Dear Sol:

I hasten to reply to youra of the 18th. The Markert situation
is one that I know very little about, and if you can inform me of
the facts, I would be eager to have them. I do not know Markert or
his history personally, and so have very little on which to judge,
and would not favor simply abjuring my own decisions automatically
to another group as you propose. If you can give m facts that will
help me to make up my own mind, it would be another story.

All I have gotten is the brief newspaper account that Markert and
others had invoked the 5th Amendment and refused to testify before a
House Committea. I have a little sympathy, but neither confidence in
nor aupport of such refusal. If Markert had testified and were then
dismissed for past and repented activities or suspicion of them, I
would probably go along with you. But to my mind, refusal to testify
ia legally, not morally, justifiable for anyone who claimsthe privileges
of academic freedom.

A just procedure for hearing the case is perhaps another matter, but
I doubt the wisdom of the kind of prior pressure you propose. If the
faculty recommendations are disregarded, then they certainly will be
calling for the support of colleagues elsewhere, but if we are to avoid
the confusion of issues that developed at California, we have to focus
on this one, academic responsibility. A prejudgment such as you suggest
would be more likely to drag in the Communist issue per se. Since the
academic commmity has acquiesced already in the dismissal of overt
communists, this masure of our academic freeiom is already irretrievably
lost. I suggest then that we not threaten reprisals, but that we perhaps
consider contributing our honoraria in support of any further action that
the Michigan faculty may propose.

Personally, what disturbs me most is Markert's refusal to testify.
Legally, we cannot call him to account on it, but I think he does viclate
the conditions of academic freedom-- candor and courage-—— by doing sp.

He invoked not the lat Ameddment, as he might hawe tried if he were merhbly
defying an intrudion into his political rights, but the 5th. The forzer
would have been at some risk, to be sure, though it is hard te sea how
he could be worse off than now. The 5th does imply self-incrimination,
and I do not know how he will justify it. If I did know, ccnceivably I
would have a different decision, but now I can only use my i.zination.

Yours sincerely,
Joshua Lederberg

°.S. Did you see a petition that Nanne .
the issue, bringing in lysenkiam! 9 UY * thought this really befuddled