with whom Mr. Justice Black concurs, dissenting.
I have not been able to accept the recent doctrine that a citizen who enters the public service can be forced to sacrifice his civil-rights.* I cannot for example find in our constitutional scheme the power of a state to place its employees in the category of second-class citizens by denying them freedom of thought and expression. The Constitution guarantees freedom of thought and expression to everyone in our society. All are entitled to it; and none needs it more than the teacher.
The public school is in most respects the cradle of our democracy. The increasing role of the public school is seized upon by proponents of the type of legislation represented by New York’s Feinberg law as proof of the importance and need for keeping the school free of “subversive influences.” But that is to misconceive the effect of this type of legislation. Indeed the impact of this kind of censorship on the public school system illustrates the high purpose of the First Amendment in freeing speech and thought from censorship.
The present law proceeds on a principle reptignant to our society — guilt by association. A teacher is disqualified because of her membership in an organization found . to be “subversive.” The finding as to the “subversive” character of the organization is made in a proceeding to which the teacher is not a party and in which it is not *509clear that she may even be heard. To be sure, she may have a hearing when charges of disloyalty, are leveled against her. But in that hearing the finding as to the “subversive” character of the organization apparently may not be reopened in order to allow her- to show the truth of the matter. The irrebuitable charge that the organization is “subversive” therefore hangs as an ominous cloud over her own hearing. The mere fact of membership in the organization.raises a prima facie case of her own guilt. She may, it is said., show her innocence. But innocence in this case turns on knowledge; and when the witch hunt is on, one who must rely on ignorance leans on a feeble reed.
The very threat of such a procedure is certain to raise havoc with academic freedom. Youthful indiscretions, mistaken causes, misguided enthusiasms — all long forgotten — become the ghosts of a harrowing present. Any organization committed to a liberal cause, any group organized to revolt against an hysterical trend, any committee launched .to sponsor an unpopular program becomes suspect. These are the organizations into which Communists often infiltrate. Their presence infects the whole, even though the project was not conceived in sin. A teacher caught in that mesh is almost certain to stand condemned. Fearing condemnation, she will tend to shrink from any association that stirs controversy. In that manner freedom of expression will be stifled.
But that is only part of it. Once a teacher’s connection with a listed organization is shown, her views become subject to scrutiny to determine whether her -membership in the organization is innocent or, if she was formerly a member, whether she has bona fide abandoned her membership.
The law inevitably turns the school system into a spying pro j ect. Regular loyalty reports on the teachers must be made out. The principals become detectives; the *510students, the parents, the community become informers. Ears are cocked for tell-tale signs of disloyalty. The prejudices of the community come into play in searching out the disloyal. This is not the usual type of supervision which checks a teacher’s competency; it is a system which searches for hidden meanings in a teacher’s utterances.
What was the significance of the reference of the art teacher to socialism? Why was the history teacher so openly hostile to Franco Spain? Who heard overtones of revolution in the English teacher’s discussion of the Grapes of Wrath? What was behind the praise of Soviet progress in metallurgy in the chemistry class? Was it not “subversive” for the teacher to cast doubt on the wisdom of the venture in Korea?
What happens under this law is typical of what happens in a police state. Teachers are under constant surveillance; their pasts are combed for signs of disloyalty; their utterances are watched for clues to dangerous thoughts. A pall is cast oyer the classrooms. There can be no real academic freedom in that environment. Where suspicion fills the air and holds scholars in line for fear of their jobs, there can be no exercise of the free intellect. Supineness and dogmatism take the place of inquiry. A “party line” — as dangerous as the “party line” of the Communists — lays hold. It is thé “party line” of the orthodox view, of the conventional thought, of the accepted approach. A problem can no longer be pursued with impunity to its edges. Fear stalks the classroom. The teacher is no'longer a stimulant to adventurous thinking; she becomes instead a pipe line for safe and sound information. A deadening dogma takes the place of free inquiry. Instruction tends to become sterile; pursuit of knowledge is discouraged; discussion often leaves off where it should begin.
This, I think, is what happens when a censor looks over a teacher’s shoulder. This system of spying and *511surveillance with its accompanying reports and trials cannot go hand in hand with academic freedom. It produces standardized thought, not the pursuit of truth. Yet it was the pursuit of truth which,the First Amendment was designed to protect. A system which directly or inevitably has that effect is alien to our system and should be struck down. Its survival is a real threat to our way of life. We need be bold and adventuresome in our thinking to survive. A school system producing students trained as robots threatens to rob a generation of the versatility that has been perhaps our greatest distinction. The Framers knew the danger of dogmatism; they also knew the strength that comes when the mind is free, when ideas may be pursued wherever they lead. We forget these teachings of the First Amendment when we sustain this law.
Of course the school systems of the country need not become cells for Communist activities; and the classrooms need not become forums for propagandizing the Marxist creed. But the guilt of the teacher should turn on overt acts. So long as she is a law-abiding citizen, so long as her performance within the public school system méets professional standards, her private life, her political philosophy, her social creed should not be the cause of reprisals against her.
United Public Workers v. Mitchell, 330 U. S. 75; Garner v. Board of Public Works of Los Angeles, 341 U. S. 716.