Introduction

            Hi, Mark

here and welcome to Intelligence and Society. This lesson is Blacklisting

– Then and Now. We ask the question whether it is ethical to blacklist a

person for his or her political opinions or affiliations. In the 1940s and

1950s Hollywood studios refused to employ people connected with the Communist Party of the United States. Today, Wall Street firms have announced that they will not hire people who support the terrorist group HAMAS. Is it fair to deny employment to somebody because of their political beliefs?  But first, what is a blacklist?

            It is a list of people targeted to be boycotted, generally for political reasons. I am sure that it existed, in some form, since antiquity. The Hollywood blacklist was really a series of lists that offered the names of Americans suspected on being communists or having supported communism. Some 250 Hollywood personalities, fairly or unfairly, had their name on one or several lists and some lost employment opportunities. Retired FBI counterintelligence agents produced one publication that was called Counterattack – Red Channels, which was widely used by studio heads.

            The blacklist began when Hollywood studio leaders met at the Waldoff Astoria hotel in New York in 1947 and agreed to boycott all elements of Soviet communism. In the same year, the House Committee on Un-American Activities held hearing to investigate the Soviet penetration of Hollywood. Ten witnesses refused to cooperate, and pundits dubbed them the Hollywood Ten. Hollywood studios blacklisted them and others because they feared the public would boycott movies connected to communist writers or actors. Also, many Americans simply did not like communism.

            Some historians view the blacklisting period as a dark and intolerant epoch in which Americans practicing their Constitutional rights were unfairly blacklisted, hounded, and imprisoned. In this view, the screenwriters were "liberals in a hurry" just helping America’s Soviet allies. Other credible historians, such as Ronald Radosh, blacklists were vindicated.

            Today, some philanthropists have declared that they will no longer donate to universities because, in their view, students have openly supported Islamic terrorist groups. They also cited administrators as being too passive to militancy. Some law firms rescinded job offers to those who supported HAMAS and its use of violence. Both the Hollywood blacklist and todays unofficial blacklist are controversial. 

So, was it appropriate to refuse to hire communists in twentieth century. Is it appropriate to refuse to hire supporters of terrorists in the twenty-first century? You decide.