News

Harvard Medical School Cancels Student Groups’ Pro-Palestine Vigil

News

Former FTC Chair Lina Khan Urges Democrats to Rethink Federal Agency Function at IOP Forum

News

Cyanobacteria Advisory Expected To Lift Before Head of the Charles Regatta

News

After QuOffice’s Closure, Its Staff Are No Longer Confidential Resources for Students Reporting Sexual Misconduct

News

Harvard Still On Track To Reach Fossil Fuel-Neutral Status by 2026, Sustainability Report Finds

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