« AnteriorContinuar »
Mr. TUCK. We thank you very much. I want to apologize for keeping you around here so long, but we could not help it. Mr. Jon Es. That is quite all right. Thank you, sir. Mr. TUCK. Your testimony has been very eloquent. Could the stenographer write up that testimony and make it available to members of the committee, particularly certain phases of it, between now and the future hearings, not tomorrow but next week? Mr. McNAMARA. I am sorry, I could not quite hear. Mr. TUCK. I say could the stenographer write up this testimony or parts of it for the benefit of the committee when we examine some of these other witnesses next week or the week following? Mr. McNAMARA. Yes, sir. We will have a transcript of it tomorrow or the day after, and we can duplicate it for that purpose. Mr. TUCK. That will be fine. Mr. ICHORD. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank Mr. Jones for a very learned presentation. Of course riots, Mr. Jones, are nothing new to this country or to any nation which has endured for any length of time. We have had in the past labor riots, racial riots. These don't seem to fall right in the category of racial riots as such, though; do they Mr. JoSEs. No, they don't. Mr. Ichord. The ones we have had recently? Mr. JoSEs. Let me mention, first, that my research started before the rash of riots during the summer of 1964 in the United States. We identified the type of rioting which ensued in the United States in 1964 originally as racial rioting. We then discovered that this perhaps was not the correct label. We then tended to talk about these riots as Negro riots. However, Puerto Ricans were involved in at least two instances in 1966. We therefore had to do a little rethinking and we started calling these urban ethnic riots because there is a possibility that the other ethnic groups, disadvantaged groups, for example, Mexican Americans, might be involved in the same type of social violence. Mr. TUCK. They are more in the nature of rebellion against constituted authority. Mr. JoNEs. Again, sir? Mr. TUck. These uprisings are more in the nature of rebellion against constituted authority; are they not? Mr. Jones. They could be interpreted that way; yes, sir. This, however, is only one of several interpretations. Mr. ICHORD. How would you characterize what happened over at the Pentagon Saturday? It started out, as a demonstration. Would you say that developed into a riot situation when a certain portion of the group tried to rush the Pentagon? Would you call that a riot situation? How would you characterize that? Mr. Jon Es. Yes, I think this perhaps could not be characterized as a full-blown riot. I think it has been mentioned previously here that maybe a full-blown riot is accompanied at least by a temporary breakdown of law and order. I think control was maintained there at all times. I think there is certainly some evidence based upon my analytical scheme to support the contention that someone was trying to incite riotous violence in this particular instance.
Mr. ICHORD. In the riots that have occurred in the cities, we seem to have the gathering of the crowd at certain places; then you have prolonged periods of just hoodlums looting and burning, rather than really being motivated by what occurred back at the gathering of the crowd. Mr. Jon Es. Yes. This is true. I didn't explain what I meant previously by booster incident. This is an incident that tends to keep the riot going. One of the very favorite types of booster incidents is looting. Many people who have poor social control are drawn into the looting situation. It is difficult to tell at this time if it is necessary for someone to say let us start looting, follow me, or if at this particular time the people have a certain psychological set whereby when they see a store or group of stores they spontaneously start to loot. Mr. ICHORD. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. TUCK. Mr. Watson. Mr. WATsoN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to join with you and my colleague from Missouri in thanking Mr. Jones. It is obvious that you have made a very thorough study of this. I think it is a very fine statement you have given us. You say you are in the process now of writing a book, reducing this to booklet form or something? Did I understand correctly Mr. JoNEs. The information upon which this testimony is based is already published in the form of a research document which is called “Combating Subversively Manipulated Civil Disturbances.” I am presently in the process of writing a research report on rioting which has taken place in the United States during the period 1964, 1965, and 1966. Mr. McNAMARA. Do I understand correctly, Mr. Jones, that that is your doctoral thesis? Mr. JoNEs. That is correct. Mr. WATson. I think it would be helpful in giving us a clearer insight into various characteristics that you have outlined here. Have you gone in depth far enough to classify the particular riots that we experienced last summer? r. Jon Es. No, I have not. Let me add this: What I was attempting to do here is to create an analytical device which would allow an evaluation of the riots for that period, for any period, for any country, for that matter. Mr. WATSON. I think you have done a good job in that regard. That is why the chairman and I were discussing, if we could get these four phases that you outlined, then perhaps it would help the committee later, as we have witnesses describe these riots, to approach it and t to intelligently characterize the various riots that we have had based upon your detailed study as outlined in the four phases. Mr. Jon Es. I think it will be a good use to which this analytic device can be put. Some of the information when viewed within the framework of this particular scheme might be very revealing. Mr. TUck. We thank you very much. The committee will recess until tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock. Mr. JoSEs. Thank you, sir. (Whereupon, at 5:45 p.m., Wednesday, October 25, 1967, the subout" recessed, to reconvene at 10 a.m., Thursday, October 26, 1967.)
SUBVERSIVE INFLUENCES IN RIOTS, LOOTING, AND
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 26, 1967
UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,
SUBCOMMITTEE OF THE
The subcommittee of the Committee on Un-American Activities met, pursuant to recess, at 10:25 a.m., in Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Washington, D.C., Hon. William M. Tuck presiding.
(Subcommittee members: Representatives Edwin E. Willis, of Louisiana, chairman; William M. Tuck, of Virginia; Richard H. Ichord, of Missouri; John M. Ashbrook, of Ohio; and Albert W. Watson, of South Carolina; also John C. Culver, of Iowa, in absence of Mr. Willis.)
Subcommittee members present: Representatives Tuck and Ichord.
Staff members present: Francis J. McNamara, director; Chester D. Smith, general counsel; and Alfred M. Nittle, counsel.
Mr. Tuck. The committee will come to order. Mr. McNamara, will you call the first witness. Mr. McNAMARA. Mr. Herman Lerner. Mr. Tuck. Come around and raise your right hand. Do you solemnly swear the testimony you will give the committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, to the best of your knowledge and belief?
Mr. LERNER. I do.
TESTIMONY OF HERMAN D. LERNER
Mr. McNamara. Will you state your full name and address for the record, please?
Mr. LERNER, Herman D. Lerner, 6825 Laverock Court, Bethesda, Maryland.
Mr. McNAMARA. What is the place and date of your birth?
Mr. LERNER. I attended public schools in Baltimore. In 1942-43 I attended the University of Maryland, where I began studies in the physical and social sciences.
My studies there were interrupted for several years for military service. I resumed study at the University of Maryland in 1946, concentrating in sociology and political science, and was graduated with an A.B. in 1948. I continued my professional education that year with graduate work at Columbia University in sociology, anthropology, and psychology. From 1948 to 1952 I did graduate work in a doctoral program in social relations at Harvard University, where I specialized in social change and national character studies and where I was a teaching fellow in social change. Since that time I have had additional graduate education periodically in social and behavioral science, including sociology of science, criminology, and other subjects at the American University. *...* AMARA. What is your professional or employment backound ! go LERNER. My first employment was in administrative work with the U.S. Maritime Commission. I was in the U.S. Army from 1943 to 1946, serving first as a combat infantryman and later as an administrative assistant in the war rooms of the general staff of the 103d Infantry Division and the 3d Armored Division during operations in the European theater—in France, Alsace, Germany, and Austria. From 1951 to 1952 I was employed by Harvard University and shortly thereafter began my career as a researcher and consultant in behavioral and social sciences. For the past 14 years I have conducted many studies of military systems, research planning and utilization, social and economic issues, and political trends. In recent years I have been interested in relating scientific knowledge to the needs of those who support Scientific research. I am currently engaged, as one of several contractors, in a study at the Office of Naval Research on the utility of research for the Navy. I have conducted research for Government agencies and private organizations, including the Navy, the Army, and the Air Force, Department of Commerce, Radio Corporation of America, General Electric Company, International Business Machines Corporation, national associations, and research firms. I am a member of various professional associations in operations research, sociology, management, and general science. Mr. McNAMARA. In what fields of study—related to organized rioting—have you concentrated in the past 10 years? Mr. LERNER. Over a period of about iO years I have done studies periodically of national cohesion, military strategy, general and limited warfare, political rioting, crime, and internal security, with spe: cial reference to military-civilian relations, force, propaganda, and strategy. In 1961 I prepared and gave a 20-hour course with two colleagues on the psychology of group behavior in emergencies, which dealt primarily with behavioral aspects of rioting. This course was given to police officials who came from Greece, Colombia, Venezuela, and Vietnam. It was based on the study of open literature—books and articleson rioting. In 1963, while with the Applied Psychology Corporation, I took part in a study for the Office of Naval Research on the recuperative capacity of the Navy and the Marine Corps in the event of thermonuclear war. During that study I analyzed various problems connected with internal security during general warfare and I prepared a paper on “Psychological Aspects of Political Rioting and Its Control.” For the past few years I have been a visiting lecturer at the International Police Academy, Agency for International Development, on causes and characteristics of riots and on crowd and mob psychology. At the IPA I have given numerous lectures and seminars to hundreds of police officers from South America, Southeast Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. During this time I have exchanged a great deal of information regarding causes and control of rioting, with emphasis on political disturbances and their significance for internal security and international relations. As part of my background for this testimony, I have been reviewing open literature on recent rioting in the U.S. Mr. McNAMARA. Referring to the study you made in 1963, undertaken for the Navy and Marine Corps, would it be correct to deduce from the nature of that study that, at that time, two of our defense agencies were looking to the future for any contingency they might have to face and were taking steps to be prepared, and then, second, that one of the possibilities they anticipated was that in the event of a thermonuclear attack on this country, in conjunction with that attack or immediately after it, the foreign powers which launched the attack might attempt to use their agents in this country to incite political rioting in their efforts to bring about the defeat of the United States. Would that be a fair inference from the nature of the study you mentioned? Mr. LERNER. In reply to the first part of your question—whether the Navy and the Marine Corps were concerned about various contingencies—the Office of Naval Research is an agency of the Marine Corps and the Navy which does take very long-range views. The Army and the Air Force also have comparable agencies. ONR is interested primarily in what may happen 15, 30, or 40 years from now. It helps develop the physical and behavioral sciences in ways that will improve our naval security and power. As for the possibility of rioting as a tactic in general warfare, this was a problem which the study team looked into since it was believed that there would be enormous destruction during a thermonuclear war and that military units might be required to cope with many emergencies, including threats to naval installations and internal security which might arise from political rioting and insurgencies. Mr. McNAMARA. In addition to your studies and lectures, have you engaged in the writing of articles, papers, and reports on the subjects in which you have specialized? Mr. LERNER. Yes. Since 1958 I have prepared approximately 38 articles, reports, and papers on various subjects in the fields of social science, research and development management, public affairs, and national policy. Not all are in the public domain. Some of these are classified material. I also have written approximately 18 articles, reports, and j. on human factors engineering, technology, and industrial psychology since 1954.