"NEW LEFT" CLARIFIED

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I realize that, because of deadline problems, your reporter had to leave the Dunster Forum last Wednesday night (October 27) before the completion of the program, but, unfortunately, the consequence was a very misleading article.

First, Allard Lowenstein is not a member of the "New Left." Those who are in the movement as well as Mr. Lowenstein are equally dismayed by the identification. In addition, although Irving Howe is a radical, it is tenuous to describe him as a member of the "New Left." The very point of his article "New Styles in Leftism" in the Summer Dissent was to attack the trend of the radical student movements. Moreover, both he and Mr. Lowenstein spoke in favor of a political coalition of labor, the churches, Negroes, and intellectuals to continue the movement toward reform that has distinguished post-Eisenhower politics. Both Mr. Booth and Mr. Maher, the latter explicitly, questioned the possibility of such coalitional politics. Your article gave the impression that the Forum was simply a debate about tactics of protesting Vietnam, but in fact the entire nature of American politics was at issue. Contrary to your reporter's perception, sparks did fly even if a conflagration did not ensue.

Secondly, one of the major items of debate never appeared in your article, i.e. the failure of the "New Left" to take a principled stand against communism. Mr. Howe made this the point of much of his discussion. That he believes we ought to move toward withdrawal in Vietnam does not make him happy that the Viet Cong will prevail, as it apparently does Mr. Booth and certainly Mr. Maher, Mr. Howe was most critical of any equation of American politics with the lack of basic political freedom in totalitarian countries. Sanford V. Levinson   Tutor, Dunster House