Chapter 19 15 Barbarian Attack -2

The advent of the hydrogen bomb seemed to only motivate Pauling more.Public discussion of the destructive power of the hydrogen bomb added new concerns about a frenzied arms race between the United States and the Soviet Union, increasing the number of people willing to listen to Pauling's message of peace and international cooperation. On February 13, 1950, Pauling delivered a report in a packed Carnegie Hall, calling for negotiations with the Soviet Union and recommending that Congress allocate several million dollars to the National Natural Science Foundation for research on the causes and preventive measures of war, This is one of the best political reports he has ever given. "When discussing the issue of atomic warfare, one should not be confused by issues such as who wins, whether communism or capitalism," he said. "Atomic warfare will kill everyone, whether he is left, right, or center." With a powerful voice, he warned the thousands of activists in the audience: "Our world has finally reached a critical moment where a quick decision needs to be made. This decision will be related to the glorious future of mankind, or the death and thoroughness of civilization. Destruction." At the end of the report, he looked at the audience, and the audience burst into stormy applause.After all, he is not alone.

Throughout the spring of 1950, he gave report after report on the arms race, the need for peace, the hydrogen bomb and its consequences for the world, always ending each report with a call for negotiations with the Soviet Union , calling for a world government. Each of Pauling's reports was monitored by reporters from anti-communist newspapers, the California Un-American Activities Commission (still The intelligence officers who succeeded] and the FBI agents. In February of that year, Naval intelligence sent an anonymous letter-perhaps written by one of Pauling's neighbors-to the FBI. The writer said he witnessed Saw "a powerful radio" attached to one wall of Pauling's garage. "Perhaps a little undercover investigation of these professors is needed," suggested the whistleblower. Lin's interest. The FBI decided to re-examine Pauling even though it was later determined that the so-called spy device was nothing more than a ham radio belonging to Pauling's son. On May 18, Pauling Immediately after a small presentation organized by the nonpartisan Peace Council, a reporter from the right-wing magazine Vigilante wrote a memo to the FBI's Los Angeles field office accusing Pauling of speaking "in detail about the atomic bomb." The manufacturing process, and then described how the hydrogen bomb was made". This caused Hoover to have great doubts about Pauling's speech. He assigned an agent to Pauling's office at the Polytechnic Institute to interrogate and track down intelligence Source. Pauling answered factually: He read many published documents and scientific reports, and then deduced some conclusions himself. Then Hoover suggested that the Atomic Energy Commission review whether Pauling had violated the national security law. The committee experts reviewed After searching Pauling's speech records, they found no valuable intelligence. They told Hoover that the technical estimates in the speech were very rough and could not be regarded as violations of security regulations.

Anti-communist mania Although the FBI failed to catch Pauling's handle, they decided to attack Pauling's close friends.Sidney Winebam, who had been Pauling's research assistant for 15 years, was a member of the Communist Party.Pauling hired him in the late 1920s to perform the complex mathematical calculations involved in crystal structures.He was so good at it that he later won the reputation of "the precise artificial computer".In addition, he is also a person full of zest for life.He played the piano well and was a two-time Los Angeles-area chess champion.He worked very happily under Pauling, and carefully supplemented various mathematical derivations for Pauling's research monograph.Pauling was very friendly to him, inviting him and his wife to parties at home from time to time in the way a boss treats employees.According to Winebaum, however, they never talked about politics.

It turned out that it was a blessing that they did not talk about politics at the time.The son of a Jewish man who fled Russia during the Russian Revolution, Winebaum himself became a left-wing radical in the 1930s and joined Caltech's "Communist Club," where he often talked politics with other students and young professors. In 1941, he quit the organization.Two years later, he left Pauling's laboratory to work in the aerospace industry.After the war, he found a job at Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory. In 1949, Wynbaum's historical problems began to cause trouble.He had held a license to participate in classified research since the beginning of the Great War.Now his classified work permit has been revoked and JPL immediately fired him after discovering that he had ties to dubious organizations in his youth.In order to help him, Pauling sent him back to his laboratory to do some unclassified work, while the Institute of Technology appealed the case to the military review agency.Winebaum denied being a member of the Communist Party when he testified, but the FBI had solid evidence.In order to break the spy organization of the Polytechnic Institute, they blackmailed Wisebaum to provide the names of their accomplices.Wisebaum refused to do so, and in the spring of 1950 he was arrested for perjury. .

The case caused a little stir in Southern California.Although no evidence of espionage was found in the end, Winebaum was the closest Southern California revelation came to being a communist spy, thanks to his work at the top-secret Jet Propulsion Laboratory.His case was in the headlines of local newspapers almost every day. While out on bail, Winebaum turned to Pauling for help.Pauling recalls Wynbaum being "distraught" at the time because he had no money to support his wife and daughter.He told Pauling that his wife Lena (the Paulings knew her to be an excitable woman) was going crazy.Pauling agreed to finance his lawyer's fees and immediately joined other teachers in raising a legal fund.

In the eyes of the ultra-conservative directors of the polytechnic board, Winebam's connection with Pauling was strong evidence that Pauling was a member of the Communist Party.They found Dubridge and insisted that he take the necessary measures against Pauling, lest the unfavorable public opinion in the newspaper further damage the school's reputation. "The situation in the school at that time was that some people's hatred of the Communist Party reached an almost fanatical level," recalled Beckman, a former school trustee. "Linus' behavior made them feel very dissatisfied, especially when Lynas This resentment was heightened after his close friend Vinbam was accused and confirmed as a communist. Many people think that Lynas is a communist. Linus is a man of independent character who does nothing at all to appease their dissatisfaction.” Page and Dubridge went on to exhort trustees to be patient and peaceful as they wait for further evidence.Dubridge assured the Board of Trustees that if it turned out that a teacher at the Polytechnic Institute was a Communist, he would immediately expel him.Communist Party members must be disciplined because they cannot teach the truth to students, he said.However, there is no evidence that Pauling is a member of the Communist Party.This incident split the board of trustees into two factions, one group advocated the immediate expulsion of Pauling, and the other group advocated waiting.“It was one of the most divisive issues on the board that I know of,” Beckman recalls.

Either way, it would be a disaster for Dubridge.On the one hand, Pauling's latest research results, especially his research results on sickle hemoglobin and his overall conception of molecular pathology, have brought him to new heights in the scientific community, and have also raised Caltech's reputation. the status of the college.It is one thing to fire a junior teacher, but it is quite another to fire a scientist of Pauling's high academic status for political reasons. This is unprecedented in the United States; The scientific community sparked a wave of strong criticism.On the other hand, if nothing was done, it would irritate some high-profile trustees and give Dubridge the impression that he was weak and incapable of dealing with the Communists.He procrastinated on the grounds of waiting for the outcome of the trial of the Wynbaum case in order to obtain definite evidence that Pauling was a Communist, and tried his best to appease the dissatisfaction of the school board members.The interrogation lasted all spring and turned up no evidence that Pauling was a Communist.

Then on June 25, 1950, Communist North Korea pushed south, and the Wynbaum case fell off the front pages of newspapers.Two days later, Truman announced that the United States would send troops to repel the Communist attack, which triggered a new wave of anti-communism, and the Cold War turned into a hot war.This is not the time to be tender with suspected traitors. Just two days after Truman sent troops to Korea, the Board of Trustees of the Polytechnic Institute secretly decided to form a committee to "investigate whether Dr. Report".Dubridge worried that this committee, made up entirely of business people, would be seen as one-sided, so a parallel committee of professors was set up to produce an independent report.All of this work was done in a secret state and within a limited time.In this way Dubridge hoped to quietly close the cold case.It was the first in-campus political review in Caltech's history.

That same day, a clandestine team gathered in a nondescript room in Washington.In front of them sat a pale, tense, white-haired man in a black suit.He was an agent on the FBI salary named Louis Budenz.He came to inform. Budenz was previously a member of the Communist Party and executive editor of the Daily Worker.He had already gained national fame and made a lot of money for exposing former comrades.Since he opened up to the House Un-American Activities Committee in 1946, the FBI has spent 3,000 hours "consulting" him.Then Budenz began his "I am an ex-Communist" lecture tour and began writing a book exposing the Red Terror within.This kind of life is quite good, but it requires him to disclose some new inside information from time to time.Budenz, like many crazy anti-communists, was accustomed to radical speech.In his book "Man Without a Face", he claimed to know 400 "hidden communists" in the upper echelons of American society.The purpose of his visit to Washington in June 1950 was to provide the secret group with a list of these 400 individuals.After listing all the bona fide communists he knew, he proceeded to list those he thought might be communists.One of them was named Linus Pauling.

Budenz's testimony went unpublished, and Hoover investigated everyone he mentioned.The FBI was particularly pleased with the mention of Pauling in Budenz's testimony; with such a sworn testimony, the FBI was now free from the constraints of a loyalty investigation.Hoover ordered another full investigation of Pauling. For three months in the summer and early fall of 1950, his agents sat in on Pauling's speeches; questioned his friends; rummaged through his personal files at Caltech; copied his Turney Committee files; Communications with the Commission on Un-American Activities, where investigators had just added 35 clippings from the Daily People's World to Pauling's dossier; reviewed the files on the Canterbury Red Dean's visit; reviewed checked his support for Wynbaum; and double-checked every "communist front organization" Pauling had been a part of.

They found no evidence that Pauling joined the Communist Party.Hoover still could not take any legal action, but when the 27-page FBI report was completed on October 17, he recommended that Pauling's name be placed on the security index.The newly created list included America's top "communist sympathizers," whom Hoover considered detrimental to national security.This list is a product of Congress's recent passage of the Internal Security Act, which gave the government unprecedented peacetime powers to control domestic political activity.Those placed on the FBI's list are subject to constant surveillance and their files are updated every six months. A week after the FBI report was completed, Pauling received a call from a reporter for the Wire. "Is Senator McCarthy's accusation against you true?" the reporter asked.Pauling said he had not heard any allegations. "He called you and six other atomic scientists with ties to the Communist Party a security threat," the reporter said. Is it true?" Pauling watched as McCarthy prospered through the press's unrelenting, unscrupulous accusations.He repeated that he had never heard any allegations. "I've always supported international policies that lead ultimately to peace and the avoidance of nuclear war, and I think that's what Senator McCarthy was talking about." The next day, his name appeared in major newspapers across the country. “McCarthy Says Reds Infiltrated A-Bomb Program,” The New York Herald Tribune reported with a headline.This was McCarthy's random shot, and Pauling's name was reported to have been taken from Budenz's testimony, among the names of some of the scientists who actually worked on the atomic bomb project.The allegations were vague, offered no evidence, and there was little new to come; after the headlines, the senator went on to find other targets. But the resulting damage is immeasurable.Pauling is now known across the country as a security threat who defended communism at a time when American soldiers were battling on the battlefield in Korea.Although he was able to deal with the incoming letters—the odd ones he’d received now and then after the Japanese-American incident after the war—then something happened that baffled him.He received a letter from Eli Lilly Pharmaceuticals, a firm Pauling had started consulting in 1946. In 1949, the company renewed Pauling's contract for three years, raising his annual fee to $4,800.That's a lot of money for Pauling's limited consulting, but what the company says is Pauling's "outstanding service" deserves it.Now just a year later, they wrote to tell him the contract had been cancelled.Pauling said, "There was no reason given in the letter, but later, the former director of research, then the assistant director of research, told me that the reason for the cancellation was because of my political activities, if I could declare that I would not participate in any political activities in the future. , the contract may be restored." The above-mentioned incident is not the only example that Pauling's political leanings affected his scientific research work.That same year, the Director of the Chemistry Division of the Office of Naval Research invited Pauling to chair a committee to evaluate the progress of the chemistry research projects funded by the Office of Naval Research and help formulate new research directions.This is a position of considerable prestige.However, the director of the Office of Naval Research in Pasadena protested strongly after learning of the invitation. He collected materials from the Office of Naval Research and the FBI files and sent a report to his superiors about Pauling's participation in the Communist Front organization. Report at ten. "It is simply unacceptable to have someone of questionable loyalty presiding over this OSNR committee," the director wrote, not only because of the potential for leaks, but also if Congress finds that the Navy nominated a "Communist A sympathizer" for a sensitive position would put the Office of Naval Research in a "very embarrassing position."The director of the chemistry department was so embarrassed that he was forced to withdraw the invitation. Caltech's internal investigation continued through the fall.The Paulings tried to maintain their usual quiet life, but it was getting harder and harder.Pauling sought relief in his own molecular structures and in his recently revised models of proteins.He and Eva continue to attend teachers' parties.Most of their friends shrugged off the political pressure and tried to help the Paulings come to terms with it, but some teachers were cold, and it got worse.When Winebaum was convicted of perjury and sent to prison, Pauling noticed that people passed him by averting his eyes and alienating him, especially during internal investigations.Pauling was one of those people with many acquaintances but few close friends; he needed the likes and respect of his colleagues.When he saw that they were all avoiding him, his heart was greatly hurt. The pressure of being investigated by his own school, the protest letters, the loss of the Eli Lilly contract, the hostility on campus, it all started to build up.Pauling never expressed his concern in public, but Eva knew her husband was under a lot of pressure.So did she herself.Shortly after being accused by McCarthy, a former friendly student of Pauling asked Pauling how he was doing at a tea party.Eva lost her self-control for a moment, her eyes filled with tears. "I don't know how much longer my husband will last," she said. The internal investigation finally concluded that fall.Neither committee found any evidence of Pauling's membership in the Communist Party or any evidence of indiscipline.Although some directors strongly insisted on expulsion Pauling, the faculty committee ultimately decided to keep Pauling, saying that firing Pauling without any evidence would not only deprive the school of a world-class chemist, but also deprive the school of being famous all over the world. shame in front of scientists.In Dubridge's view, the investigation was a success: It not only released the anger of conservative school trustees, but also allowed him to defend Pauling with confidence.When he received another letter asking why he hadn't purged Pauling and other Reds from the school, Dubridge explained that Pauling had already been cleared, adding Said, "I hope that in this country, a person will not be persecuted because his political beliefs do not conform to the trend." make him realize his mistakes But the country is not what it used to be—even if Pauling doesn't admit it.Throughout the 1950s, he continued his political activism as if nothing had happened: he raised money to defend Winebaum (although he was out of town for most of Winebaum's trial to avoid testifying ); agreed to serve as a parole mentor for playwright Dalton Trump, one of Hollywood's Ten Gentlemen; participated in the American Association of Scientists, a group organized by the French atomic physicist and Communist Party member Frédéric Jory Curie's left-wing international organization in the United States; maintained leadership positions in the Association of Progressive Citizens of America and the Council of Arts, Sciences, and Professionals; and continued to speak on topics that got him in trouble. ①Frederic Joliot-Curie (Fiederic Joliot-Curie, 1900-1958), French atomic physicist, famous scientist, eldest son-in-law of Pierre and Marie Joliot-Curie, and His wife, Irene Juliot Juliot-Curie, jointly discovered the neutron and won the 1935 Nobel Prize in Chemistry. During that time, he was one of the few prominent figures in the United States who insisted on speaking out about peace and civil rights.While everyone is wise to protect themselves, they are taking personal and professional risks.While human nature naturally tends to defend itself, Pauling stood his ground.He is certainly happy to devote all his time to science, avoiding any political squabbles and focusing on unraveling the mysteries of nature, and enjoying the personal satisfaction, status, money and honor it brings.Pauling was not a rebel, at least scientifically.His bravery lies in his daring to cross the boundaries of disciplines, but his courage is based on the basic principles and predictions of science.His success was not in overthrowing the scientific order, but on the contrary, he was a duck to water in it.He was more industrious than others, more daring to push his mind to a higher level, in fact, he very much wanted to be part of this order.He wanted—and to some extent needed—the applause of others, the awards and honors bestowed upon him by the Academy of Sciences and learned societies.In that sense, he later said, he was a law-abiding man. In stark contrast, his politics show that he is anything but a stickler.In this field, he openly challenged authority.In his words, during the McCarthy era, "I had two opposing sides of my character battling with each other: one that wanted me to obey, and the other that wanted me to trust my own judgment." In the political arena, his desire to compromise was replaced by another, more powerful force: his confidence in himself.On one level, he could simply say, as he often did during that time, "I feel it is my duty as an American citizen and as a scientist to be involved in politics." But deep down, he There had to be a reason for taking so much risk and putting so much stress on myself and my family.He wrestled with his political beliefs in the manner of a scientist. Like all scientists, Pauling was a product of the Enlightenment.Like many Enlightenment philosophers, he substituted reason for God, and he believed that rational thought and the application of the scientific method would lead to continuous social progress.Knowledge is the key.Pauling's morality was derived from what he believed to be true; he knew he was a rational person, and he believed that other rational people, given enough knowledge, would come to similar conclusions as he did. Pauling's beliefs mirror those of many other leftists and liberals from the Great Depression to the early 1960s.Some scientists experimented with communism and participated in left-wing politics because the system was built on sanity and rationality.Bernal and Joliot-Curie in France became leftists because they found that scientific methods can be used to deal with human affairs.The socialist idea of ​​creating the most good for the most people is statistically sound.The Soviet Union may not have been perfect in this sense, but at least it took courageous and necessary steps to advance human progress, such as applying reason to human affairs, elevating scientists to the top of society, and formulating Come up with a rational five-year plan.Relatively speaking, capitalism promotes entrepreneurs and rewards greed. Pauling believed in scientific humanism and socialism, supplementing this belief with a uniquely American version of free speech.Here, his political theory is rather simple, cognate with his scientific thought: build on a proven body of knowledge, break down the problem into its component parts, focus on the most important parts, and use new Awareness reorganizes these parts.He believed that the foundations of American politics — the body of knowledge and received wisdom — were the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, documents he hailed as enduring monuments of Enlightenment philosophy.In McCarthy's day, he held representative democracy and free speech to be of special importance, and analyzed these concepts from a scientific standpoint.According to him, American politics, like quantum mechanics, can be explained by statistics. "True democracies operate on the principle that no one person is smart enough to make correct decisions on very complex issues alone, and that making correct decisions is the process of averaging the opinions of all citizens in a democracy," he wrote road. "These opinions correspond to a probability distribution curve that extends from left to right. If we now say that all opinions on the right are abnormal and should be eliminated when taking the average, then the average we get is wrong. As long as Understanding probability, it is clear that the functioning of a democratic system requires that everyone has the right to express his opinion on political issues, regardless of his opinion." So it doesn't matter that he is now on the left side of the probability curve.He's still a valid data point.He has the right to express any opinion he likes.At least for Pauling, this is a scientific fact. This realization motivated him.At the same time, there is another motivation that motivates him to continue to express his views. "Most scientists have stopped. I can understand them. I can understand why some people think the sacrifice is too great. They know they will lose their jobs. They may not be able to continue their science. I have the same concerns," He said of the McCarthy era, "But I'm going to keep fighting, to keep getting my wife's respect." In August, Pauling received a letter from representatives of the Berkeley Academic Conference asking him to support them against the University of California Board of Regents forcing them to take the oath of allegiance."A wave of fear, hatred, and misgiving has spread across the university," they wrote in their letter. "Academics are forced to make ends meet and have to acquiesce to something that they know will destroy their careers and the very meaning of their lives." Pauling's reaction was unusually violent. "The University of California has suffered from political tests previously introduced by the Regents. These tests have limited freedom of thought and the search for truth," he declared in a public statement. "Unless the Board of Trustees relinquishes their earlier actions, the University of California will not be able to regain its preeminent status." He sent a copy of his remarks to the Academic Conference, along with a note advising members of the Board of Trustees that - who come mainly from industry, finance and agriculture - should be replaced by a group of "sensible people who understand education and academia".The Berkeley Academic Conference ensured that Pauling's views were widely publicized in the newspapers. Eleven weeks later, on the morning of November 13, 1950, a man walked into Pauling's office at Caltech and handed him a subpoena to appear before the California Educational Inquiry Committee in Los Angeles.Pauling read the summons twice before he realized that the time to appear in court was 10:30 in the morning.A subpoena is a subpoena after all.Pauling called off the full day, grabbed his jacket, and headed to his car. Pauling thought he had a rough idea of ​​what was going to happen.The committee has been holding hearings on how the oath of allegiance might affect public school teachers, and he, a prominent opponent of the oath system, speculated that the committee had called him in to hear his expert testimony.The unexpected subpoena was somewhat unusual, but he was eager to let the committee know what he was thinking.As he drove downtown in his Lincoln, he organized his criticism in his head. What he didn't understand was that this committee was born out of the Turney committee, the chairman was a member of the Turney committee, and the legal adviser was also a lawyer for the Turney committee.The purpose of the hearing was not so much to solicit expert testimony as to search for red elements. At 10:30 in the morning, Pauling walked into the large hearing room of the Los Angeles State Capitol.After taking an oath to tell the truth, he sat down to deliver his opening statement to the committee.Pauling began with a heartfelt statement: "I think there is nothing more important than maintaining national security through appropriate security measures ... However, in doing so, our individual liberties must be preserved," he explained Disregarding the dangers of extreme opinions on both sides of the probability curve, and stating how he believes the Pledge of Allegiance dangerously compels people to conform.He said the oath of allegiance did not limit subversive activity, because genuine subversives would sign the oath and continue to do so.Pauling now changed his mind about the Communist Party, agreeing with the Berkeley faculty that the Communists were narrow-minded dogmatists and should not continue to teach.Pauling testified: "I think that if the activities of the Communist Party are involved, every participant should be brought to the attention of the authorities, and corresponding hearings and trials should be held. If there is evidence that the party involved is a Communist Party, they should be expelled. I don't think What does the Pledge of Allegiance have to do with Communist activity... Those who object to the signature are those who uphold the basic beliefs of America, that we must preserve democracy, that we must abide by the spirit of our ancestors when they fought the Revolutionary War." Finally, Pauling showed off For his eloquence, he compared forcing teachers to sign the oath to Russia's forcing scientists to accept Lysen Science Theory, and comparing it to the persecution of scientists by the Nazis in the 1930s. Then the committee got back to business.Lawyers for the committee asked Pauling if he saw any signs of subversive activity at Caltech.Pauling replied no.The lawyer reminded Pauling not to forget Sidney Winebaum, a convicted Communist he had hired.Pauling was surprised by the change in tone at the hearing, saying Winebam's indictment was perjury, not subversion. "There is no evidence of any disloyalty towards the country," he said. Over the next two hours, the committee grilled Pauling on his views on communism, asking how he could put up with the Reds imposing a party line on helpless young people, and why he disagreed with saving children over the normal legal process more important.Finally, Pauling could bear it no longer: SENATOR DONELLY: I think many California taxpayers would feel that it would be better to eliminate some of the higher education than to instill the teachings of communism to children at an early age. Pauling: Yes.You believe that it is wrong to uphold the principles of democracy. SENATOR DONELLY: No, I didn't say that.I don't believe in such a thing either. Pauling: The right decision is based on averaging the views of all without excluding those whose opinions and political beliefs are suppressed. SENATOR DONELLY: It's a whole different thing than what you're saying about a person having an idea and then going to a trusted position as a teacher.As a professor in court today put it, parents entrust their most precious thing in this world—their children—to teachers who surreptitiously teach those children the dogma of communism.They are simply not being asked to teach these courses, and I see no need to hire such teachers. Pauling: That's good.If you have any examples of such teachers, why don't you bring them here to testify? Worried that they couldn't beat the Caltech professor, the committee adjourned for lunch and asked Pauling to come back at two o'clock in the afternoon. The afternoon hearing was a nightmare.The committee came back to Wynbaum's question: when did he start working for you?Who recommended him?Have you checked his background?why not?Then they turned to Pauling's own politics.With the files of the Turney Committee in hand, the chairman began to check Pauling's suspicious friends one by one.The California Senator's Un-American Activities Committee found that the American Progressive Citizens Organization, which Pauling served as vice-chairman, was controlled by the Communist Party. Did he know this?Do you support the Canterbury Red Dean?Henry Wallace?Council of Arts, Sciences and Professionals' How do you feel about the Communist Party's tactics?What's your comment on the recent trials of Communist Party leaders?Pauling patiently answered every question. Then, towards the end, the central question was raised. Attorney: Dr. Pauling, I have one last question.Are you a Communist now? Pauling: Well, that question sounds like it's asking about my political beliefs.Of course this is a stupid question, but I guess it's routine. Lawyer: Yes, I would like you to answer... Pauling: I'm thinking of those colleagues at the University of California who were threatened one by one -- at first many of them opposed the oath of allegiance, and then one by one they were threatened with unemployment and asked to abandon their principles as good citizens of the United States, Abandon their beliefs - I realize that's political pressure.In the end, there were only a few people who stood firm in their faith, about a hundred or so, and they ended up being expelled.When I think of them, I wonder how long my objection to the oath of allegiance can last.I don't know how much pressure I can handle.Unless it's time to decide, you never know what course of action you'll take.I have seen many people who were originally against the oath of allegiance vehemently, and yet signed it when they saw that they would lose their jobs if they did not sign it.Now I find that I am facing the same dilemma.I find it hard to decide whether it's worth ignoring the possible hassle just for the sake of a principle.However, I feel that my understanding of democracy is correct, and that we can only save this country if we defend it, so I refuse to answer any questions about my political beliefs and organizational affiliations.Therefore, my answer is no comment. The committee decided to adjourn for a short while to discuss countermeasures.鲍林面临着当时许多证人在国会委员会面前都曾遇到的三种选择：问答这一个问题；援引《美国宪法修正案》第五条，用宪法来保护自己，以表明自己有不自证其罪的权利；坚持认为这一问题已超出委员会的职权范围而拒绝回答。鲍林不想回答这一个问题，因为这个问题曾经使自己的一些朋友被送进监狱或受到内部流放的处罚。在委员会面前援引宪法修正案第五条也有一定的风险，因为一般人都认为这等于承认有罪，而且常常会导致证人被开除。于是，他选择了最后一种对策，也就是达尔顿·特朗勃和好莱坞十君子所采取的对策。然而这一方法也有其危险：拒绝回答一个立法委员会的问题会被套上蔑视法律机关的罪名。 续会之后，律师试图恐吓鲍林，提醒他说，从法律的角度来看，他最好还是回答这一个问题。鲍林见多识广，当然没有上当。他坚持不回答问题。如果委员会想要得到更多的东西，他们得传唤他。律师退了一步，又继续盘问。鲍林冷静、严密、清楚地回答了每一个问题。 委员会一无所获。最终，大失所望的委员会成员又将讨论带回到了起点： 多内利参议员；好了，博士，现在我们正在进行一场战争，不管这是否是对俄国的公开宣战，我们的国家正在和共产党斗争，我们必须认识到这一点，美国的年轻士兵正在异国的土地上捐躯。如果我们允许共产党人渗透进我们的大学，向我们的青年人传授共产主义教条，这对我们有什么益处呢？……当有人提及共产主义，或是问你是否是共产党员的时候，你总是不断地提到政治压力和政治权术……我觉得你将共产党称为一种政治组织是不公正的。退一步说，如果你同情共产党的话，将这称为政治现点也是不公正的。我认为这是颠覆，是背叛，特别当我们正在进行战争的时候。 鲍林：好吧，我很有兴趣了解你想些什么，但是我认为这不是决定性的。我再次重申，如果我犯了法，我理应受到法律的制裁。 多内利参议员：你不觉得拒绝回答你是否是共产党员，并蔑视加利福尼亚州参议院是违法的吗？ ... 鲍林：我觉得，而且我必须说，我是在没有法律准备且没有任何法律咨询的条件下来到这里的。你们没有理由询问我的政治信仰和联系，这一原则足够了……即使我会将自己置于一种危险的境地，我也将坚持这一点…… 多内利参议员：如果你是共产党员，如果你缴纳党费，如果你是一个宣扬以暴力来椎翻美国政府的组织的成员，你说的所有的漂亮话不会使事情的性质有丝毫的改变。 讯问的结局陷入无法摆脱的困境： 韦布赖特参议员：如果我们每个人都转而支持这些共产党人，而且明知他们受某一个外国势力的操纵，那么我们会走向何方？如果我们都采取同样的态度，那么我们将何去何从？ 鲍林：你指全国所有的人民？ 韦布赖特参议员：是的，我们将何去何从？ 鲍林：那样的话，作为全体人民的选择，我们将会有一种不同形式的政府。委员会讨了个没趣，占不到便宜，精疲力竭地宣布散会。 听众中一个联邦调查局特工合上了笔记本。几天之后，他将一份完整的报告交给了胡佛。 尽管在委员会面前镇定自若，鲍林的内心还是受到了极大的冲击，特别是考虑到蔑视罪的威胁。他曾经亲眼看到与国会委员会作对使达尔顿·特朗勃陷于的境地——由于被认定犯有蔑视国会罪，这位剧作家在狱中服刑，妻子和三个孩子则过着凄惨的生活。在州议会这一级，鲍林还不能确定将会有何种处罚，但有一点是可以肯定的：如被认定蔑视州议会，他肯定会被加州理工学院开除。 第二天，鲍林拒绝回答委员会提问的消息就上了报纸，传遍了校园。鲍林不知所措，向有着广泛社会关系的自由派物理学教授查理·劳利森求助。劳利森的办法非常简单：在胁迫之下向委员会陈述自己的政治主张，这样做违背鲍林的原则，但是他完全可以自愿地向他的朋友和同事讲述自己的观点。理工学院的内部调查已经表明鲍林不是共产党员，每个人都清楚这一点。劳利森建议鲍林给杜布里奇写一张便笺，说明你不是党员。然后让杜布里奇想办法对付。 鲍林考虑了劳利森的建议，起草了一个很长的声明，在同一天送交给杜布里奇，并附上一张条子：“亲爱的李：我送上这份关于我的政治信仰的声明。你可以随意引用。”在这份三页的文件中，他复述了自己在委员会面前拒绝就自己的政治信仰作证的理由，剔除了对忠诚宣誓的批评，并在最后总结道：“我相信一个公民有权利在他希望的时候宣布自己的政治信仰，也有权利在他希望的时候保持沉默。就我个人而言，我并不赞同某些共产党人所信仰的极端思想和政策；但是我觉得我们必须坚定地捍卫我们民主的基本原则，包括信仰哪怕是极端的政治主张的权利。” 在文章中间，鲍林写道：“我不是共产党员。我从来没有参加过共产党。我从来没有和共产党发生过任何瓜葛。”杜布里奇需要听到的无非是这些。他刚听到新的一轮校董们有关鲍林危机的抱怨，他很高兴自己的化学系主任作出了这一份声明。他建议鲍林作一些润色——增加了一个部分：“总体来说，我并不反对效忠宣誓。我曾经自愿地就我对这个国家的服务作过许多效忠宣誓”——接着，杜布里奇对鲍林说，他会妥善处理这件事情的。杜布里奇与教育委员会进行了联系，安排鲍林两天后在委员会到帕萨迪纳再次举行听证会的时候出席。听证会开始后，鲍林走了进来，宣誓之后念了自己的声明，转过身去，走出会议室，身后议员们窃窃私语。当他走出门的时候，鲍林似乎听到有人说，“我确信他愚弄了这个委员会。”这很可能是多内利参议员的声音，他属下的工作人员正忙着罗织鲍林藐视议会罪。 听证会的情况经报纸披露后，照例又有一批反对鲍林的信件涌向了杜布里奇的办公室。然而这次杜布里奇可以从容应对了，因为他握有一个无可辩驳的事实所铸成的挡箭牌：鲍林已经宣誓保证自己不是共产党员。他可以写信告知那些对鲍林不满的校友们，尽管他们强烈反对鲍林的观点，但是只要鲍林遵纪守法，而且不把政治带进课堂，那么“最恰当的方法是让他认识到自己的错误，而不宜采取过火的措施。”