McCarthyism and Student Journalism at City College

Selwyn RaabSelwyn Raab in 1974, the year he joined The New York Times.

Selwyn Raab, a former reporter for The New York Times, on Wednesday received a Townsend Harris Medal, given annually to graduates of City College of New York in memory of the school’s founder. Here is the text of his remarks to the college’s Alumni Association.

It seems like only yesterday: a mere half-century ago, when I graduated from C.C.N.Y. At that time, my prospects for getting an award from the Alumni Association were probably nonexistent.

No scholar, I eked out a gentleman’s “C” average. Moreover, as an editor on the student newspaper, Observation Post, better known as O.P., I was suspended and censured twice. Each time, the charges were practicing unprofessional, scurrilous journalism.

Both guilty verdicts were rendered by a strange body, a disciplinary court: the Student-Faculty Committee on Student Affairs.

The first occasion arose in 1952 out of an attempt to kill O.P. A group of student government leaders and administration officials devised a plan to force O.P. to be absorbed by the rival student newspaper, the venerable Campus. The reason given was that a single student newspaper would be more efficient and less costly.

At O.P., we saw a more sinister motive. It looked like an attempt to throttle diversity and to throttle us because we were too independent and too often critical of the college’s administration.

Naturally, we composed an editorial attacking the merger plan. We described it as a plot hatched in semisecrecy. And we had harsh words for its proponents, calling them hacks and cheats.

The end result was that O.P. was saved for many years to come. But eight of us were condemned for writing that editorial, and briefly suspended.

The second encounter with the student-faculty court occurred in the mid-1950s. It was the era when a certain senator from Wisconsin, Joe McCarthy, and his bloodhounds roamed the land. One of their missions was to remove from college campuses any faculty member they labeled as un-American or subversive. At C.C.N.Y., several professors were fired.

Their crime was refusing to testify before legislative committees about their political affiliations and beliefs. The then-president of City College [Buell G. Gallagher], and several aides, issued a report endorsing the dismissals.

I wrote an editorial entitled “Jumping on the Bandwagon.” It assailed the administration for failing to protect academic freedom and the civil rights of their own faculty.

The upshot in 1955 was a second trial, a second conviction and a second suspension. This time, I alone was called on the carpet. Again the charge was unprofessional journalism.

Except for those two brawls with the student-faculty court, my days at City were mainly marvelous.

My gratitude is boundless for visionaries like Townsend Harris. They made it possible for tens of thousands of New Yorkers, including many of us here tonight, to get a crack at a free, first-rate college education.

Even those stomach-churning trials as a kid editor over editorials proved to be invaluable legacies. They provided key lessons later for working on newspapers and in television.

No. 1: Never seek safe harbors to avoid contentious but important issues.

No. 2: Never sacrifice integrity or fundamental principles — especially if there is a clear distinction between right and wrong on vital questions.

Now, I’m not overly suspicious, but here I am tonight on this dais. And that notorious Star Chamber court, the Student-Faculty Committee on Student Affairs, is long-gone. Do you need any further evidence of the magical powers of the press?

My gratitude to Townsend Harris extends, of course, to our indispensable alumni association. And my thanks go out to you brave souls here tonight. So good luck to all of us, and especially good fortune to that wonderful, storied institution, the City College of New York. Long may it endure, and Alagaroo, forever.


Selwyn Raab, who graduated from City College in 1956, was a reporter for The Times from 1974 to 1999. He is the author, most recently, of “Five Families: The Rise, Decline and Resurgence of America’s Most Powerful Mafia Empires” (Thomas Dunne Books, 2005).

Mr. Raab began his career as the campus correspondent for The Times. As a reporter at The New York World-Telegram in the early 1960s, he wrote stories that contributed to the exoneration of George Whitmore Jr., who had been indicted in the killing of two young women. The case inspired the television series “Kojak.” After working at NBC and at WNET, Mr. Raab joined The Times, where he wrote extensively on organized crime and criminal justice. He covered the trial of the boxer Rubin (Hurricane) Carter, who was accused of three murders, and uncovered evidence that helped reverse the murder convictions of Mr. Carter and his co-defendant, John Artis.

Mr. Raab has received numerous awards for his work.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Mr. Raab is the cream of the crop,
A journalist who wouldn’t stop,
Maintaining the fight
And shedding a light
On neanderthals at the top!

Mr. Raab,
What a fascinating story! My deepest thanks for your decades of excellent news coverage.

All congratulations, Mr. Raab.

This here’s the story of The Hurricane
Selwyn Raab may have cleared his name.
But he was guilty!

O.P. (the Observation Post ) was started by returning WWII veterans going to CCNY and staying at the old Hebrew Orphan Asylum.

Mr. Raab displays the kind of civic courage that is too often lacking in most of our political leaders at all levels – Federal, state and local – who run their political campaigns as vacuous beauty queen contests complete with cat fighting and backbiting when the stakes could not be more fundamental or dire for the country.

And again from this City College graduate (BE Eng’79) and Ivy Leaguer (Columbia University), congratulations to you, Mr. Raab, for your decades of principled, honrable and outstanding service to the public – They don’t make too many like you any more :) But then, as a society, we never had that many like you anyway :)

Selwyn Rabb had to be what he was, even through sufferings at the hands of more powerful yet lesser men; men so much the lesser that they couldn’t begin to grasp what he had tried to teach them.

And what he was as a boy remains an inspiration to men still.

“Freedom of the press is great, if you can afford the press”. CCNY was essentially being required to pay to be criticized or worse. This would be a better tale if (a) the O.P. had been a completely independent organ not paid for in any way by the college, and (b) there was any other achievement noted other than slagging off the administration and getting away with it. Too often “press freedom” and “academic freedom” are used as excuses for forcing people and organizations to subscribe to and support the printing of objectionable material.

Perhaps the constitution of the college required that they allow a diversity of printed opinion no matter what. That they would have to live with. However no other principle could reasonably be invoked to protect people who bite the hand that feeds them.

Great advice for journalists, I am sure. Politicians might want to take a hint. We are in the mess we are in now because these congressional positions get regarded as the govt civil servant who hopes to avoid conflict successfully through years enough to hit retirement.

Mr. Raab is one of the fine examples of why we need to support our public colleges.

Mr. Raab: Having recently joined The Times, you got up before us at Baruch College (at the request of a friend) and without any preliminaries , asked us what we wanted to know about the Hurricane Carter-John Artis situation. One could feel the intensity and dedication then, and it’s clearly there still.

Thank you warmly for a career spent in the pursuit of the highest journalistic ideals of farness and accuracy.

–Myron Schwartzman

Oops! I meant “fairness.” –Schwartzman

In reference to the cases of Whitmore, Carter, and Artis, there is much to be said about helping to get them exonerated. Was any such effort then directed toward finding out who did, in fact, commit the murders they were accused of? Journalism heaps praise on people who help clear someone’s name, as well it should. But all too often, no thought is given to finding out who was guilty, after the accused were cleared. Remember… there are families out there who have lost loved ones very dear to them, who need and deserve to see justice done. The first part of justice is, of course, to make sure that innocent people are not blamed. (As the Dr’s oath says “First, do no harm!”) But we are also obliged to see Justice through to it’s conclusion. I wonder if the cases mentioned were ever solved… was justice actually served?

Student journalists today should follow your fine example!
Throughout your career, you have upheld the highest standards for journalism.

As a professor of journalism for 35 years at Baruch College, I have often asked students to read your stories and we have discussed the accuracy and thoroughness of your reporting. We have also been privileged to have you visit us in the classroom where your passion for journalism is apparent.

You are a real inspiration!

Mr. Jones (#8) seems to have a strange idea of what freedom of the press really means. If a student newspaper is critical of the school administration, he characterizes it as biting the hand that feeds you.

When I was a student at CCNY (at around the same time as Mr. Raab), I was on the staff of The Campus. We always thought our first responsibility was to our readers, not to the school administration, and not to those who advertised in the publication. That is basic — and it applies to any news organization that is serious about what it does.

A student newspaper that is nothing more than a mouthpiece for the school administration ceases to be a newspaper. It becomes propaganda.

Mr. Jones describes the two examples that got Selwyn Raab in trouble as “objectionable material.” Presumably, he would have banned their publication, unless, of course, “the constitution of the college required that they allow a diversity of printed opinion no matter what.” He implies that there was something so deeply offensive about Raab’s editorials that they crossed some sort of line. Of course, they were “objectionable,” but only to those with whom they took issue. Editorials have a way of doing that.

As for constitutions, there is one, of course, and it covers something larger than CCNY. It has as its first amendment something about a free press. It seems to me that the Student-Faculty Committee on Student Affairs might have done well to look at it before acting. It also seems that Mr. Jones might also want to consult it before commenting on such matters.

Mortone

Dear Mr., Rabb,
I want to thank your so much for your remarks at the CCNY Alumni Association.
I also want to alert you to the shameful history of the CCNY administration during a more terrible purge. In 1941-42 over 50 CCNY staff and faculty lost their jobs because of their failure to cooperate with a state investigating committee. It has been labeled as “the dress rehearsal for McCarthism”.
For this history, please see my online exhibit by googling
The Struggle for Free Speech at CCNY, 1931-42

or go the the website //www.virtualny.cuny.edu
and click the button “I AM A GUTTERSNIPE-I FIGHT FASCISM”

Carol Smith
retired faculty, SEEK program, CCNY

I have given this presentation to the CCNY Alumni Association, and it is also a travelling exhibit..

With all of the invective still flying (after 50 years) about “McCarthyism”, I feel the need to point out that it’s been proven beyond all reasonable doubt that Mr. McCarthy was essentially correct. The administrations of (especially) Roosevelt and Truman both contained people who were spying for the Soviet Union under Stalin. In return for exposing this fact, it was Mr. McCarthy himself who was subject to endless vicious denunciations and smearing by the nation’s mainstream press. And all of this simply because he protested that people with highly questionable political associations should not be in jobs involving national security. He wasn’t trying to have them shot or imprisoned (though, in retrospect, some of them probably would’ve deserved it). He simply believed that known or suspected security risks should be addressed. And we are not speaking of “Liberals”. We are speaking of spies… people knowingly selling information to, and/or influencing policy for, a very hostile foreign government.

It is long past time to stop vilifying Mr. McCarthy and consider, instead, how it came to be that, with such an active so-called “watchdog media” on duty, it came down to one Senator from Wisconsin to practically single-handedly expose a very real threat to this nation. Until I hear names like Laughlin Curry, Solomon Adler, Frank Coe and Harry Dexter White mentioned in infamy, I will have little interest (as in ‘none’) in being told about the evils of “McCarthyism”. “Tailgunner Joe” drank too much, and his social graces were somewhat lacking… but he was right.

Congratulations to Selwyn Raab, and not just for his City College alumni award. I’m glad that he and other gutsy editors made our “other paper” a pain in the butt for complacent college administrators. Why else would they have rigged a kangaroo court to suspend him if he refused to recant?

A bit of background: I was managing editor of OP in 1948 after having been chairman of the American Veterans Committee chapter at CCNY. The AVC and the larger college Veterans Association founded Observation Post to give a greater voice to the many returning World War 2 vets.A slight correction to one of your posters. While I lived at Army Hall, in the former Hebrew Orphan Asylum, most vets were New Yorkers who lived at home. Because of a postwar housing shortage, however, some Columbia and NYU students lived at Army Hall — a lively mix.

In an excess of democracy,OP’s editorial policy was set by a nine-member board, three each from the vet organizations and three chosen by the staff. Any three could insist on a dissenting editorial. In practice of course, the staff ran the paper.

Sure, at the time there were students and probably student editors who were unable to give up their faith in the ever-changing Communist party line, but they were part of the mix that made CCNY an intellectually lively place. The cafeteria alcoves were ideological battlegrounds. But nearly all of us who scoffed at the party line vigorously protested any Administration attempts to curtail free speech.

So perhaps Raab and other OP editors from time to time stepped on toes or expressed “outrageous” opinions. Students should “epater les bourgeois.”

As for any “good” that Sen. McCarthy may have done, it was far overshadowed by his reckless and unsubstantiated assertions that destroyed lives and careers of people who in no way threatened America or American values. Truly, he had no shame.
A personal note, After college, I worked on a small daily in Louisiana, on the Beaumont (Texas) Journal, with the Washington bureau of Trans Radio Press Service and finally a long career writing and editing union newspapers.
None of the publications on which I worked still exist. I mourn their loss.

— Dave Perlman

‘As for any “good” that Sen. McCarthy (did) it was overshadowed by his unsubstantiated assertions that destroyed lives and careers of people who (did not) threaten America”

As regards “personal experience” I will bow to Mr. Perlman’s “having been there” during these events. However, though that may provide him with expertise on the “feelings” of the McCarthy era, it cannot change factual matters.

First, the judgement that the harm of McCarthy’s assertions “overshadowed” any “good” that he did is a purely personal one. I cannot shake the impression that, if this nation had succumbed to the manipulations of Communists who were, in turn, serving a cause headed by Joseph Stalin, Mr. Perlman would have a hard time justifying that assessment. Again, we are NOT speaking of “Liberals”. We are speaking of Marxists, and those of the type to be found serving under Stalin. And we are not talking about imprisoning or exiling the college students who were enamoured of “communism”. Such people suffered nothing under McCarthy. They were free to say what they wished, before him and afterwards. McCarthy’s whole issue was with known or suspected Communists serving in positions of national security. Annie Lee Moss, inspite of Mr. Walsh’s sarcastic manipulation, was in fact a Communist. There was no legitmate basis for doubting that the Annie Lee Moss in front of the Senate was, in fact, the same one who was both a Communist and also working in the code room at the Pentagon. This, and this alone, was what McCarthy was after. Some people, out of Leftist sentimentality on their own part, and others out of embarassment that McCarthy would call attention to security problems within their own organization, set about destroying the man’s reputation out of revenge.

However, not only was McCarthy’s main premise correct, but the threat posed by it was both real and exceedingly dangerous. Because that threat was defused, Liberals today feel justified in brushing aside the fact that McCarthy was right. But they do not know what would have happened if McCarthy had not spoken out. Given the conduct of the Stalin regime, I think it more than appropriate to assume the worst. As I noted before, what does anyone suppose would have been the fate of any Soviet citizen found giving like aid to American interests? They would have been arrested before breakfast, convicted by lunch, sentenced by dinner, and dead before sunset. And, like as not, their immediate family would be either dead with them, or sent off to freeze in Siberia. The moral gap between America (even on it’s worst day) and the Soviet Union and other Communist regimes (on any given day) is a matter of light-years’ distance. Mr. McCarthy was both justified in bringing the problem to light, and (given the devastating potential) very restrained in his methods.

Second, as to the lives and careers “destroyed” in America by Sen. McCarthy. Just who does Mr.Perlman have in mind that Mr. McCarthy “destroyed”? The Rosenbergs were executed, for selling atomic weapons secrets to the Soviets. McCarthy had nothing to do with that. A few others went to jail, for very short terms (given their actions). A number of others fled to the Soviet Union rather than risk indictment. (I suppose Liberals will contend that we’ll never know whether they were guilty or not.)

For the “harm” McCarthy did, most people think mainly of the “blacklisting” of people associated with the entertainment and journalism industries of the day. Now really… does anyone think that Joe McCarthy called up publishers and owners of major Hollywood studios and either asked them or told them to not hire screenwriters or actors, etc who were suspected of Communist sympathy?? Ridiculous. What clearly happened was this… Joe McCarthy may have been the “senatorial poster-boy” for anti-Communism in the ’50’s, but we would’ve never heard of him if only he and a few others had thought as he did. His influence was entirely based on the fact that tens of millions of Americans were just as concerned about global Communism and it’s threat to America as he was. Studio Moguls and publishing tycoons could care less about the opinions of a blue-collar jr. senator from Wisconsin. McCarthy had ZERO power to “blacklist” anybody. But those tycoons, moguls, and money-men DID care about the millions of “Joe and Joanne Sixpacks”… the blue-collar traditional small-town / church-going / working-class Americans who were Joe McCarthy’s most faithful fans. Those people, after all, were the ones buying the tickets. Studio and newspaper men willngly blacklisted artists, actors, writers, etc. who were widely suspected of disloyal sentiments, solely because it was perceived as being good for business. Those blacklisted were unable to get work for precisely the same reason as some actors and writers today who express overly-conservative points of view. One need only consider the treatment recently accorded the ex-Miss California (Ms. Prejean) in response for her refusal to pay homage to gay marriage.

Neither McCarthy himself, nor conservative politicians generally, were responsible for blacklisting. Decision makers, many of whom were doubtless themselves very liberal in their politics, nonetheless trashed the working careers of certain people in their field, for no other reason than concern over ticket sales.

McCarthy had nothing to do with these things, and it is utterly inconceivable that he could have. True, history often uses individuals as “emblems” of a particular time and it’s events. If people were more quick to separate Joe McCarthy from “McCarthyism”, perhaps I would not feel so compelled to take exception. But Senator McCarthy did call attention to very real security risks, and did so at the loss of his reputation and personal well-being. And the risks we faced, had he not done so, could potentially have been the annihilation of our society at the hands of brutal merciless dictators. Preventing this was an unambiguous “good” that no amount of “blacklisting” and could ever “overshadow”.

Bill Cravens