News

Garber Privately Tells Faculty That Harvard Must Rethink Messaging After GOP Victory

News

Cambridge Assistant City Manager to Lead Harvard’s Campus Planning

News

Despite Defunding Threats, Harvard President Praises Former Student Tapped by Trump to Lead NIH

News

Person Found Dead in Allston Apartment After Hours-Long Barricade

News

‘I Am Really Sorry’: Khurana Apologizes for International Student Winter Housing Denials

The Mail CFIA STATEMENT

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The Center for International Affairs has not refused to debate SDS-UAG. Indeed, for over a year the Center has tried to promote serious discussion and debate. Before the 1969 disruption, the Center announced that its members would be available for discussions and set aside the entire second floor for that purpose. Despite the efforts of the leaders of that disruption to prevent any discussion whatever, many students remained to talk. During the disruption of May 1970, Center members engaged in debate with the demonstrators for two and a half hours. Also in May, Center members debated a NAC representative in the Winthrop House JCR. As recently as October 11, 1970, members of the Center took part in a debate with a DAS critic on WHRB.

Our letter of November 25, 1970 simply refused to take part in a SDS-managed forum which offered no prospects for serious discussion. Indeed, we knew that in planning for a debate SDS-UAG had discussed how to manage the meeting, including questions from the floor, so as to assure that SDS-UAG prevailed. If SDS-UAG desires a serious debate rather than a rigged mock trial there is no problem.

Members of the Center continue to be ready at any time to debate under auspices which do offer a real forum for serious discussion. Specifically this means: (1) an independent sponsor; (2) agreed upon procedures; and (3) an impartial moderator to maintain those procedures.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags