News
HMS Is Facing a Deficit. Under Trump, Some Fear It May Get Worse.
News
Cambridge Police Respond to Three Armed Robberies Over Holiday Weekend
News
What’s Next for Harvard’s Legacy of Slavery Initiative?
News
MassDOT Adds Unpopular Train Layover to Allston I-90 Project in Sudden Reversal
News
Denied Winter Campus Housing, International Students Scramble to Find Alternative Options
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.