John Carter Vincent’s dismissal from the Foreign Service is the result of ideological upheaval that embraced fear and blame. I believe that frustration over Chinese nationalist defeat fueled a hunt for a scapegoat, and John Carter Vincent was one of many unfairly punished. I also believe that the testaments of men in this instance should not have led to the discrediting of Vincent. Vincent’s worst demonstrable crime was reason and tolerance, and the amassing of objective but controversial intelligence, and the punishment was for all of America to fear their basic first amendment rights. I assert that John Carter Vincent was not careful to the volatile fear climate which so predominates our culture today, but had I been in charge of Vincent’s dismissal, I would assert that a man’s contributions and position should not be erased because of hearsay, and I do not believe the historical conclusion should have ever been considered. Vincent served in China for 14 years, all the while helping to
…show more content…
Vincent was found not guilty, in which case the Loyalty Review Board began to question his allegiance to America. Documents from his office were found in Amerasia, which was suspect but not indemnifying. The Loyalty Review Board called upon the testimony of Louis Budenz, a shady, professional-reputation-destroyer who boasted to have made over $70,000 in the business of hearsay. His claim was that he had heard communist members discuss their desire to have Patrick Hurley replaced with Vincent, although later, Budenz would have several of his testimonies stricken from record. The Board neither rejected nor accepted his testimony. However, the advice from the Secretary of state Dean Acheson was viewed as less important, because it favored the good character of Vincent. Miscommunication and bias are common in our ideas of people, and I would not make a man’s legacy subject to popular or unpopular
Vincent was found not guilty, in which case the Loyalty Review Board began to question his allegiance to America. Documents from his office were found in Amerasia, which was suspect but not indemnifying. The Loyalty Review Board called upon the testimony of Louis Budenz, a shady, professional-reputation-destroyer who boasted to have made over $70,000 in the business of hearsay. His claim was that he had heard communist members discuss their desire to have Patrick Hurley replaced with Vincent, although later, Budenz would have several of his testimonies stricken from record. The Board neither rejected nor accepted his testimony. However, the advice from the Secretary of state Dean Acheson was viewed as less important, because it favored the good character of Vincent. Miscommunication and bias are common in our ideas of people, and I would not make a man’s legacy subject to popular or unpopular