To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

We were very dismayed by your attack on the May 2nd Movement in your recent editorial, which can only be described as yellow journalism.

Your attack is not one of reasoned argument, but of slander. It relies on the specific connotation of words rather than on facts. Granted that the May 2nd Movement has significant differences with SDS; yet Mr. Hessler characterizes what is an alternative approach to the same issues as being that of an "enemy" on the left. For this assertion he offers no justification.

By implication, Mr. Hessler characterizes us as "cold hearted and hard-headed." The distinction between the "warm" "democratic" "people loving" "New" left and the cold calculating "Old" left is a cry that has been heard over and over again--most recently in an article appearing in an August issue of Mr. Buckley's National Review. Again Mr. Hessler adopts this a-priori assertion rather than an argument, that somehow providing an intellectual framework which we think clarifies action makes us "cold hearted."

Mr. Hessler's statement that we view the Negro as being "an incidental victim of the same capitalist power which crushes the Viet Cong" is a lie.

Finally Mr. Hessler writes that we "swallow whole" Leninist theory concerning imperialism. This is yellow journalism at its lowest. It carries the connotation of unthinking dupes accepting party dogma--it is not an argument--it is the vaguely masked cry of Commie, the magic word which so miraculously substitutes for thought in the U.S.A. today. It is certainly not the type of journalism that should characterize the CRIMSON. Mr. Hessler should practice what he preaches; he should fill his articles with "clear and interesting argument." Harvard-Radcliffe May 2nd Committee

Mr. Hessler replies: I am dismayed by the vehemence of this letter. On rereading my review, I would agree that three of my words were III-chosen but the letter is far more excessive than the review: To set matters straight: (1) I did not at any point "attack," or mean to attack, M2M. I was comparing the positions of SDS and M2M to make a quite elementary point: that they differ. I made no value judgments. (2) I did not characterize M2M "as...an 'enemy' on the left" of SDS. I did suggest that such a situation might develop in the future. In view of the schismatic history of American left-wing politics, this statement is far from unreasonable.

(3) "Cold-hearted" was an overly strong and inexact word. By it I meant just what your letter implies, that you provide "an intellectual framework...to clarify action." I also believe and meant to suggest, that it is from this "framework," not from a direct empathy with specific human problems, that your passions chiefly flow. I did not intend to express disapproval of your approach, which is after all the approach of men as dissimilar and intelligent as Walter Lippman and Vladimir Lenin.

(4) "Incidental" was also an unfortunate word. I used it to indicate priorities. Your "Intellectual framework" seems to be Marxist-Maoist. From this point of view, social oppression is a phenomenon of certain types of economic organization (Feudal, Capitalist, etc.). To see racial discrimination as a category of economic oppression is to consider the Negro as an "incidental" victim of a system which cuts a far wider swath. This kind of thinking has typified the attitude of American Marxists for many years (see Richard Wright's introduction to Black Metropolis). Most SDS members, conversely, construe American "imperialism" as an outgrowth of racial prejudice. They see the Viet Cong as an "incidental" victim of white bigotry.

(5) Finally, I regret the word "swallow." I did not wish to imply that you are "dupes," a disagreeable and meaningless term used by disagreeable people. Rather I was registering surprise at the completeness of Mr. Maher's acceptance of the Leninist theory of imperialism.