ustxtxb_obs_1965_05_28_50_00016-00000_000.pdf

`Lie’ Tests and Legislators I just read the current issue of the Observer and agree 100% with its position on the “Lie” Detector matter before the House of Representatives in Austin. I offer this comment for whatever good it might do: In the event the House, in its wisdom, should see fit to legitimatize this gimmick into a “profession” by passing the bill and thereby start the ball rolling to push its practitioners into positions of total power in the courts, government and industry, then let us organize the public into a movement to require all legislators and state elective officials to take the lie detector tests which are given to private citizens by these, gimmick operators. I believe this would cause a stampede to outlaw the whole businessespecially if the results of the tests are made public. Come to think of it, maybe it would be a good idea to require that “Lie” detector tests be given to the State House boys anywaythey have a higher duty than ordinary job applicants. Let’s get moving on it. J. D. Crow, attorney, P.O. Box 216, Canadian, Tex. It is to Laugh! The Austin Statesman of May 13 editorializes on “Why Educators are Not Included on Governor’s Texas Coordinating Body.” Since I have been publicly vocal in this matter, and will continue to be, and since the Observer has commented \(favor 16 The Texas Observer make several points clear. One, I am cognizant of the Texas constitutional restriction on dual appointments, for remuneration or honor, to state offices. I am also aware of how this provision has been bent, as expediency demanded. Two, the discussions about the coordinating board did not revolve, in this respect, around state appointeesamong whom public educators properly are classified. Those discussions were directed at the exclusion of active educators. Finding a constitutional justification is simply an ex post facto job of covering up. Three, what about educators in private institutions? Administrators and professors at Baylor, S.M.U., T.C.U., for instance? What about officers of the Texas State Teachers Association, and similar organizations? They are not officers of the State of Texas. It is to laugh! George I. Sanchez, 2201 Scenic Lane, Austin, Tex. Four-Year Terms Upheld . . . I am no fan of John Connally. In fact, I voted against him both in 1962 and 1964, not because I really favored Cox or Crichton, but as protests against conservative domination of the Democratic Party in Texas. And I will be unhappy to see Governor John elected to another term, be it two years or four. But I am in favor of four-year terms for the governor \(albeit I would be happier if there was also a limitation as to the numPolitical scientists are pretty well agreed that two-year terms are impractical, because they do not give a governor time enough to develop any sort of long-range program. Most men will not try anything which is likely to have unpopular shortterm effects when elections are staring them in the face every two years. It is true that four-year terms mean that there is a greater chance of the voters forgetting the unpopular things a governor did \(and in the case of Connally this is a rather terin its workings. What is unpopular in the short run turns out, often, to be beneficial in the long run. I fail to see what long-range effect fouryear terms will have on the strength of liberalism in Texas. Considering its present debility, I fail to see how it will be more or less difficult to win elections every four years than it is every two! .. . Meyer Nathan, P. 0. Box 302, Rocky Hill, N.J. McCarthyism by Consensus The Johnson Doctrine calls for using whatever means are necessary to put down a communist threat wherever it occurs. A corollary seems to be, all means necessary will be used to suppress any criticism of the Doctrine. William S. White’s outrageous attacks on outstanding members of the intellectual community who are questioning the wisdom of the Administration’s hastily devised approach to foreign affairs are particularly disgusting. White, who has never doubted Johnson’s omniscience and has never written anything that Johnson would find disagreeable, probably can be expected to reflect rather accurately the views of Johnson himself. What we might be in for is a seige of “McCarthyism by consensus” against intellectuals. If so, we shall have especial reason to rue the sequence of events that left us with a Johnson-Goldwater choice in 1964. Don W. Allford, 1505 Cloverleaf, Austin, Tex. Lie Detector Lies Bravo for the excellent piece on the socalled lie detectors. I doubt if polygraph testing is any more sophisticated than the medieval system of compurgators and wagers of law. As a former newspaper reporter who has covered police beats on a half -a-dozen dailies and in at least three metropolitan cities in Texas, I think I can speak with some authority when I say that polygraph testing hindersrather than promotesefficient law enforcement. As a general rule, police investigators are not logicians, and given what purports to be a certaintynamely, a negative reaction they dismiss all evidence tending to exonerate the subject and to gather only incriminating evidence. They torture and twist facts to create untenable inferences if not non sequitursto fit the negative reaction of the polygraph. I recall a sensational 1961 child murder case in San Antonio, where I was covering the police beat at the time, in which a negative polygraph reaction almost convicted an, innocent man. The real killer, who was later caught, did not respond at all on two polygraph tests given by the Department of Public Safety. The chief investigator, who had insisted the first suspect was guilty because of the negative reaction, only muttered in almost inaudible tones when asked why they had relied exclusively on the polygraph test in the case of the first suspect, only to exclude the non-reaction of the suspect who turned out to be guilty. “The hardened ones are all non-reactors.” With this non sequitur, one would conclude that in the pursuit of criminals, a sapient investigator should never use a polygraph, because it would only show all lying criminals to be truth-telling citizens. The ironic fact of the case just cited was that the polygraph reaction of the first suspect halted the investigation, which would not have been re-opened had the real killer not struck a second timeonly four days after the grand jury indicted the innocent man. Wayne Chastain, 307 1/2 Stratford, Houston 6, Texas. *###########~ ##I140##.############## Dialogue