Changes

  | publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>

  | publisher = U. S. Government Printing Office}})</ref>

* [[Dorothy Kenyon]], New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;<ref>

* [[Dorothy Kenyon]], New York City Municipal Court Judge, U.S. State Department appointee as American Delegate to the United Nations Commission on the Status of Women;<ref>

Dorothy Kenyon is considered one of McCarthy's "Nine Public Cases" that was presented to the [[Tydings Committee]]. Kenyon was McCarthy's first case and was it took two days in order to present the evidence due to the constant interruptions by members of the Tyding's Committee. This prompted Senator Lodge to state that, "I think to interrupt the witness [McCarthy] every time and break up his continuity and destroy the flow of his argument, the way we are doing, is not the right procedure....For some reason that has not been made clear to me, whether it is to rattle or whether it is to confuse, I don't know, we have an entirely different procedure today...I am objecting to the constant interruption of the witness so that he never gets a fair shake."<br>

Dorothy Kenyon is considered one of McCarthy's "Nine Public Cases" that was presented to the [[Tydings Committee]]. Kenyon was McCarthy's first case and it took two days in order for McCarthy to present the evidence due to the constant interruptions by members of the Tyding's Committee. This prompted Senator Lodge to state that, "I think to interrupt the witness [McCarthy] every time and break up his continuity and destroy the flow of his argument, the way we are doing, is not the right procedure....For some reason that has not been made clear to me, whether it is to rattle or whether it is to confuse, I don't know, we have an entirely different procedure today...I am objecting to the constant interruption of the witness so that he never gets a fair shake."<br>

Despite the constant harassment, McCarthy's evidence included showing that Kenyon belonged to at least 24 Communist front organizations labeled as such in part by the [[United States Attorney General]], the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]], and other governmental committees. The documents presented by McCarthy included, official organization letterheads that listed Kenyon as a sponsor or as a member, official programs of organization sponsored dinners, and newspaper reports of open letters that Kenyon had signed that connected her with the organizations. Certainly, these were all documents that were easily accessible to the State Department should they have cared to look into Kenyon's political background.<br>

Despite the constant harassment, McCarthy's evidence included showing that Kenyon belonged to at least 24 Communist front organizations labeled as such in part by the [[United States Attorney General]], the [[House Un-American Activities Committee]], and other governmental committees. The documents presented by McCarthy included, official organization letterheads that listed Kenyon as a sponsor or as a member, official programs of organization sponsored dinners, and newspaper reports of open letters that Kenyon had signed that connected her with the organizations. Certainly, these were all documents that were easily accessible to the State Department should they have cared to look into Kenyon's political background.<br>

When Kenyon was asked by the Tydings Committee whether she had ever been interviewed by the State Department as to her affiliation to any Communist front organizations, she responded that she had never been asked. According to the security evaluation procedure of the State Department, Kenyon should have been asked about these affiliations but failed to do so. McCarthy had easily demonstrated from this first case that the screening process of the State Department was certainly lax and quite possibly purposefully ignoring easily identifiable security risks. However, the Tydings Committee instead ignored this evidence and set the precident for the hearings that anyone that came before the committee was going to be given a positive evaluation no matter how strongly the evidence indicated the witness was a security risk.

When Kenyon was asked by the Tydings Committee whether she had ever been interviewed by the State Department as to her affiliation to any Communist front organizations, she responded that she had never been asked. According to the security evaluation procedure of the State Department, Kenyon should have been asked about these affiliations but failed to do so. McCarthy had easily demonstrated from this first case that the screening process of the State Department was certainly lax and quite possibly purposefully ignoring easily identifiable security risks. However, the Tydings Committee instead ignored this evidence and set the precident for the hearings that anyone that came before the committee was going to be given a positive evaluation no matter how strongly the evidence indicated the witness was a security risk.