Cambridge Residents Slam Council Proposal to Delay Bike Lane Construction


‘Gender-Affirming Slay Fest’: Harvard College QSA Hosts Annual Queer Prom


‘Not Being Nerds’: Harvard Students Dance to Tinashe at Yardfest


Wrongful Death Trial Against CAMHS Employee Over 2015 Student Suicide To Begin Tuesday


Cornel West, Harvard Affiliates Call for University to Divest from ‘Israeli Apartheid’ at Rally

No Headline

By Carol R. Sternhell

This letter contains numerous distortions about my article and about the movement itself. To mention only the most blatant of them:

It is simply false to imply-as this letter does-that all those who walked out of the 1069 SDS convention became Weathermen. Members of NAC and other radical groups were also among those who left. [It is unfair and opportunist-though not altogether surprising-that these people are all branded Weathermen-"crazies."]

Second, it is misleading to separate support for the NLF and support for a radical workers' movement in the U.S. Such a distinction exists only for those who view the NLF as a reactionary, anti-popular force.

It is silly to suggest that I view any criticism of the Panthers as racist. My point is that PL's "criticism" of the Panthers has been un-comradely and factional in tone. It is also disingenuous to portray SDS as "active participants" in a struggle where unarmed Panthers are arbitrarily rounded up, jailed, or killed in cold blood.

Last, it is untrue that I am anti-radical. Where the SDS of 1966 was not radical-that is, in its virtual ignorance of workers as a potential agent of social change-PL's ideological influence on that organization was constructive, as I said in my article. What I object to in PL is an obsession with its own organizational "purity" which results in non-cooperation with liberals and callous attacks on radicals.

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