In The Inquisition in Hollywood: Politics in the Film Community, 1930-1960 (1983), Larry Ceplair and Steven Englund write:
As the long night of the blacklist slowly lifted, there appeared something of a tendency, particularly noticeable among those like [Dalton] Trumbo who had appeared to triumph over long odds, if not precisely to forgive and forget, then at least to try to reconcile antagonists with embracing, anodyne formula. “It will do no good to search for villains or heroes because there were none,” Trumbo told the Writers Guild of America West when he gratefully accepted its Laurel Award in 1970. “There were only victims.” “Only victims” did not appeal to many of Trumbo’s colleagues among the Ten and the Left in general. Maltz, for one, angrily reacted: “To say that those who aided and applauded these committees, and did their bidding, were also ‘victims’ along with those who opposed them and thereby suffered public humiliation, slander, job blacklist and blasted careers, is factual nonsense and lacking in moral judgment.” (420)
Given what you know about the HUAC hearings, whose perspective do you find more convincing? Do you agree with Trumbo that there were no “villains or heroes… only victims” of HUAC, or do you agree with Maltz that HUAC’s sole victims were those who opposed the Committee?
I agree with Trumbo’s stance that all people forced to testify against HUAC were at least in some way a victim. Those who did not comply with HUAC stated the first or fifth amendment to argue that their freedoms of speech, association, and refusal to testify were constitutional rights they could exercise during the HUAC hearings. However, while their opposition and refusal to speak to the committee may have been more heroic and resulted in blacklisting or imprisonment, their martyrdom does not take away from the victimhood of those who were forced to testify and did speak. The real crime in HUAC was not testifiers listing names of people they believed to be involved with the communist party. It was HUAC’s blatant disregard for some of the constitution’s most fundamental rights: freedom of speech and association. Objecting people to testimonies for holding their own views meant that all who were forced to testify were in some way a victim. Not all who listed names did so for the sake of saving their own careers. For some, it was about being compliant in a legal proceeding and having a clear moral conscience about telling the truth to HUAC, whether or not they agreed or disagreed with HUAC’s role and perspective.