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 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