||"THE RIGHT MOST VALUED BY CIVILIZED MAN" 17 ations of any applicant, nor shall any inquiry be made concerning such opinions, or affiliations, and all disclosures thereof shall be discountenanced.20 The loyalty programs changed all this. Investigations into> opinions, beliefs, and affiliations, into areas Americans have been accustomed to consider private, became commonplace. "The perniciousness of these inquiries was enhanced by the fact that the term "loyalty" was never defined, and by the fact that the standards to which reference could be made were so loosely phrased as to invite wide exploration and subjective conclusions. It is small wonder, therefore, that investigators pursued questioning which sought information as to whether employees read certain "dangerous books," espoused the cause of the underdog, protested against loyalty oaths, criticized certain foreign and domestic policies of the government, were interested in civil rights, favored the "one world idea," voted for Henry Wallace, engaged in "left-wing" talk, based studies on materials obtained from the Institute of Pacific Relations, etc.21 The fact that most of the employees to whom these interrogatories were directed were subsequently cleared of disloyalty charges is not material. The significant fact is that these questions were asked, for in being asked they warned the employee that interest in civil rights, in labor unions, in controversial issues, in liberal causes, in any view that did not conform to the contemporary majority, was suspect. The moral was obvious: don't criticize; conform; play safe. The questions asked are only part of the story. More startling were the procedures used. At stake in any loyalty proceedings are a person's good name, his job, his peace of mind, his security. Despite all these factors, the loyalty programs fail to guarantee the accused the minimal essentials of due process of law. Obsessed with a sense of security, the framers of the loyalty rules provided that reports and other investigative materials could be held in confidence and that names of informants need not be disclosed. As a result the charges preferred were frequently so vague, so lacking in detail as to utterly fail to perform the functions of a complaint; namely, to notify the accused of the charge against him. Even more significant was the fact that he was frequently denied information as to the names of his accusers and thus also deprived of the opportunity of confrontation and cross-examination. In such instances he labored in the dark, for he had no means of establishing whether the derogatory information was possibly the result of mistaken identity, vindictiveness, careless gossip, misinterpretation, or sheer imagination. Because of this, the secret informer, the suspicious neighbor, the misinformed, the misguided zealot, had free reign, secure in their namelessness, confident that they would not be called to 20. This quotation is found in Barth, The Loyalty of Free Men 97 (1952). 21. For these and other illustrations, see: Yarmolinsky, Case Studies in Personnel Security (1955).