In a striking comparison between past and present, the actions of Senator Joseph McCarthy in the 1950s resonate deeply with recent judgments from the bench by U.S. District Judge William G. Young.
During the infamous McCarthy hearings, McCarthy and his chief counsel Roy Cohn launched ruthless attacks on individuals, often resorting to innuendo rather than concrete evidence.
Erwin Griswold, a former Republican solicitor general and Harvard Law School dean, described McCarthy’s approach as serving simultaneously as judge, jury, prosecutor, castigator, and press agent.
In the spring of 1954, amidst a wave of anti-communist sentiment, Welch, a partner at the Boston law firm Hale & Dorr, found himself embroiled in McCarthy’s campaign against the Army, which McCarthy accused of being lax in its anti-communist measures.
Welch defended the Army, methodically debunking McCarthy’s allegations over a span of 30 days.
As Welch made significant progress, McCarthy resorted to distractions, claiming that Fred Fisher, a junior associate at Welch’s firm, had a connection to the National Lawyers Guild.
He labeled the Guild as the legal arm of the Communist Party.
This accusation violated a pre-hearing agreement where Welch had promised not to raise Cohn’s draft avoidance during the Korean War, while the committee agreed to refrain from mentioning Fisher’s past affiliations.
In one pivotal moment, Welch addressed McCarthy: ‘Until this moment, Senator, I think I never really gauged your cruelty or your recklessness.’
When McCarthy attempted to interject, Welch added, ‘Let us not assassinate this lad further, senator. You have done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?’
Fast forward to 2025, where echoes of Welch’s condemning words were mirrored in Young’s strong rebuke directed at the Trump administration.
While presiding in federal court in Boston, Young remarked on what he viewed as discrimination against minorities and the LGBTQ+ community, concurrently ordering the reinstatement of hundreds of NIH research grants previously dismissed by the Trump administration.
Young’s criticism was striking, stating, ‘I’ve sat on this bench now for 40 years. I’ve never seen government racial discrimination like this.
Is it true of our society as a whole? Have we fallen so low? Have we no shame?’
His words, ‘Have we no shame,’ parallel Welch’s poignant questions about decency during his confrontation with McCarthy.
Young characterized the Trump administration’s decision to cut grants for studying racial health disparities as ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ asserting that the rationale behind the cuts stemmed from bias rather than sound policy.
The White House quickly responded, accusing Young of bias himself.
White House spokesperson Kush Desai stated, ‘It is appalling that a federal judge would use court proceedings to express his political views and preferences.’
Casting Young as a biased judge is a mischaracterization of his history; he previously served as chief counsel to Massachusetts Governor Frank Sargent, a Republican, and was appointed by President Ronald Reagan.
His actions in the court exemplified adherence to constitutional principles.
Brittany Charlton, an associate professor at Harvard Medical School and one of the plaintiffs who challenged the administration’s cuts, argued that the Trump administration’s critique of Young paralleled the unjust bias exhibited in their funding cuts.
Charlton remarked on the significance of Young’s ruling, stating, ‘This is an important step in protecting public health and allowing critical research to continue.
Research that helps us understand and treat serious diseases should be based on science, not politics.’
In his ruling, Young firmly indicated disbelief in the Trump administration’s justifications for eliminating funding related to the health of racial minorities and LGBTQ+ individuals, much like Welch had dismissed McCarthy’s claims.
Young opined, ‘This court finds and rules that the explanations are bereft of reasoning virtually in their entirety.
These edicts are nothing more than conclusory, unsupported by factual development.’
A persistent line of inquiry emerged when Young pressed the attorney from the Department of Justice representing the Trump administration for evidence supporting its claims.
‘Where’s the support for that? Any support? Any rational explanation?’ Young questioned.
‘From what I can see, it’s the reverse.’
He emphasized that the government engaged in the very discrimination it attacked.
Drawing a conclusion he was hesitant to make, Young stated, ‘I have an unflinching obligation to draw it, that this represents racial discrimination and discrimination against America’s LGBTQ community.
That’s what this is. I would be blind not to call it out. My duty is to call it out.’
Both Welch and Young share a connection to Harvard, underscoring the importance of justice and the fight against discrimination throughout history.
Although Young’s words didn’t receive the national attention that Welch’s did in the 1950s, they reverberate with the same moral clarity.
As Martin Luther King Jr. famously remarked, ‘The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.’
While the impact of Young’s ruling may take time to unfold, like Welch before him, he too has taken a stand against tyranny.
Welch’s enduring legacy is remembered not only in his courtroom victories but also in his role as an actor, which culminated in a Golden Globe nomination for his portrayal of a judge in Otto Preminger’s film ‘Anatomy of a Murder.’
Yet, his finest performance remains the one in facing down a bully on June 9, 1954, a moment that inspired change and rallied a nation against oppression.
image source from：bostonglobe
