This week in my nuclear class we looked at security and loyalty in the 1950s, and read and talked at length about the Oppenheimer security hearing. I asked the students whether they would have, based on the hearing transcripts, restored or stripped Oppenheimer's clearance:

As you can see, most thought they'd strip it, and even those in favor of restoring it did so on the basis that it was just a political hearing anyway, and had no real consequences (since his clearance was about to expire anyway).

As I said to them, I suspect they'd feel differently if I had framed it in a more pro-Oppenheimer way, the way it is usually portrayed popularly.

I tried to be pretty balanced about it, but "balance" here means pointing out the many times he lied to security officers, threw his former friends and students under the bus, had an affair with his Red ex-girlfriend during the war, and other things that don't look so good.

It all led to some very nice conversations about what the criteria for "character" ought to be regarding security clearances — whether it should be VERY narrow (and risk losing talent) or broader (and risk "dubious" people), and how it changes over time.