Mr. HARRISON. I think it was over a year. I am not sure of the exact time. Mr. TAVENNER. What was your employment prior to that? Mr. HARRISON. Prior to that I was employed at the radiation laboratory of MIT. Mr. TAVENNER. What was the nature of your employment there? Mr. HARRISON. I believe the title was staff member of the radiation laboratory, and again I worked there on various mathematical and physical theories which were related to the needs of the laboratory. Mr. TAVENNER. How long were you so employed? Mr. HARRISON. For, I think, just about a year, if not exactly a year. Mr. SCHERER. Were you employed on any Government projects, for the United States Government? Mr. HARRISON. Yes-I was employed by various laboratories which were engaged in Government projects. Mr. SCHERER. Defense work? Mr. HARRISON. Yes. Mr. SCHERER. Was the material on which you were working classified material? Mr. HARRISON. Some of it; yes. Mr. SCHERER. Were you cleared to handle classified material? Mr. HARRISON. I presume so. I have no knowledge. As far as I know; I was not informed otherwise, of course, until my termination of employment at the Sperry Gyroscope Co. Mr. SCHERER. Was that true with Sperry Gyroscope Co. also? Mr. HARRISON. I just said, until my termination of employment at the Sperry Gyroscope Co., I was cleared for this work, I presume. I have no reason to believe otherwise. Mr. SCHERER. At both of these plants, however, you were working on defense projects? Mr. HARRISON. Well, at this first one we were mentioning, the MIT laboratory, the money, of course, that the laboratory obtained for its functioning was obtained on the basis of various projects. My work, as I recall it, was not on any particular project. There was a group of mathematicians and physicists who worked on general problems which related to the needs of the laboratory. I don't recall that I was on any particular project. Mr. SCHERER. The laboratory was doing work, however, for the Defense Department of the United States Government? Mr. HARRISON. I believe so. Mr. SCHERER. In both instances? Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I think so. Mr. CLARDY. Sperry engaged in a great deal of research and produced quite a number of items that were of great value in national defense, did it not? Mr. HARRISON. I believe so; yes. Mr. CLARDY. Proceed, Counsel. Mr. TAVENNER. Prior to your employment at the radiation laboratory, what the nature of your work? Mr. HARRISON. I believe for a period of perhaps a year and a half or two, the exact length escapes me, I was at the Harvard Underwater Sound Laboratory in Cambridge, Mass. Mr. TAVENNER. Did I understand you to say Harvard University? Mr. HARRISON. That is right. It was on the premises of Harvard University. I am not clear as to the exact relationship that the laboratory had to Harvard University. Mr. TAVENNER. Underwater sound, is that what you said? Mr. HARRISON. Again it was to make certain mathematical, theoretical investigations of the physical problems involved in the problems of the laboratory. Mr. TAVENNER. Did those problems deal with matters of defense? Mr. HARRISON. I believe so, yes. Mr. CLARDY. As a matter of fact, the mathematical work you are talking about was the real basis for the development of radar and a great many other things that have come into use, was it not? Mr. HARRISON. Radar, of course, was largely a development of the radiation laboratory at MIT. Mr. CLARDY. I say the mathematical formulas and the things you worked on are of the type that are necessary as a foundation for the practical application that has been made? Mr. HARRISON. I believe so. I believe that can be said. Mr. CLARDY. You not only believe so, as a mathematician you know so, don't you? Mr. HARRISON. Well, to say that the theoretical foundation came first before the practical applications is not always the case. I believe they are related. Mr. CLARDY. I understand. Mr. HARRISON. They complement one another. Mr. CLARDY. It is at least the explanation of what may have been stumbled onto when the reverse takes place? Mr. HARRISON. Yes. Mr. TAVENNER. For how long a period of time were you employed at this institution? Mr. HARRISON. Incidentally, I am not sure you should call it an institution. I was employed by the laboratory, of course. Mr. TAVENNER. By the laboratory at Harvard University? Mr. HARRISON. At Harvard University. I don't recall exactly. I believe I was there for about 2 years, but I am not sure of the exact dates at the moment. Mr. SCHERER. What were those years? Mr. HARRISON. I believe I came there sometime in 1943, and I think I left there sometime in 1945. I believe those are the periods. Perhaps if you have the record there you might state them. I am not clear. Mr. TAVENNER. The notations which I have indicate that you were employed there from 1943 to 1945. Mr. SCHERER. What about the radiation laboratory at MIT, Mr. Counsel? Do you have those notations? Mr. TAVENNER. 1945 to 1946. Mr. SCHERER. What about the Sperry Gyroscope Co. ? Mr. TAVENNER. 1946-47, which is substantially what the witness said. Mr. HARRISON. I believe so. Mr. TAVENNER. Prior to your employment at Harvard how were you employed? Mr. HARRISON. Prior to that I was employed as a contract physicist at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory in Washington. Mr. TAVENNER. Were you a civilian employee? Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I was a civilian employee. Mr. TAVENNER. What was the fate of your employment there at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory? Mr. HARRISON. It was similar to that which I have been describing in my other work. It was of a mathematical theoretical nature which related to the problems and the needs of the laboratory at that time. Mr. SCHERER. What type of projects? Mr. HARRISON. Well, those that were of interest to the Navy at that time. Mr. SCHERER. Can you give us an illustration of one or two of the projects on which you worked? Mr. HARRISON. Well, I don't know whether I ought to divulge that. I don't think it is particularly important, and yet I hesitate to do that. Mr. SCHERER. Was it that secret that you can't divulge it at this time? Mr. HARRISON. No, no. Mr. SCHERER. If it was, I don't want you to disclose it, but I just wanted to know if you were engaged on something as secret as that so you can't disclose it. Mr. HARRISON. No, I don't think one decides whether one discloses these things on the level of secrecy involved. I don't think that it would be quite proper. I can only say that they were problems in which the Navy was concerned at that time. Obviously there were problems of great moment having to do with the threat that our shipping was faced with at that time, and so on. The nature of the work was Mr. SCHERER. Were they classified projects at that time? Mr. HARRISON. Yes, the work was of a classified nature, yes. Mr. SCHERER. Then you were cleared to handle classified work at that time? Mr. HARRISON. I presume so. Mr. SCHERER. Don't you know? Mr. HARRISON. I can only go on the basis that nothing to the contrary was ever brought to my attention at that time. I believe these things were a matter of routine, which was not to my knowledge. Mr. CLARDY. Proceed, Mr. Counsel. Mr. TAVENNER. Prior to your employment at the Naval Ordnance Laboratory, how were you employed? Mr. HARRISON. Well, the year prior to that I was working at the California Institute of Technology toward my doctorate, and I was simply studying during that year at the California Institute of Technology. That was just about a year, I think, that I was there at that time. Mr. SCHERER. Mr. Counsel, what does your memorandum show with. reference to the time that this man was employed by the Navy? Mr. TAVENNER. 1942 to 1943, is that correct? 48861-54-pt. 1- -3 Mr. HARRISON. I believe that is right. I believe that is right. That was immediately following my studies at California Tech; yes, sir. Mr. TAVENNER. While at California Tech were you associated in anyway with the scientific research being conducted in connection with the atomic bomb. Mr. HARRISON. No. No, I was there on a fellowship which helped to support me while I studied there, and I taught a class or two, as I recall, but I did nothing else there during that year than tend to my duties in this respect. Mr. TAVENNER. Did you teach at any other place? Mr. HARRISON. Yes, I taught for 2 years at the New Mexico State College of A. and M. A. I believe that is agriculture and mechanic arts. It is a State college just outside of Las Cruces, N. Mex. Mr. TAVENNER. What were the years? Mr. HARRISON. That would be 1939 to 1941. Mr. TAVENNER. The committee is informed that you are now employed as an assistant professor of mathematics at Wayne University, is that correct? Mr. HARRISON. That is correct. Mr. TAVENNER. How long have you been teaching at Wayne University? Mr. HARRISON. Well, my official contract, I think, began as of September 1948, although I did teach there during the prior summer session. Mr. TAVENNER. You have taught there constantly since that time? Mr. HARRISON. Yes. Mr. TAVENNER. Mr. Chairman, I desire to ask this witness various questions regarding activities within the American Federation of Teachers, or at least to inquire as to his knowledge of such activities, but as the basis for my questioning I think that I should make known to the witness the testimony of various persons who have appeared before this committee as a background for my questioning. Mr. CLARDY. Very well. Proceed. I think I should also make the statement at this time that we had anticipated today having Dr. Bella Dodd here to repeat and expand some testimony on the subject that you have in mind, but we have excused her from appearing today because of a business engagement that she had. You may proceed. Mr. TAVENNER. Dr. Bella V. Dodd Mr. HARRISON. Incidentally, may I inquire, is it the practice of the committee to excuse people because of business engagements? Mr. CLARDY. Witness, I have told counsel he may proceed. Just be patient. You will understand what we are getting at when he is finished. He is reading something on which he intends to base a question. Be patient for a few moments, and you will discover what he has in mind. Mr. TAVENNER. Dr. Bella V. Dodd was an organizer for the American Federation of Teachers and became its legislative representative in the State of New York between the period of 1938 and 1943. She testified before the committee that as early as 1932 she had been active in a positive way with the Communists and the Communist Party, although she was not at that time a member of the Communist Party. She testified before this committee that she did not become. a member of the Communist Party until in 1943. After that time she became one of the most influential open members of the Communist Party in this country until she left the Communist Party entirely and broke with it in 1948. She is now engaged in the practice of law in the city of New York. Dr. Dodd held many important positions in the Communist Party. She was a member of the State committee in New York from 1944 to 1948 and a member of the national committee of the Communist Party for the same period, and she was State secretariat for the State of New York. She was a member at one time or another of many of the most important commissions of the Communist Party, including the women's commission, the labor commission, the youth commission, and the legislative commission. In the course of her testimony she told this committee that The Communist Party was very, very keen and I am quoting her now— about organizing teachers, professors, educators, the intellectuals, because these are the molders of public opinion, and these are the people who make the shift in public opinion for the country. Very often it depended upon what period of history you were in as to whether the professional people became identified with the Communists or not. During the period when the Communist Party is in danger the professional people are more or less placed underground. As a matter of fact, one of the things we used to smile about-that is, those of us who became openly known as party people was the fear the professional people had, the timidity they had, and we would constantly egg them on to become open and known Communists, but at the same time we would protect those who were important to the party. Teachers groups and, for instance, other groups like doctors, lawyers, scientists, what will you, had their own separate organization and teachers particularly, since they were large in number, had to worry about the question of security and the question of losing their jobs, and they would be organized by themselves in certain periods of the party history. During the period of the extreme unitedfront movement, the teachers were to join in street branches under different names and to merge themselves with housewives and others, but most of the time that I knew the party the teachers had their own special organization with just teachers. They never went to party headquarters and never went anywhere near where the party might be identified, but meetings were organized and held in out-of-the-way places, in private homes. Dr. Dodd then testified as to the character of the work that was done in the State of New York. This is what she said: The Communist Party organized teachers in practically every high school and in most of the elementary schools, and where there were elementary schools in which we didn't have free members, then you would associate 3 or 4 of the public schools together and establish a geographical unit. So you would have a network of units which were called shop units, actually working within the school, and then sending representatives to the county, and then sending representatives to the city. From time to time, in order to control the union work, we would have a meeting of all the teachers who were in the Communist Party, or representatives from the various units. This was called fraction. This was a fraction. You see, it was the policy of the Communist Party within the unit. By 1938, however, it became unnecessary to have fractions anymore because the Communist Party had established its domination over the union. What happened then, we established a coordinating committee, we established a top committee of the union, of Communist officers of the union, for the purposes of establishing policy. (At this point Mr. Harrison conferred with Mr. Field.) Mr. TAVENNER. I think it is only fair that this part of her testimony also be brought out in connection with this. She testified as follows: Well, in contrast to the fact that there are 1 million teachers in America, or a little more than 1 million teachers at present, from my knowledge the |