News

Garber Announces Advisory Committee for Harvard Law School Dean Search

News

First Harvard Prize Book in Kosovo Established by Harvard Alumni

News

Ryan Murdock ’25 Remembered as Dedicated Advocate and Caring Friend

News

Harvard Faculty Appeal Temporary Suspensions From Widener Library

News

Man Who Managed Clients for High-End Cambridge Brothel Network Pleads Guilty

The Mail STAND-OFF

By Lance Matteson

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

As an observer of the recent (and belated) SDS-CFIA debate, my opinion is that neither side won-for the simple reason that the resolution under discussion was never determined.

If the issue was whether or not certain members and activities of the Center for International Affairs have, in the past, abetted imperialistic or repressive policies in a number of instances, then the SDS might have won. However, if the question was whether the mainstream of present CFIA studies and activities warrants the abolishment of that institution, then the SDS not only lost, but lost badly. For the SDS to admit the possibility of intra-institutional reform through humane, factual discussion by students and faculty, and through radical critique, would presumably be incompatible with the neat SDS model of revolutionary change. But to deny this possibility (or necessity) of rational assessment and reform where needed is not only to ignore the unrefuted preponderance of progressive contributions of the Center, but it is to belittle the capacity of most University members to make intelligent and moral judgments and to collectively determine the limits of their academic pursuits.

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

Tags