The late 1940s to mid 1950s were marked by McCarthyism: suspicion of and investigation into left-wing individuals on the belief that they were responsible for communist influence on American society, which would ultimately lead to the destruction of democracy and the spread of Soviet totalitarianism. The House Committee on Un-American Activities, the governing body that conducted such investigations, looked into the alleged subversive activities of private citizens and public employees alike. However, many considered it a political spectacle that ruined careers by public shaming rather than bringing about actual change or producing evidence of illegal activity. On May 23, 1951 Budd Schulberg was called before this committee after being cited other testimony in April of the same year.
Schulberg begins his testimony, a transcript of which is held in the Rauner Archives, by outlining how he first became involved with left-wing organizations:“From about 1937, as I say, I was first in a study group, a Marxist study group, which, without any formality that I remember, became a Young Communist League group…I joined because at the time I felt that the political issues that they seemed to be in favor of, mostly I recall the opposition to the Nazis and Mussolini and a feeling that something should be done about it…”
He identified the man who invited him to join this group as Stanley Lawrence, the head of the Hollywood Communist Party. According to Schulberg, Lawrence originally framed the group as a broad advocacy organization “...that any man of good will, anybody opposed to Fascism, really could join.” Schulberg goes on to say that Lawrence encouraged discourse, testifying that “...it was even said that you didn’t have to believe in all of the points of the program. You could even disagree with some.” However, once the group began to transition away from its informal origin and into an official cell of the Communist Party, it became much more restrictive in the opinions it allowed.
When Schulberg began writing his first novel, “What Makes Sammy Run?”, he faced sharp backlash from his associates. Party members deemed his novel too individualistic. On suggestion from one of his comrades, Schulberg met with John Howard Lawson – a screenwriter later convicted of contempt of Congress for refusing to name other Hollywood Communists – for advice on how to make his novel more ‘proletarian’. But Schulberg refused to listen. He realized that if he were to ever be a writer, he had to distance himself. He “decided to leave the group, cut myself off, pay no more dues, listen to no more advice, indulge in no more political literary discussions, and to go away from the Party, from Hollywood, and try to write a book, which is what I did.” Schulberg left Hollywood for Vermont in May of 1939 and stayed until the early months of 1940 upon the completion of his novel.
Once back in Hollywood, Schulberg was approached by Richard Collins, one of his original Communist Party contacts, who told him “that they felt that my whole attitude had been sharply in opposition to the Party; that I had gone away without announcement.” Collins further suggested that Schulberg should once again consult the Party before submitting his novel to the publisher, but he again refused. As a result, Schulberg was told that his “entire attitude was wrong; that I was wrong about writing; wrong about this book; wrong about the Party…” For Schulberg, this was the straw that broke the camel’s back. During his testimony, he says that at this time he “felt maybe, almost for the first time, that this was to me the real face of the Party…I felt I had talked to someone rigid and dictatorial who was trying to tell me how to live my life, and as far as I remember, I didn’t want to have anything more to do with them.” So Schulberg left the Communist Party.
Schulberg’s testimony provides both an inside look into the experiences of a Communist Party member and calls into question the intent of the HUAC. What was their intention of subpoenaing a man who was a member of the Communist Party for only three years a decade prior? Was it really about investigating alleged subversive activity or was this government-sanctioned silencing of free speech? It seems that any information on subversive activity that he could have had would be useless by 1951, so the latter seems much more likely. Ultimately, Budd Schulberg’s testimony is only one piece in a much larger narrative that calls into question the House Un-American Activities Committee’s impact on private citizens and whether or not they existed as a genuine investigative committee or as a political theater that ostracized its victims.
To read Schulberg's full testimony, come to Rauner and request MS-978, box 126.
Posted for Ellie Appelgren '28, recipient of a Historical Accountability Student Research Fellowship for the 2026 fall term. The Historical Accountability Student Research Program provides funding for Dartmouth students to conduct research with primary sources on a topic related to issues of inclusivity and diversity in Dartmouth's past. For more information, visit the program's website.


No comments :
Post a Comment