||20 TWENTY-THIRD ANNUAL REYNOLDS LECTURE for the purpose of conducting an investigation of (1) the extent, character, and object of un-American propaganda activities in the United States, (2) the diffusion within the United States of subversive and un-American propaganda that is instigated from foreign countries or of a domestic origin and attacks the principle of the form of government as guaranteed by our Constitution, and (3) all other questions in relation thereto that would aid Congress in any necessary remedial legislation. Again we note the same lack of precision, the same temptation to subjectivity that characterized the executive orders which established the loyalty programs. In fact, that lack of precision was magnified in this resolution for the phrase "un-American" was totally undefined. It left the committee free to probe any activities that it considered unconventional and unpopular, and the record clearly shows that it had no hesitancy in accepting this invitation. As observed, nearly every facet of American life was touched by these probes. The movie industry, religious bodies, educational institutions, civil liberty organizations, consumer groups, publications from Time to the Daily Worker,28 farm associations, and many others were the objects of intensive investigations. Such investigations of necessity centered around individuals affiliated with these groups and around other individuals who associated with the individuals thus affiliated. The circle was endless. The questions asked, despite the fact the hearings were frequently televised, probed deep into private matters. They reflected that the phrase "un-American" in the minds of many of the investigators was synonymous with such terms as "new-dealer," "left-winger," "radical," liberal," and with such actions as advocacy of public power, support or criticism â€" depending on the shifting winds â€" of our China policy, and above all criticism of the investigative committees themselves. In short, "un-American" was often confused with the unorthodox, and the result was a drive toward further conformity. Herein rested the principal evil. By probing into that which was unpopular, by questioning associations not accepted by the vocal elements in society, by equating liberal causes with subversive activities, Congress frequently invaded areas around which a mantle of protection was thought to exist. Criticism, advocacy, and counter-advocacy, and freedom of associations could not thrive in such a climate. The moral was again obvious: play safe; conform. As in the case of loyalty programs, the inequity of these investigations was enhanced by the frequent failure to observe the minimal requirements of a fair hearing. Too often a witness was not sufficiently informed in advance as to matters concerning which he would be questioned. Too 28. See dissenting opinion of Justice Clark in United States v. Josephson, 165 F. 2d 82, 95 (2d Cir. 1947).