Jackson loyalty oath

Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky, second son of Erwin and Dorothea Panofsky, was born in Berlin in 1919 and grew upin Hamburg, where Erwin, a world-famous art historian, wasa professor. From the moment Adolf Hitler came to power inJanuary 1933, Jews at German universities were under threat.Dismissed almost immediately from his university position,Erwin seized the opportunity in 1934 to accept a dual visit-ing appointment at Princeton University and New York Uni-versity and settle his family in Princeton. A year later, he wasgiven a permanent position at the then new Institute for Advanced Study. When Wolfgang was 15, he and his 17-year-old brother Hans entered Princeton—underage Wolfgang initially onprobation. Pief, as he was named by his fellow undergradu-ates who couldn’t cope with “Wolfgang,” excelled in his stud-ies and graduated in 1938 “with highest honors.” 1 At 19 Pief moved to Caltech for graduate work in physics. A teaching assistant with a heavy teaching load, hebegan research on x rays with Jesse DuMond and completedhis PhD in 1942. Upon graduation he married DuMond’sdaughter Adèle and stayed on at Caltech, teaching eveningclasses to military personnel and doing classified war re-search under DuMond on acoustic devices for measuring theproximity of bullets to their target. Some of that work cameto the attention of University of California, Berkeley physi-cist Luis Alvarez, who co-opted Pief as a consultant to theManhattan Project at Los Alamos. There Pief developedshock-wave calibrators for Alvarez that would be used tomeasure the yields of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomicbombs in 1945. Berkeley Returning to Berkeley after the war, Alvarez planned to builda linear proton accelerator from surplus radar gear. He en-listed Pief to join him as a research assistant at ErnestLawrence’s Radiation Laboratory in early 1946. In June of thatyear, Raymond Birge, chair of the Berkeley physics depart-ment, recommended Pief for appointment as an assistantprofessor (one-third time), with the remainder of his salarypaid by the Rad Lab. Birge waxes enthusiastic in his letter toPresident Robert Gordon Sproul: “Dr. Panofsky is, in ouropinion, one of the most promising, if not the most promis-ing young physicist of his age in the country.” 2 After just two years, Pief was recommended for associ- ate professor. Birge’s promotion package contained his ownletter and supporting letters from Alvarez, Lawrence, and Edwin McMillan. In Birge’s history of the department,2he quotes Alvarez’s letter in full and parts of his own. Here areextracts to give a flavor of Alvarez’s letter: I have said many times that he is the most prom- ising young physicist I met in my five years ofwar research in three of the largest laboratoriesdevoted to such work. So it has been most grati-fying to me to find that during the past two years,all those with whom Dr. Panofsky has workedhave come to hold him in the same high regard. I think it is no exaggeration to say that Panof- sky is an amazing person. He has the most thor-ough grasp of basic physics I have ever seen in aman of his years. He works quite difficult theo-retical problems with no apparent effort. At thesame time, he is completely at home in the labo-ratory, and is one of the best practical radio en-gineers I know. He had no contact with mi-crowave radio during the war, but he is nowgiving a lecture course on the theoretical andpractical aspects of that field. I am with him agood part of each day, and I haven’t the slightestidea where he finds the time to learn what heteaches. Alvarez goes on to describe Pief’s work on the linac and his increasing knowledge of nuclear physics. He extols Pief’ssunny personality and his even temperament. Birge, for hispart, observes that when Pief was appointed, the departmenthad no knowledge of his ability in the classroom. Birge’s let-ter then reads: It is now, therefore, a real pleasure to record that his record in these latter fields has surpassed ourfondest expectations! . . . He is now teachingPhysics 210AB, our required graduate course inelectricity and magnetism. [That course wassurely the precursor of the well-known graduatetext by Panofsky and Melba Phillips.] . . . He notonly has the knowledge necessary for a greatteacher, but he has the ability to present it clearly,and the same enthusiasm for teaching that hedisplays in everything else. Pief was obviously viewed as a precious resource in the Berke- ©2009 American Institute of Physics, S-0031-9228-0901-XXX-X January 2009 Physics Today 1Panofsky agonistes: The 1950 loyaltyoath at Berkeley John David Jackson David Jackson is a professor of physics emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. In 1949–51 the University of California was seriously damaged by a loyalty-oath controversy. Wolfgang Panofsky, a promising young physics professor at Berkeley, was caught up in the turmoil. ley physics department and at the Rad Lab. He was promoted to associate professor with tenure, effective 1 July 1948. In his years at Berkeley, Pief helped create Alvarez’s 32-MeV proton linac. He also worked on the design of the gi-gantic materials testing accelerator (MTA), a prototype for anintense neutron source useful for making tritium for the nu-clear weapons program. 3In his fundamental physics re- search, Pief and colleagues used three accelerators to do pi-oneering experiments. Notable were the photoproduction ofthe neutral pion with McMillan’s electron synchrotron andseveral studies of the gamma rays from absorption of nega-tive pions in hydrogen and deuterium at the 184-inch syn-chrocyclotron. That research provided crucial evidence onthe properties of the pions and their interactions with nucle-ons. Pief appreciated the unusual opportunities atLawrence’s laboratory and envisioned a long and productivecareer there. The cold war and loyalty oaths Circumstances were to interfere. The eagerly anticipatedpeacetime after the end of World War II in 1945 had hardlybegun when the cold war set in, with the Berlin blockade in1948–49, Mao Zedong’s victory over the Chinese nationalists,and the first Soviet atomic bomb in 1949. In the US, the dis-quieting signs from abroad translated into fear of commu-nism and communist spies at home. The House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC) became a perma-nent committee of the US House of Representatives in 1945.President Harry Truman instituted a loyalty program in 1947.The city of Los Angeles in 1948 created a mandatory loyaltyoath with an “I am not now and never have been” clause, andpeople were fired. In Seattle, an investigation of possiblecommunists at the University of Washington led to the dis-missal of three employees in 1948. And the West Coast wasnot unique. Closer to home, the regents of the University of Califor- nia had in 1940 banned acknowledged communist teachersand in 1942 instituted the requirement for employees toswear the oath of allegiance quoted from the state constitution. Prior toOctober 1950, this “positive” oathread as follows: “I do solemnlyswear (or affirm, as the case may be)that I will support the Constitutionof the United States and the Consti-tution of the State of California, andthat I will faithfully discharge theduties of my office according to thebest of my ability.” But in spring 1949, various pro- posals surfaced in the state legisla-ture to add an anticommunist andantisubversion clause to the state’soath of allegiance, applicable to allstate employees. In a supposedlypreemptive action, UC presidentSproul proposed and the regentsagreed that UC employees, includ- ing faculty, be required to swear to an additional oath statingthat they were not members of the Communist Party. 4By Au- gust half the faculty had signed, but influential oppositiondeveloped. The 1 October deadline was postponed to 30 April1950 and then to 30 June. There were consultations betweenthe regents and the faculty in the fall and winter. The north-ern and southern sections of the university-wide academicsenate passed resolutions supporting the ban on commu-nists. But they asked that employees be required to affirmonly the state oath of allegiance. Meantime in September 1949, HUAC commenced a hearing on alleged communist infiltration of the Rad Lab,where classified research was still being done. By Decemberthe regents held a hearing and fired a Berkeley physics teach-ing assistant who had been called before HUAC and was sus-pected of being a communist. Drumbeats were also heard off-stage. In February 1950 Senator Joseph McCarthy made hiscontroversial speech in Wheeling, West Virginia, on commu-nists and spies in the US State Department. In the first half of 1950, faculty opposition hardened. Nonsigners organized formally. The sections of the academicsenate continued to protest in various ways. The regentsbegan to believe that the issue was less the oath and more aquestion of who governs the university. At the regents meet-ing of 21 April, nine days before the 30 April deadline, a com-mittee of prominent alumni appointed by Sproul presenteda compromise proposal, the result of consultations with thefaculty and administration. The compromise gave nonsign-ers the option of a hearing before academic senate commit-tees to present their reasons for not signing the oath. Thecommittees would then make recommendations for retentionor dismissal through the president to the regents for final de-cision. Implicit was the possibility that a nonsigner could beretained if the reasons for not signing were deemed justifi-able. This proposal was apparently accepted by the regents,although one of them, John Francis Neylan, did not like thecompromise. 4 An additional UC oath, to be part of an annual contract 2January 2009 Physics Today ©2009 American Institute of Physics, S-0031-9228-0901-XXX-XLuis Alvarez (left) and Wolfgang Panofsky in 1946 at the Radiation Laboratory in Berkeley, California,holding a coupling loop that transferred power to a 200-MHzresonant cavity. LAWRENCE BERKELEY NATIONAL LABORATORY of employment, was formally approved by the regents at their April 1950 meet-ing. It read as follows: Having taken the constitutional oath of the office required by theState of California, I hereby for-mally acknowledge my accep -tance of the position and salarynamed, and also state that I amnot a member of the CommunistParty or any other organizationwhich advocates the overthrow ofthe Government by force or vio-lence, and that I have no commit-ments in conflict with my respon-sibilities with respect to impartialscholarship and free pursuit oftruth. I understand that the fore-going statement is a condition ofmy employment and a considera-tion of payment of my salary. Berkeley faculty, not least members of the physics depart- ment, were caught up in the controversy. Hard-line anticom-munists had no problem with the oath. Pragmatic facultymembers argued that however one felt about the appropri-ateness or efficacy of the oath, signing was best for the uni-versity and faculty in the long run. Nonsigners maintainedthat their rights of tenure and academic freedom, never mindtheir constitutional rights, were being violated. The new an-nual contract of employment with its associated notarizedoath was the death knell of tenure. Panofsky will stay, unles s... In spring 1950, eastern universities, aware of the turmoil at Berkeley, were trolling for prime prospects. Pief received of-fers from Columbia and Harvard. He turned them bothdown, electing tentatively to stay and weather the storm. Let-ters between Pief and his parents reveal some of the anxietyand doubt. On 25 March Erwin Panofsky wrote in part: Dear Geierlamm 5and Adèle, Lots of thanks for your nice letter .... I w a s v e r y much interested in the report about yourdamned university. I am indirectly involved alsothrough my friendship with old [Paul] Radin andHarold Cherniss .... H a v e y o u seen the cartoon of two scientists, chained to their laboratory ta-bles, in the current New Yorker ? Yours as ever, Pappi 6 Sometime in June, Pief wrote his parents: Dear Jakob7& Pappi, We are very happy that you are not too mad at my decision [to turn down the offer from Columbia].It has been a hard one and I am still not too surethat it has been right. One of the principal reasonsfor staying is the fact that I can function her e... in the interests of pure physics .... Little is served if all people still interested in pure physics just getmad and leave .... I just could not see that I wassolving anything by going to Columbia .... [But] if it is clear that the reactionary people will winhere so that opposition is hopeless, I will certainlyreconsider if possible .... With best regards to you all, as ever, Wolf 6 It seems clear from this letter that Pief must by now have signed the loyalty oath. He planned to stay unless thingslooked totally hopeless. On 23 June 1950 the board of regents, led by Neylan, took the decisive vote to terminate 157 employees, both academicand nonacademic—although 62 other nonsigning facultywere retained. Ultimately, 31 faculty members were fired. Inthe Berkeley physics department that summer, instructorHoward Wilcox and assistant professor Geoffrey Chew re-signed on principle, effective 30 June, and two non-signers—professor Gian-Carlo Wick and assistant professor HaroldLewis—were fired. At the Rad Lab, Jack Steinberger, withwhom Pief collaborated on the two-photon decay of the neu-tral pion, left after one year. 8By the following summer, two more faculty members—Panofsky and Robert Serber—hadresigned, making a total of six departures in the physics de-partment (including all four of the department’s theorists) be-cause of the loyalty oath. Visit to a regent Pief’s nuanced attitude, as seen from his letters, was “wait andsee.” After 23 June he had seen enough. Even though he hadsigned the oath, he now informed Lawrence and Alvarez thathe intended to leave Berkeley. Lawrence, obviously dismayedat the prospect of losing his young star, used his friendshipwith regent Neylan to arrange an out-of-channels meeting atNeylan’s home so that the 31-year-old Pief could hear the re-gents’ side of the story before making his final decision. Ney-lan did all the talking; Pief was unmoved. 1 On 22 July Pief wrote a long letter to his parents about his mother’s birthday and family plans, together with rumi-nations on the loyalty oath and the state of the world, per-haps before his meeting with Neylan: The main reason I declined the two eastern jobs is simply that I am too involved with my experi- www.physicstoday.org January 2009 Physics Today 3Dorothea and Erwin Panofsky in the 1930s. PANOFSKY FAMIL Y COLLECTION ments here. I got five ar- ticles this year in the‘Physical Review’ and amjust writing a sixth. At thesame time all the argu-ments for leaving in re-gard to the politics hereare strong, but I alwayscame to the sad conclu-sion that one is not fight-ing the University of Cal-ifornia but the presentpolitics in general, whichis terribly discouraging. Ijust cannot understandwhy Truman & Co. don’tunderstand that rearm-ing, although perhapsnecessary now as a con-sequence of former mis-takes, cannot be the finalanswer to anything. [TheKorean War had begunon 25 June. ]... W e hope to hear from you andabout your summerplans. Till then as ever yours, Geierlamm 6 This letter, with its sense of excitement about his research, to- gether with the implication that resignation is a meaninglessgesture, elicited a sharp response on 3 August from hismother and father. His mother begins: Your letter, dear Wolf, shows, I am sorry to say, that you have misunderstood completely themain issue .... I t seems that physicists are even greater cowards than the humanists. We hearthat [Ernst] Kantorowitz has not signed and pos-sibly goes away, though he could stay, and evenWalter Horn who is not going to get so easily ajob has not signed, and Hans writes of one of hisfriends who will go away. The tragedy of thephysicists seems to be that they are bound totheir mashines [sic] as Ixion on his wheele [sic] (Ihope you know who he is) and thus ‘consciencedoes make cowards of them all.’ But it can’t behelped. The letter then continues in his father’s hand: Dear Wolf, . . . I only want to object to your specious logic that you cannot fight all Fascism by fighting Cal-ifornia University. Of course not. But neither canyou fight Evil in general by trying to prevent—or at least by not participating in—a murder atwhich you happen to be present. In other words,if an individual is confronted with a definite sit-uation in which he can choose between twocourses of action, he should decide for the rightcourse as a matter of principle. It may or may nothelp the right cause in general, but this is not thepoint. I grant that [Dwight D.] Eisenhower [thenpresident of Columbia] is probably no betterthan Sproul, and possibly [I. I.] Rabi no betterthan Lawrence. But speaking concretely, Colum-bia has as yet not taken any steps to force such adecision upon its (or is it hers?) instructors while Berkeley has. And this is the point. With all good wishes, Yours as ever, Pappi 6 The black-and-white viewpoint of this letter can perhaps be understood from the parents’ experiences and worldview. Per-secuted by the Nazis and forced to leave Germany, they wererightly suspicious of the loyalty oath as a cold war demand forconformity or worse, inimical to the freedoms necessary at anyinstitution of higher learning. Dorothea voices a commonstereotype of scientists, and physicists in particular. Erwin‘sview is that the individual must act on moral principles, with-out regard to effectiveness in the larger realm. But both par-ents express concern and sympathy for old friends and col-leagues making very difficult personal decisions. A firm decision During August, gossip and rumors spread through acade-mia. In a close vote in July, the regents had reaffirmed theirearlier acceptance of Sproul’s recommendations based on theApril compromise. Now a month later, on Neylan’s initiative,they repudiated the compromise. After his meeting withNeylan, Pief went from wrestling with his conscience to afirm decision to resign. But garbled news of that meeting andits outcome had spread to the East Coast. Erwin, steeped inacademic tradition, was particularly dismayed by a reportthat his son had gone, perhaps hat in hand, to see one of theregents rather than the university president. His letter of 18 September conveyed his anguish: Dear Geierlamm,I hate to interfere further with a decision which, in the last analysis, must be yours. But I feelobliged to call your attention to one aspect of thesituation which was brought home to me today atour Faculty luncheon .... Someone mentioned, as an instance of the situation now prevailing inBerkeley, your personal case. As you probablyknow, it is absolutely taboo in academic life that aTrustee discusses faculty status, conditions ofstaying on, etc., with individual professors. So it 4January 2009 Physics Today www.physicstoday.org Adèle and Wolfgang Panofsky flank their three children and two nieces in front of their 1931 V-12 Cadillac in the fall of 1950.PANOFSKY FAMIL Y COLLECTION was said, as an instance of the dire pass to which things has come at Berkeley, that you, upon re-ceipt of an attractive offer, had ‘gone to Mr. Ney-lan’ instead of the President to talk it over. Fromwhat Hans and [Ludwig] Edelstein [a nonsigner]told me, the thing was exactly the other wayround, that is to say, you had been invited,through Lawrence, to lunch with Neylan, and Isaid that much in order to defend whatever offamily honor remains. Why you accepted this in-vitation is beyond me anyway, since from all I hearNeylan is the chief villain in the piece. . . . But whatis now, I feel, imperative is that you do not, underany account, accept a continuance of your ap-pointment at Berkeley. If you did so, you wouldbe considered as one who had allowed himself tobe bribed by about the worst enemy of academicfreedom in the whole United States. . . . In sum: Ifeel that you probably should not have signed inthe first place; that you did wonderfully well in re-signing after it became apparent (which was clearto me from the start) that the so-called compro-mise was a phoney; that you should not have es-tablished personal contact with Neylan; but, sinceall this is now beyond repair, you cannot possiblyconsent to stay after that interview. . . . I am prepared to share my last piece of bread with you and your expanding family; butI simply should not know, now, how to face myfriends if you were to accept the bribe profferedby Neylan. With love and all good wishes, Yours, Pappi 6 Faced with this letter from his parents, Pief, made a firm butmeasured reply on 23 September to set the record straight: Dear Pappi & Jakob,I am sorry to say that I am greatly disturbed by Pappi’s letter in several respects. Firstly the wayit reflects the general distortion of facts as theyare being transmitted from West to East. Sec-ondly, and still more seriously to me, it showsyour interpretation of these things which youhave apparently reached, namely, that a ‘bribe’has been offered to me by Mr. Neylan in ex-change for continuing at Berkeley. It seems to methat, before accusing me of such a thing, youcould have written to find out the facts. The facts are as follows: after I told the Physics department and the Radiation Laboratory that Iwas considering resigning because of the Re-gents’ action, Lawrence said in effect: ‘don’t doanything till you hear the Regents’ side’. I couldnot see any objection to this—I was not ac-quainted with the taboo of Regent–faculty com-munication. So I said ‘all right’ and Lawrencearranged for the meeting at Neylan’s place. Theinterview was very simple: Neylan asked mewhat I was mad about and I told him that I wasobjecting to the Regents’ intolerance in this mat-ter. So Neylan said: ‘Now listen, my boy’ (He is70) and talked for 2 hours straight about hisviews of the oath and its history. Then we wenthome. I swear to you that not even a word wasspoken about my status at the Berkeley faculty.. . . Looking backwards now, I realize that I couldbe accused with possible justification of being afool, but not of taking bribes or by-passing aca-demic procedure. You may not know this, but thegreatest villain in the oath story has been thePresident [Sproul]. The letter continues with a long discussion of mistakes and worse made by all sides—Sproul, regents, and faculty. As to my personal case—I have promised to teach one term and am hunting for another jobwhich I like. I have rejected Columbia for per-sonal reasons .... Dear Pappi, I think right now there is enough unhappiness in the world beyond our controlwithout accusing one another of dishonorablethings which we have not done. With best regards, Wolf 6 Adèle continued the letter on a happier note with family news, including mention of a recent purchase of a vintage1931 Cadillac, to the delight of the children. On 27 September Erwin replied in a relieved but still fatherly tone: Dear Geierlamm,Many thanks for your long letter which clarifies everything and permits me to rectify the wide-spread rumors. I do not quite see why you feelthat I was ‘accusing’ you of having been—or con-sidering to be—bribed by Mr. Neylan. What Iwas trying to tell you, and am still glad of hav-ing told you, is that you would be accused of hav-ing been bribed in case you were to change yourdecision to leave Berkeley and withdraw yourresignation. . . . www.physicstoday.org January 2009 Physics Today 5Wolfgang K. H. Panofsky in 2007. DIANA ROGERS, SLAC As to the merits of the case as it is, I am enor- mously proud of your attitude. But if you look atit, for a moment, from the outside, I still believethat the story, as it was told to me, was the in-evitable result of your agreeing to see Neylan. . . . At any rate, both Jacob [sic] and I are now com- pletely satisfied and very happy, and we have al-ready informed the misinformed as to the truesituation .... So, please, forgive me for my doubts as I forgive you for leaving it to rumor tokeep us informed of what you were doing. With all good wishes to you and your family, Yours as ever, Pappi 6 Pief evidently chose not to respond. He moved on. Stanford Once Pief’s decision to leave Berkeley became widely known, more job offers began to arrive. Across the bay, Stanford Uni-versity, small and not known for high academic standards be-fore World War II, had embarked on a serious plan of ex-pansion of its sciences and engineering departments withworld-class faculty. Leonard Schiff and Felix Bloch from thephysics department visited Berkeley to persuade Pief to cometo Stanford. Although he knew little about Stanford, Pief wasattracted by the 1-GeV electron linac under constructionthere. Beyond that, he and his family were fond of northernCalifornia. So a short move appealed to them. After weigh-ing his various offers, Pief made his decision and informedhis parents in a letter dated 19 November 1950: Dear family!We realize that our long silence regarding my fu- ture plans caused you to worry that the influencesof Berkeley have overcome my earlier decision toresign. Actually this is not so; the one and only rea-son for my silence was the fact that I had severaloffers and had not made up my mind what to do,that is which to accept. I thought that, with the ex-cess of rumors concerning me, I at least remainsilent until I had made a final decision. Well, thisI have done: I have accepted a professorship (full!)at Stanford University, a small private Universityon the West Coast. Most people think I am crazyto refuse Harvard, Rochester, Columbia and Bir -mingham for this but I think actually my decisionwas fairly rational. Stanford is building a machineof great interest to me (and I hope to Physics)namely a linear accelerator for high energy elec-trons. . . . I am staying here till June 30, principallyat the strong request of Prof. Birge, the depart-ment chairman, whom I hate to hurt since the en-tire mess here is certainly not his fault. . . . We are really terribly unhappy that you felt that you had lost our confidence. The answer isthat I felt that with all these pressures acting onme I had to act for myself before causing anymore confusion. I think in my new position we will lead a con- siderably calmer life with certainly a consider-able loss in productivity at least for a while. Aphysicist is really in a terrible position at thistime [the start of hydrogen bomb development].. . . Many people at Berkeley are criticizing me forletting the oath and the associated mess interferewith my responsibilities; I can only say that one’sprincipal duty as a physicist or any other humanbeing is to maintain a certain minimum self- respect; . . . I feel I have the right to react in ac-cordance with my own degree of sensitivity.Anyhow, these are the plans, crazy or not. Adèle continued: You wondered how I have felt about Pief’s resig- nation from Berkeley. I am very glad that he hasresigned, for things here have been getting moreand more unpleasant. Not only the loyalty oathbut also the administration of the Radiation Lab(just between you and us); and also this latestrumor concerning Pief and Neylan. For a whilewe were having a crisis about once every twoweeks .... I think we will be quite happy in Stan- ford and I’m sure life will be much less hecticthere than it has been here for Pief. With Greetings and best wishes from us all.Love, Adèle and [and in Pief’s hand] Geierlamm 6 On 2 January 1951 Pief wrote a short letter to Birge, resign- ing effective 30 June. It concluded with a warm sentence: “Ishould like to say here only that one of the things I regretmost is to leave a department which, under your guidance,has treated me in such a friendly and generous manner.” 2 With that finale, Pief could focus on the future. His let- ters clearly show that he was happy with his situation inBerkeley, both in the physics department and at the Rad Lab.His future was assured there, but the loyalty oath and sub-sequent hardening of the regents’ positions made staying un-tenable. For him the regrettable but right decision was toleave, with obvious discomfort at parting from the universityand people like Alvarez, Birge, and Lawrence, who hadtreated him so well. His choice of Stanford over more presti-gious institutions reflected his belief in his own ability toachieve success wherever he found himself. In July the Panofsky family moved across the bay. The die had been cast eight or nine months earlier. The “plans,crazy or not,” were under way. Crazy, thought Alvarez. Adèlehas recounted to me Alvarez’s reaction when he heard ofPief’s decision: Even in 1950 Stanford was still ‘down on the farm,’ and when Pief told Louie [sic] Alvarez he had ac-cepted Stanford’s offer, Louie said, ‘Oh Pief you’llfade away at Stanford, nothing goes on there,you’ll never be able to do any significant research!’. . . So Louie was proven wrong, and even someyears later his big bubble chamber detector wasmoved from Berkeley to SLAC, where Joe Ballamand others did significant research with it. At Stanford, Pief made his mark—in physics research and teaching, and more broadly in world affairs. Initially workingin the Microwave Laboratory, he became director of HEPL [theHigh Energy Physics Laboratory]. Then in 1961 he foundedSLAC and served as its director until 1984. Three Nobelphysics prizes attest to, but do not delimit, the many impor-tant discoveries in particle physics made under Pief’s aegis. On the national and world scene, his pragmatic and evenhanded approach enabled him to work tirelessly and ef-fectively for rational policies on nuclear armament and dis-armament and on international cooperation in science. Thoseactivities are described with candor in his memoir. 1He was honored by governments, academies, professional societies,and universities and became a revered wise old man ofphysics. Pief’s move to “a small private University on the 6January 2009 Physics Today www.physicstoday.org West Coast” was Berkeley’s loss and Stanford’s gain. Wolfgang Kurt Hermann Panofsky died at the age of 88 on 24 September 2007. Loyalty oaths, then and now After the trauma of 1949–51, the loyalty oath moved to thecourts. In October 1952 the oath was ruled unconstitutionalby the state Supreme Court. The regents were ordered to re-instate all dismissed faculty. A few returned, but it was manyyears before the stain largely faded away. All university em-ployees (except noncitizens) now have to swear an oath as acondition of employment—but not annually. At present therequired oath is the first paragraph of the California oath ofallegiance: I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will sup- port and defend the Constitution of the UnitedStates and the Constitution of the State of Cali-fornia against all enemies, foreign and domestic;that I will bear true faith and allegiance to theConstitution of the United States and the Con-stitution of the State of California; that I take thisobligation freely, without any mental reservationor purpose of evasion; and that I will well andfaithfully discharge the duties upon which I amabout to enter. 9 Unlike the UC employment oath introduced in 1950, the pres-ent oath is largely affirmative, with only a hint of proscrip-tion of unacceptable allegiances. The online version of this article provides a link to the longer, more fully documented original manuscript. I thank Adèle Panofsky for herrecollections and gracious permission to use images from the familycollection. I also thank the Panofsky children—Carol, Margaret, Ted,Steven, and especially Richard—for their thoughtful comments. Iacknowledge Harrassowitz Verlag for permission to quote from theErwin Panofsky correspondence. I thank Robert Cahn for careful read-ings and comments on successive drafts. My thanks also to Ian Jack-son for setting this article in motion. This work was supported by theUS Department of Energy under contract no. DE-AC02-05CH11231. References and notes 1. W. K. H. Panofsky, Panofsky on Physics, Politics, and Peace: Pief Remembers , Springer, New York (2007). 2. R. T. Birge, History of the Physics Department, University of Califor- nia, Berkeley, 1868–1950 , Physics Dept., U. California, Berkeley (1970), vol. 5, ch. 18, pp. 26–35. 3. The code-named Materials Testing Accelerator was a classified project of the US nuclear weapons program. See http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Research-Review/Magazine/1981. 4. University of California History Digital Archives, “The Loyalty Oath Controversy, University of California, 1949–51,” http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/~ucalhist/archives_exhibits/loyaltyoath/. 5. Geierlamm was a nickname coined by inverting the German Lämmergeier , a species of vulture ( Geier ) that allegedly preys on lambs ( Lämmer ). Erwin is calling his son a vulture-eating lamb! (See the whimsical poem Das Geierlamm by Christian Morgenstern at http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Das_Geierlamm.) 6. D. Wuttke, ed., Erwin Panofsky Korrespondenz 1910 bis 1968, vol. 3, Harrassowitz, Wiesbaden (2006). 7. ”Jakob” was a nickname for Pief’s mother, Dorothea, after an aging but still winning racehourse named Jake, as Dorothea wasviewed by her children. 8. J. Steinberger, Learning About Particles: 50 Privileged Years , Springer, New York (2004), p. 39. 9. Constitution of the State of California, article 20, section 3 (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/const.html). The California Oath ofAllegiance in the state constitution consists of two paragraphs. In1967 the state Supreme Court ruled the second paragraph uncon-stitutional (as a condition of employment or public office) under theUS Constitution on the basis of earlier federal-court decisions. /H17039 www.physicstoday.org January 2009 Physics Today 7