocated blacklisting practices did so on the ground that Communist and pro-Communist infiltration into the entertainment industries represented a serious peril to the American system of law and governance, and therefore to the freedoms which it enshrines. The peril might be direct, through giving Communists vii access to mass media into which they could introduce subversive propaganda, or which they might even sabotage given the proper circumstances. It might be only indirect, permitting Communist sympathizers to enjoy popular esteem, earning incomes which would help support Communist causes, operating their own black- lists against anti-Communists and promoting the interests of an international conspiracy directed toward the destruction of all liberties. In any case, it was contended, the extirpation from the entertainment industries of proven members of the Communist conspiracy and of all who were considered to have lent it their support or had been indifferent to its dangers (and remained im- penitent) was essential as a protection to American institutions. Opponents of blacklisting contended that such a policy could only subvert the rights and liberties it sought to protect. Some held that it violated the Constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and thought, since it destroyed an individual's livelihood on the sole ground of his political beliefs. This raised the issue whether a sympathy with Communism could properly be regarded as a "political belief" or must be taken as proof of complicity in a criminal conspiracy, even though no criminal charge could be brought. Beyond that, many who accepted the view that a convinced Communist should be barred from the cameras and micro- phones were disturbed by the methods being used to achieve this result. It was contended that blacklisting resulted in the ruin of many entirely loyal individuals without formal charges, hearings or other safeguards of due process, often on flimsy or mistaken charges and at the dictates of self-appointed censors or pressure groups. Several things were apparent in this controversy. The major arguments simply did not meet. The facts around which the arguments raged were largely unknown. In these issues, plainly of critical importance to all those interested in the preservation of civil to at liberty, the information necessary arriving valid conclusions was largely unavailable. It was not even clear whether a vm existed blacklisting system actually in the motion picture, radio and TV industries. If it it was not existed, known on what principles it worked, who controlled it, how accurate were the criteria it applied in screening Communists and pro-Communists out of the industries, what were the motives which might have contributed to its growth. Beyond the somewhat rough-and-ready disclosures of the various investigating committees, there was little useful data on the nature and extent of Communist influence in the industries; on the effect, if any, which it had exerted on the output; on the extent to which the Communists themselves had engaged in black- other facts essential to formu- listing practices, or on numerous of civil liberties involved. lating any answers for the issues here The subject was being debated, in short, in a vacuum. The Fund for the Republic was established as an educational undertaking in the field of civil liberties in the United States. It seemed to its Directors that here were problems of immediate con- cern and that the Fund could render a useful service toward their solution by ascertaining the facts involved. It asked John Cogley, then Executive Editor of The Commonweal, to study and report upon the situation as a whole. This he has done. Mr. Cogley and his associates have interviewed so far as they found it possible to do so every important interest concerned. These include ex- ecutives of the motion picture industry and the radio and TV chains, the advertising agencies, leading advertisers, the theatrical unions, leaders of anti-Communist organizations and others promi- nent in "listing" or "clearing" individuals, and many producers, directors, actors, writers, reporters, news commentators and agency men. From the first it was recognized that this was a highly complex question, and Mr. Cogley and his associates have been scrupulous in trying to present all significant points of view. He was given a free hand in the organization of the study and presentation of the facts. While he accepts responsibility for this report as its director IX and author, the Board of The Fund for the Republic wishes to state its full confidence in the calm deliberation which he has given to its preparation. We believe he has done a thorough job in a very difficult field. It was recognized that many in the industries are aware of the difficulties raised by blacklisting and have been wrestling earnestly with them. Mr. Cogley has tried to give a detailed picture of a situation as it exists. He has brought in no indictments, and has offered no recommendations. The Board of the Fund for the Republic offers none, believing that progress in resolving the con- flicts of interest, viewpoint, and principle involved must and will come in the first instance from the industries affected. But even this progress must ultimately turn upon public knowledge and understanding of the actual situation and its problems. This report seeks only to supply the data on which such knowledge and understanding may be established. FOR THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS, THE FUND FOR THE REPUBLIC: By Paul G. Hoffman, Chairman The 1947 Hearings AFTER THE MOVIE HEARINGS of the House Un-American Activities Committee in October, 1947, Life Magazine ran a report on them, with the subhead: "Congressional committee poses a question: is it un-American to ask a man if he is a Communist or un-American to refuse to answer?" At the hearings, held in the Caucus Room of the Old House Office Building in Washington, Representative J. Parnell Thomas, chairman of the committee, had offered a vigorous no to the first part of the question: "Any real American would be proud to answer the question 'Are you or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?' any real American!" Thomas told an uncooperative witness. A group of Hollywood witnesses later identified as the Hollywood Ten had been truculently posi- tive about the second half. "It is absolutely beyond the power of this committee to inquire into my association in any organization," screenwriter John Howard Lawson told the chairman. ". It is unfortunate and tragic that I have to teach this committee the basic principles of American life." In those dim pre-Hiss, pre-McCarthy days, Life's double-bar- relled question seemed eminently worthy of debate. The author of the magazine's report, Sidney Olson, answered the question this way: "The fact is that Congressional investigating committees legally have the right to ask a witness anything within the purview of their investigation. This right has been maintained in the U.S. courts many times, on the basis in common law that a 1 does have the to legislative body power inform itself sufficiently in order to carry out its duties."* Alvah Bessie, one of the Ten, argued: It is my understanding of the first amendment to our Constitution that it expressly forbids Congress to pass any law which shall abridge freedom of speech or of opinion.

Load more