Acting Un-American – HUAC and the Federal Theatre Project
Fermat’s adaptation of the testimony of Hallie Flanagan before the House Un-American Activities Committee
With live theater a fevered dream in the midst of the 2020 COVID pandemic, Fermat’s recorded Acting Un-American at Audio for the Arts on October 26 with Mya Kahler substituting for Greer Dubois.
Cast and Crew – 2018 dramatic reading
- Hallie Flanagan Maggie Schenk
- Martin Dies Alex Hancock
- Joe Starnes Steffen Silvis
- J. Parnell Thomas Nick Barovic-Hancock
- Harry Hopkins and others Greer Dubois
- Script Maggie Schenk and Greer DuBois
- Director Greer DuBois
- Graphic & web design Wendy Vardaman
Acting Un-American was Fermat’s Spring 2018 workshop – a staged reading of the 1938 testimony
before the House Un-American Activities Committee of Hallie Flanagan, Director of the Federal Theatre
Project. The Project claimed to have reached 25 million Americans and was the first target of HUAC, a
congressional committee formed to root out communist and socialist subversion in all its hydra-like
forms and locations. Maggie Schenk read the part of Hallie Flanagan, the congressmen in dogged pursuit
were Alex Hancock as Martin Dies, Steffen Silvis as Joseph Starnes and Nick Barovic-Hancock as J. Parnell
Thomas. Greer Dubois directed and played the part of Harry Hopkins, among others. The workshop also
included material from Flanagan’s autobiography, Arena.
The post show talk was led by Frank Emspak, Professor Emeritus in the UW School for Workers and long
time activist in the union movement. His father, Julius Emspak, was one of the key founders of the CIO
and a national officer of the United Electrical Workers (UE). The UE was one of seven labor unions
expelled from the CIO as “communist dominated” and Julius Emspak was called before HUAC, invoked
his First Amendment rights and was imprisoned for contempt of congress.
HUAC- a personal story
Discussing the use of inflammatory rhetoric, social isolation; personal attacks and outright fabrication as part of a political process could not be more relevant today. But in fact the House Un-American Activities Committee exemplified these traits from its beginnings in 1938, so it is appropriate to revisit the subject now.
In my case I relate to HUAC because my family was a target of HUAC, especially my father and even more importantly the union he helped lead- the United Electrical Radio and Machine Workers of America. Although in some ways I did not suffer personally during the height of McCarthyism, the family and the labor movement suffered greatly from my father’s premature death from a massive heart attack in 1962, less than two years after the fifteen year round of subpoena’s, contempt hearings, jailing a perjury conviction and eventual victory. Of broader significance was a Supreme Court victory invalidating his contempt citation and validating his the use of the first amendment as the basis for refusal to answer HUAC’s and the Senate Internal Security Subcommittee’s questions.
But he also suffered the near destruction of the union he helped found the United Electrical Workers. Many progressive leaders in film, unions, and community organizations suffered the same fate of premature stress related death..
In 1938 Congress established The House Un-American Activities Committee- at the time part of the Republican attack on progressive aspects of the New deal- especially the support of popular culture. Both Republicans and Democrats sat on the committee in proportion to their membership in the House of Representatives. Democrats often chaired the Committee. It’s most famous alumni was Richard Nixon. After WW II and especially after the strike wave of 1946 HUAC focused on class conscious trade unionists. HUAC used its subpoena powers dragging left trade unionists before the committee and asking questions about post, or present beliefs; and to name friends who might have been involved in organizations deemed communist dominated by HUAC, or in the Communist Party itself. If one didn’t answer at all or refuse to answer they were cited with contempt of Congress and could be jailed. Many took the Fifth Amendment meaning that they would not incriminate themselves. While this may have served to protect against a contempt citation, in the public eye it meant that there person was guilty of something – otherwise they would have testified. Others- at first only a few objected to the questions on the basis of the first amendment. My father (Julius Emspak) was one of the first and the case eventually went to the US Supreme Court where his position was supported. He said essentially that any questions the committee was asking had to do with his beliefs and that they had no business investigating them him since congress could make no law restricting beliefs.
But the case took almost a decade to resolve, cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, included a short time in Federal Prison after the Congress voted almost unanimously (I think it was 350 to one) to cite him for contempt. The real effect of the committee was to decimate the progressive movement- as people who sent before the committee was usually fired. Political conformity within the trade union movement and the progressive movement in general was achieved. The labor movement became an adjunct of the Democratic Party.
What distinguished progressives of that era from liberals was the issue of the embrace of the cold war and anti-communism.
HUAC and the purge of progressive and communists in the trade union movement took place at the same time the more famous attacks on progressives
in the film industry. But the attacks went on longer and had devastating effects on the personal lives of many as well as the destruction of their unions. Often HUAC would issue subpoenas just before union elections, and often just as a Congress of Industrial Organizations union was raiding an established UE Local. The officers of the UE local were forced to testify and one consequence was blaring headlines about communist affiliation, and of course that often helped the union ousting the UE. The extent of these subpoenas was also amazing with subcommittees of HUAC going to smaller manufacturing cities around the country, calling in local leaders who, afterwards were often fired, blacklisted and forced the leave town. In many cases the targets were elected officers of their unions- not celebrities or professionals. To put the scope of the attacks on the UE in perspective, the UE had about 600,000 members right after WWII with national contracts in all major electrical industry companies-GE, Westinghouse etc. At the end of the attacks on the UE -say 1959 – they had about 70,000 members. Essentially the third largest union in the CIO was brought down and in spite of all the dollars poured into the effort, it replacement the International Union of Electrical Workers, now no longer an independent union, never achieved the scope of its predecessor.
PERSONAL ASPECTS:
Growing up it is sometimes difficult to know how something like HUAC and the red scare affects one. I did not suffer from ostracism and physical attacks in grade school or high school as did some others. But – and this occurred to me recently comparing our experience in our neighborhood with when I was growing up- never once in the time I lived at 49 Cliffside Dr., our home in East Yonkers NY did any neighbor drop in for coffee, except the catholic neighbor up the street. A widower, his wife and my mother were close. Whenever there was a particular vicious attack in the local paper he would come by to see if “things” were okay.
In grade school once, the principal would not let me go to the convention of the United Electrical Workers in 1952. She indicated to me that somehow the organization was bad; my parents of course intervened. Then not too long after,
when Eisenhower was running for President our class went to see his caravan race up Central Ave. After the event-probably October of 1952, the class was asked who their parents were going to vote for.
This was not a political test but an attempt to show the importance of voting, and democracy. I said Vincent Hallinan- the progressive candidate- and quickly the principal was in the classroom lecturing us about communism etc. None of us had much of an idea about what she was talking about- but it was clear that I did something “bad”.
When I came home a described what happened, my father got extremely upset. He marched into school the next day, and from our classroom down the hall you could hear the discussion with the principal, although one could not make out the words. A few minutes later Ms. Rushby addressed our class again, extolling the ideas of free speech, differing opinions etc. I think all of us fourth graders were still mystified- but I am sure the impression that I did something bad lasted.
Like many families in that time period the 1950’s my grandmother lived at home. She had been an active radical, organizing in the thirties for social security. But she was also the guardian of the house when my parents were out, in particular when federal marshals came to the door with subpoenas, or wanting to ask questions. She made sure that I understood never to open the door to the marshals. Of course I though marshals were all like the lone Ranger so I had a lot of thinking to do.
I think in retrospect that the real effects of the attacks on the family was the loneliness. There were long periods of not having a parent home. My father was either in jail or on the road. Going from UE local to UE local defending the union. Now many years later I vividly remember sending my second grade class project -a Christmas card – a picture of a tree- to my father who was in federal custody. He never received it. I am still mad at the Federal prison authorities.
McCarthyism lingered on at places like the University of Wisconsin well into the seventies. In 1967 my wife lost her job as a teaching assistant in the French department because, as she was told by the department chairman, I was Marxist and a leader of the antiwar movement.
Later, I was initially denied my Doctorate. At the last minute the UW History department, arguably one of the premier departments in the US, put Jack Barbash, a professor from the economic department on my final oral defense. Jack had also been an investigator for the senate Internal Security Subcommittee, headed by Hubert Humphrey. Among the targets was my father and the United Electrical Workers. Jack’s only question before he would agree to sign the warrant saying he was in the room, validating the exam was, “ are you a communist?” I told him I was disgusted and would not lower myself to discuss it. He refused to sign and that invalidated my exam. A threatened court case finally secured me the PhD and employability in the profession.
THE BLACKLIST
How did it really function and why were people so frightened?
Because it worked. It worked especially well in working class communities.
It was effective because when it was effective it destroyed one’s self confidence. You have just lost your job, you are qualified and finally get an interview and then you are not hired. This happens several times and you see others less qualified hired in your stead. Meanwhile the family is broke; the neighbors are hostile; kids having trouble in school; and some of the in-laws are also unsupportive.
The real effect of the blacklist and the attacks, while devastating for intellectuals, was even more so for one the main targets – working class people with a class consciousness at multiple levels within the trade union movement.
CONCLUSION
In the late 1940’s there were class conscious individuals of call kinds and especially members of or close supporters of the communist party in working class communities all over the country. Some were elected officers in their unions. Aside from international affairs they were also often the people who raised issues of civil rights – especially job discrimination – not necessarily popular positions. It was this group of people that were essentially extirpated from the union movement. It was their removal which expedited the transition of the union movement from one advocating universal solutions such as single payer health care to solutions based solely on their industry or employer. This is not to say that HUAC or blacklisting alone has helped encourage the demise of the trade union movement. Rather it is to say that HUAC and its ideology of hatred, and fear have diminished our democracy, starting with the political and social expression of working people and their unions.
Frank Emspak, Professor Emeritus
Department of Labor Education (School for Workers)
University of Wisconsin-Madison
America 2020 – Arts, federal support, and how it’s done in civilized countries
For full text see The American Scholar, Winter 2021