NOT RADICAL ENOUGH

To the editors of the CRIMSON:

The Monday-night harangue against U.S. foreign policy was another example of the unfortunate intellectual condition of many of the "radical" members of the academic establishment. Like most participants in previous teaching -- one notable exception being Staughton Lynd -- the three speakers were unable or unwilling to articulate the real reasons for U.S. involvment in Vietnam. The poverty of their thinking was self-evident: they asserted that essentially everything relevant had been said repeatedly before; they seemed to believe that everyone understood all pertinent facts and points of view. It was as if the issue were closed and we were supposed to stop thinking and watch, with resigned disapproval, tragic necessity as defined by McGeorge Bundy work itself out. It was encouraging to observe the speakers' recognition that the revolution in Vietnam is at least partially justified and perhaps merits toleration and coexistence, but regrettably not one voiced support or respect for the liberation movement.

The real motive behind American involvement in Vietnam is the desire to keep the world safe for the American way of ownership. This system for most Americans has been at least superficially good but for much of the world it has not. The only course left open by the powerful forces of American imperialism is revolution by the oppressed peoples of the world. To condemn the war in Vietnam without giving at least qualified and reasoned support to the National Liberation Front is to leave the issue undecided and is indicative of misconception and confusion.

It is the contention here, contrary to that of the three speakers, that most people do not know the relevant facts about the American involvement. Bob Park 2G   Constance Park 2G   H-R May Second Committee