Right Decision but Wrong Reason, Evening Star (Article, October 1955)
Full Text
Right Decision but Wrong Reason
Landy Case Should Have Turned On His Susceptibility to Red Pressure
Merchant Seaman Eugene W. Landy has rightly been granted an ensign's commission by Secretary of the Navy Charles S. Thomas, but for the wrong reasons.
The issue was never whether Landy did or did not have close or sympathetic associations with his mother, who had once joined a Communist organization. The President's executive order and the directive of the Secretary of Defense did not require that a Government [employee] be fired because he has a relative who is connected with or sympathetic with a subversive organization like the Communist party.
What the rules established by the President for the executive branch of the Government do require is that security boards shall determine whether or not an individual who has close associations with any Communist or Communist organization is himself susceptible to pressure or coercion or blackmail.
Thus, it was just as wrong for the Coast Guard to say, as it did in a recent case, that a certain individual did not happen to be close to his mother as it was for Secretary Thomas to argue that Landy, even though close to his mother, was not influenced by her.
The simple fact is that, when the parent is inside the United States, the only influence that can be exerted is not on the relative of the Government [employee] but on the [employee] himself. If, for example, there is something not publicly known about the background of a parent and there is danger that this might be revealed, the individual whose security status is being investigated might some day be in a position of being subjected to blackmail.
Likewise, Government security boards are required to take a look at the possible situations that might arise in the case of an individual who has relatives behind the Iron Curtain. Could these relatives be threatened with torture and even death if the individual in the American armed forces didn't disclose information to enemy agents?
The real test, therefore, is how much character and stamina the individual has. Would Wolf Ladejinsky, for instance-- who has relatives behind the Iron Curtain-- stand up under coercion? Would Landy be influenced by any attempt to blackmail him?
The answer in both cases, after a study of both men, should have been in their favor. But as long as the rules provide that the security boards must take a look at all the facts and circumstances to determine whether an individual can be subjected to blackmail and pressure, this type of case will arise.
An entirely different problem arises in cases involving homosexuality. Again and again individuals have resigned or been forced out of the Government service because of a record of homosexuality, other sex deviations or alcoholism. Lots of people are indignant about this and say a man should simply be fired for unsuitability if anything like that appears in his record and not put on the list of persons fired for security reasons. Thus, judging by the comments made in the hearings by the staff of the Senate Subcommittee on Civil Service investigating security cases, there is an apparent naivete on the subject of unsuitability. It is argued there, for instance, the word is used as a cover-up for political firings.
Plainly there is nothing directly related to Communist activity in the usual case of a homosexual who is fired or resigns. Hence it is specious to cry out that the administration is playing the numbers game by blanketing all security risks under a single head. The truth is that the Government rules require that a potential risk as well as an actual risk should not be cleared for service.
