ISO alienates SF State activists-SAW site debate Part 1

The following is a series of posts from the Students Against War (SAW) SF State site that were happening during a period of infighting. The non ISO members of SAW stated that they were stifled and limited in their input to SAW, and attempted to address the issue. The ISO members responded by calling them redbaiting McCarthyites, and stated that they were the ones being oppressed. I'm just going to post these as they arrived in my mailbox and let people decide for themselves. I think it's important that activists hash these things out rather than sweep them under the rug.

Each email post begins with who it is from and the date and title.



From: "Dave Carr" <motopu@speakeasy.net>
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 4:09 am
Subject: Re: What kind of movement do we need?


I would like people to compare the accusations against Naomi
Klein in the article from the Socialist Worker posted here to the
actual transcript of what she said in context (see below).

Socialist Worker article:
"...at a March 24 teach-in in Washington, D.C., UFPJ
panelists--including global justice author Naomi Klein and the
Institute for Policy Studies' Phyllis Bennis--caricatured those
raising similar questions as, in Klein's words, "offering blanket
cheerleading for the resistance." The effect of this characterization
of the insurgency as made up of unthinking fanatics and Islamist
"extremists" is to shut off any serious discussion about what antiwar
activists in this country ought to know about what is taking place in
Iraq (a video of the teach-in can be viewed online)."
source:http://www.socialistworker.org/2005-1/540/540_03_Movement.shtml


Questions: Is Klein working to stifle free speech in the movement? Is
she characterizing "the insurgency" as extremists as the SW article
asserts?

Here is Klein in context from the actual transcript:

I also think it's extremely important to understand that the most
powerful movement against this war and this occupation is within Iraq
itself. And that our movements must be not just in verbal solidarity
but in active and tangible solidarity with movements in Iraq fighting
actively to end the occupation of their country. We need to take our
direction from them.

In terms of supporting the Iraqi resistance, Iraqis are resisting
in many ways they are trying to organize independent trade unions,
they are trying open newspapers and having those newspapers shut down,
many are involved in armed resistance. We need to support the people
of Iraq. And we need to be the resistance ourselves in our country. I
personally don't believe we should get involved with blanket
cheer-leading for "the resistance. " There isn't one resistance. And
there are dueling fundamentalists in Iraq. There are parts of the
resistance that are the enemies of the Iraqi people and we need to be
very clear about this.
I met with Giuliana Sgrena a week ago in Rome, the Italian
journalist who was attacked. And she said to her captors, she said to
her captors, "I'm an independent journalist, I go to Fallujah
and tell the stories of the people in Fallujah" and her captors said
"We don't want you to talking to those people. " I don't cheer those
people on. I don't defend their right to resist.

From: EvlPotato@...
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 6:07 pm
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Re: What kind of movement do we need? EvlPotato@...
Send Email
Thanks Dave for correcting the article that someone posted on the list. I think it's important that we don't overgeneralize and make accusations against other antiwar activists who hold slightly different views that ourselves. Obviously the SW article was purposely taking a comment out of context in an attempt to prove that anyone who doesn't support the resistance, no questions asked, is claiming that all the resistance is "unthinking fanatics and Islamist extremists"-- this is exactly the sort of black and white thinking/name-calling of other activists that is hurting the antiwar movement and turning it into a battle of leftist versus leftist rather than a cooperative, forward looking peace movement. I hope we can all continue to be so critical of the "news" that we read so that incorrect statements like this one aren't taken to be true.
Peace,
Brandi



From: David Russitano <itsrevolution@...>
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 9:55 pm
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Re: What kind of movement do we need? itsrevolution@...
Send Email
"correcting the article that someone posted to the list"
First of all, Brandi you know me. As does almost everyone that is on
this list. I built this group for two years and put up the original
fliers for the first meeting before we even had a name. I have since
graduated but am still active where I can be and I have conversed with
you on many occasions at political events.

Second, Dave Carr didn't "correct" the article. In fact a link to the
video of the event was posted with the article.

The point of the article I sent was that even those that support full
withdrawal still demonize aspects of the resistance. And further that
anti-war activists are attacking those that have a position of
unconditional support for the resistance because some see those ideas
as too radical.

While Klein admits that resistance is broader than those that engage
in bombings she demonizes a section of it. She is not for
unconditional support she is for conditional support. From David
Carr's transcript of Klein's full speech.

"I personally don't believe we should get involved with blanket
cheer-leading for "the resistance. " There isn't one resistance. And
there are dueling fundamentalists in Iraq. There are parts of the
resistance that are the enemies of the Iraqi people and we need to be
very clear about this."

Meaning there are aspects of resistance she supports and others she
doesn't. I think this is a mistaken way to look at the situation.
Phrasing the situation as "dueling fundamentalists" suggests that we
shouldn't take any ones side. I don't support fundamentalists do you?
What I do support is self-determination. Anyone fighting for that in
Iraq is a part of the resistance.

This article rather than "making accusations" of other anti-war
activists merely show that there are disagreements with-in the
anti-war movement. The ISO has worked with Naomi and others that we
disagree with and in-fact we have been arguing for unity of all people
that work along the "out now" concept. From demonstrations and
teach-ins to fund raisers for Pablo Peredes and Kevin Benderman.

So, to then conclude that "this is exactly the sort of black and white
thinking/name-calling of other activists that is hurting the antiwar
movement" is ridiculous. Never in the article did it say "and that's
why we are for expelling Naomi from the movement". Nor, did we call
her any names. In-fact the whole article was about increasing
discussion in the anti-war movement and making room for different
ideas, including "leftist" ideas about the resistance.

Further, what is hurting the antiwar movement is not "black and white
thinking". Its that there has been a shift in public opinion. While
people hate the war in Iraq, they accept some aspect of "if we leave
there will be chaos" or "we messed it up now we have to stay and fix
it". This is a direct result of the Democratic party line during the
elections, where John Kerry touted his war credentials instead of
taking an out now position.

That being said, right now there is tremendous potential to build a
movement that challenges the war. Too be successful it has to be
accepting of different peoples views and learn to work together with
people that it disagrees with. We agree with 95% of the quote that
Dave posted from Klein. However, we are for debating the 5% that we
don't agree on and that is why we publish our paper. It takes a side
on issues.

We actually think that its possible to end the war with a broad
movement of people.
Obviously the more people you have the more different ideas will be
encompassed in that movement. If we just wanted to sit around and
agree with people we can do that at home. Building a movement around
the unifying idea of "troops out now" is what we are arguing.
An anti-war movement should be able to debate and discuss its
difference so that it includes people of different persuasions. Our
paper represents a set of arguments that you are free to agree with or
disagree with, but it is not "purposely taking a comment out of
context" or making "incorrect statements". But merely pointing out
one area of disagreement with-in the anti-war movement

I really do think that you should take your own advice to heart and
not "overgeneralize and make accusations against other antiwar
activists who hold slightly different views that ourselves".

See you in the streets
:D avid Russitano

From: EvlPotato@...
Date: Mon May 9, 2005 8:06 pm
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Re: What kind of movement do we need? EvlPotato@...
Send Email
This obviously is an important discussion in the antiwar movement, as witnessed by the fact that we're hashing this out on the listserv.

I do agree with you, David, that it hurts the movement when activists are silenced because their views are seen as too "radical" or extreme- as is happening regarding supporters of the resistance. The point that I believe Dave and I both took issue with is not that we think activists should be silenced, but that the SW's characterization of Klein and others who don't support the resistance unconditionally was first of all misleading, and second of all damaging to the movement.

Speaking for myself (and not for Dave), I think that when the article was misleading when it said, regarding a portion of Klein's quote, "The effect of this
characterization of the insurgency as made up of unthinking fanatics and Islamist "extremists" is to shut off any serious discussion about what antiwar activists in this country ought to know about what is taking place in Iraq." When you read her whole quote, as Dave posted it, it's obvious that she was not characterizing the resistance in Iraq in this manner. Klein raised the point that she does support the right to resist, as well as much of the resistance itself. She said, "our movements [in the US] must be not just in verbal solidarity but in active and tangible solidarity with movements in Iraq fighting actively to end the occupation of their country. We need to take our direction from them." Can you explain to me how this is characterizing the resistance as Islamic extremists?

Also, after reading Klein's entire statement, I think she actually raises a good debate, rather than silencing debate on the issue. She discusses how she supports much of the resistance but does not support some factions of it: "There isn't one resistance. And there are dueling fundamentalists in Iraq. There are parts of the resistance that are the enemies of the Iraqi people and we need to be
very clear about this." As responsible activists, we can't ignore that some of the resistance fighters in Iraq are not well-intentioned. Many of us support the right for all Iraqis, regardless of their intentions, to resist US occupation, but don't give blanket support to the resistance itself because we disagree with the motivations of some of the fighters. Instead of labelling us as trying to silence others or as characterizing the resistance in a negative light, we should all be open to learning more about who makes up the resistance, what they stand for, and then debating whether or not they deserve our support.

When anyone, whether it be an individual or a newspaper, characterizes someone who is willing to support the right to resist but not support people with bad intentions (for lack of a better term) as a person who is silencing debate, that is hurting the antiwar movement. Just because you think this is a "mistaken way to look at the situation" doesn't mean that it isn't a valid way to look at the situation. We should be willing to challenge Klein and others with her opinion if we disagree, but we shouldn't label her and misconstrue her words, as the SW article did, because that is what really silences debate.

~Brandi


From: David Russitano <itsrevolution@...>
Date: Tue May 10, 2005 1:21 am
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Re: What kind of movement do we need? itsrevolution@...
Send Email
"Can you explain to me how this is characterizing the resistance as
Islamic extremists?"

Sure.

Klein states, "I personally don't believe we should get involved with blanket
cheer-leading for "the resistance. " There isn't one resistance. And
there are dueling fundamentalists in Iraq. There are parts of the
resistance that are the enemies of the Iraqi people and we need to be
very clear about this."

In other words, there are "dueling" sects of "fundamentalists" that
don't deserve our support because they are "enemies of the Iraqi
people." In the media we hear daily reports of the crazy Islamic
extremists are blowing themselves up or how zarqoui is linked to
al-quida insurgents. Are these not who she is referring to when she
says "fundamentalists"? And if these are not the people Naomi is
referring to then who is she referring to???

Brandi, you also seem to take the same position. Without calling them
by name they become "resistance fighters in Iraq (that) are not
well-intentioned". Are you not referring to the same people Klein
is???

The main disagreement I have against both Klein and Brandi's line of
argument is that they both take the position that the anti-war
movement here in the United States should _qualify_ its support for
the resistance based on the goals or methods of that resistance.
That, "we should all be open to learning more about who makes up the
resistance, what they stand for, and then debating whether or not they
deserve our support." is the way it was put.

My position is that it is not for us to decide which part of the
resistance to support and which not to support. It is not our place
to tell the Iraqis how or when to resist. We are not over there and
we do not know what it is like, nor can we know.

If we accept the idea (as they do) that we have to choose an aspect
of the resistance to support, then those that support
"blanket-statements" must be supporting "fundamentalists". Right???

Further, what exactly can anyone here reliably know what the
resistance look likes in Iraq. If we don't know, then how can we
decide who deserves our support???

I give credit to Naomi and to Brandi for showing a nuanced approach to
the resistance and saying that it is wider than the media say.
***However, making people choose what aspects of the resistance
deserves our support and then calling aspects of the resistance
"people with bad intentions" or as "dueling fundamentalists"
effectively shuts down the discussion.***

So I think far from misleading people the Socialist Worker got it
right when it said, "The _EFFECT_ (my emphasis) of this
characterization of the insurgency as made up of unthinking fanatics
and Islamist "extremists" is to shut off any serious discussion about
what antiwar activists in this country ought to know about what is
taking place in Iraq ." It correctly stated Naomi's position while
leaving out the 95% of her statement that we agree with.

Brandi, I am glad you take Socialist Worker so seriously that it is
the *only* paper that you have criticized here on the list. I
personally think that the school newspaper has gotten had a far
greater effect on the anti-war movement on our campus then the
Socialist Worker. I haven't seen any responses on this list to the
many misleading quotes in the Golden Gate Xpress that have called
protesting "infantile".

Thanks for your concern that we are "hurting" the anti-war movement,
but I must disagree (see above). Far bigger things are actually
hurting the anti-war movement like the Democrats not to mention the
elections that happened in Iraq and Patriot Act. These,
unfortunately, have a far larger effect then the socialists are having
right now.

So this focus on SW seems to me like looking at the bark while missing
the forest.

Sometimes we get things wrong of course. But, especially when our
right to protest on campus is in jeopardy, what gets printed from
anti-racist, anti-sexist, pro-Palestine, anti-war, socialist newspaper
seems less than important then defending our right to free speech.

Although I think it is an invaluable tool that everyone should read,
write and buy weather or not you agree with us. Or at the *very
least* we should have the right to our free speech and sell it where
and whenever.

http://www.socialistworker.org

Troops Out Now,
:D avid


From: EMTerzakis@...
Date: Tue May 10, 2005 6:21 am
Subject: Re: [SAWSFSU] Re: What kind of movement do we need? EMTerzakis@...
Send Email
No one is saying Klein is silencing debate. Her statement is merely being used as an example of a point that needs to be debated. She is also not being misrepresented; she does not believe we should support the right to resist of certain people in the resistance (This is what she SAID: "I do not support the right to resist of these people," and I am sure she would stand by it); I disagree with her; I think we must support the right to resist of every Iraqi but be critical of their METHODS.

If we do not support this right, then we are giving in to the idea that there are some people that DO need to be put down by the US military, and the next step is to no longer be anti-occupation, which is the current position of much of the movement (the idea that the US troops must stay to prevent chaos--the Woolsey bill).

But it seems to me that you agree with that, Brandi, and that the entire discussion of Klein being misrepresented is a red herring, which gets more convoluted with each posting. It is simply being misused as a justification to attack the ISO's ability to sell its paper, which I believe you also know is wrong, as it represents an attack on free speech, something I thought SAW was supposed to be in the midst of defending.

Elizabeth Terzakis
former SAW member
SFSU 2003

From: Alex Schmaus <alexalexalex49@...>
Date: Tue May 10, 2005 10:22 am
Subject: official ISO Statement to SAW *please read* alexalexalex49
Offline
Send Email
The 2004 presidential elections turned out to be a hugely demoralizing factor for the anti-war movement. Due to the commitment to the Democratic Party's right-wing positions on the war, the anti-war movement shrank in size and experienced demoralization which has continued in the post-election hangover. We believe that the overall demoralization that the anti-war movement is experiencing in the United States has contributed to the small size of SAW, not because of the participation and influence of the ISO or any other organization which is a member of SAW.

We believe that the presence of the ISO and its open anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-civil liberties positions have strengthened SAW and helped to prevent the anti-war movement from collapsing on campus, as it has on numerous other campuses. For instance, ISO members were instrumental in arguing that the March 9th counter recruitment protest could be large and successful.

For these reasons we are strongly opposed to the proposals which have been sent around the SAW list serve and which will be presented at the SAW meeting this coming Wednesday, May 11. We believe these proposals will be a step in the direction of policing ourselves. These proposals are reminiscent of McCarthyism and are in line with the political censorship sweeping across the country, and will have drastically damaging effects on the campus anti-war movement and the left as a whole.

We believe that these proposals are an attack on the ISO as a political organization, otherwise, why was the original proposal to change the structure of SAW meetings not mentioned to any member of the ISO before it was put forward? Moreover, we believe that the proposal for incapacitating the steering committee will lead to a decentralized structure and unaccountable leadership made up of the loudest, most confident voices in SAW, which will damage SAW as a democratic organization.

These undemocratic proposals are a new manifestation of McCarthyism in the United States. What do we mean by this? It’s simple. Because of the anti-socialist ideology pumped out by our government, many activists have prejudices against socialist organizations and Members of those organizations for ‘scaring’ people away. In fact, The ISO was instrumental in starting
SAW and its members spend as much time, if not more time than other SAW members reaching out to new people, so to say that the ISO “scares people away” is a really unfortunate claim. The only reason anyone listens to this at all is because American political culture is so influenced by McCarthyism, the irrational fear of communists or socialists.

Instead of thinking of ways to make the other voices in SAW louder, these proposals seem to be aimed at making the socialists quieter.

It is chilling that some of the same people who are fighting along side of us for the right to protest the brutal occupation in Iraq on our campus are attacking the right of the ISO to present our anti-imperialist, anti-racist, pro-choice, pro-workers’rights positions in the printed form of Socialist Worker. This attempt is an echo of the Smith Act of 1940, which criminalized the sale of literature by "organizations who advocated the overthrow of the United States government". The aftermath of the Smith Act was the arrest, prosecution and expulsion of communists and socialists from political organizations, work places, unions and schools. The proposals being put forth are markedly similar to the attacks by the SFSU administration on SAW and the ISO and the United States government’s attacks on the left as a whole. Instead of proudly standing up to Corrigan and the SFSU administration, defending the right of socialists and others to say and print whatever they want, and have the greatest possible freedom to distribute it, some SAW members are bringing the logic of repressing free speech into the movement itself.

The anti war movement is in a state of crisis. Open debate, democratic decision making structures and an environment in which all people opposed to the war, including socialists, are able to bring in their political positions, is what is needed to build an anti war movement capable of ending the occupation in Iraq. ISO members in SAW are putting forth the following proposals, which we are counter-posing to the other proposals.

They are as follows:
A) SAW relaunch its newspaper to reaffirm its commitment to ending the occupation of Iraq and clarify the various political debates that are desperately needed in the anti war movement.
B) SAW’s last meeting of the semester should be a public meeting focusing on the city’s College Not Combat campaign. This would allow SAW to continue its counter-recruitment focus. The biggest priority for SAW till the end of the semester is to grow and counter-recruitment work is the best way to draw in new people wanting to work to prevent their young working class brothers and sisters from going off to fight and die in Iraq.

Finally, we are absolutely opposed to a split in SAW. Learning to work through these debates may be difficult and uncomfortable, but we should all make a commitment to building a united anti-war group on one of the highest profile campuses in this country. This war will not end this semester. It will probably not end for years to come. Most likely, hundreds of thousands of Iraqis will die and thousands of American soldiers will die. This is serious business we are talking about and we want everyone in SAW to think about these proposals from this point of view.


From: "Dave Carr" <motopu@speakeasy.net>
Date: Tue May 10, 2005 2:59 pm
Subject: Response and breif synopsis of why this is happening motopu2001
Offline
Send Email
What you say:

No one is saying Klein is silencing debate. Her statement is merely
being used as an example of a point that needs to be debated.

What the article said:
The effect of this characterization
of the insurgency as made up of unthinking fanatics and Islamist
"extremists" is to shut off any serious discussion about what antiwar
activists in this country ought to know about what is taking place in
Iraq
The article SAYS the effect of Klein's position is shutting down
discussion.





What you say:
She is also not being misrepresented; she does not believe we should
support the right to resist of certain people in the resistance (This
is what she SAID: "I do not support the right to resist of these
people," and I am sure she would stand by it); I disagree with her; I
think we must support the right to resist of every Iraqi but be
critical of their METHODS.

What the article said:
The effect of this characterization
of the insurgency as made up of unthinking fanatics and Islamist
"extremists" is to shut off any serious discussion about what antiwar
activists in this country ought to know about what is taking place in
Iraq
Now you're arguing about positions on elements of the insurgency while
the article mischaracterized Klein's positions, taking her totally out
of context from the very speech she was giving, and the body of her
writing and work. For example:
"Donald Rumsfeld claims that the resistance is just a few "thugs,
gangs and terrorists". This is dangerous wishful thinking. The war
against the occupation is now being fought out in the open, by regular
people defending their homes and neighbourhoods - an Iraqi intifada."
source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1190300,00.html
I'm sorry, but it doesn't sound to me as if Naomi Klein is in danger
of slipping over into the position that the US needs to be putting
down parts of the resistance.



What you said:
If we do not support this right, then we are giving in to the idea
that there are some people that DO need to be put down by the US
military, and the next step is to no longer be anti-occupation, which
is the current position of much of the movement (the idea that the US
troops must stay to prevent chaos--the Woolsey bill).

What you said:
But it seems to me that you agree with that, Brandi, and that the
entire discussion of Klein being misrepresented is a red herring,
which gets more convoluted with each posting. It is simply being
misused as a justification to attack the ISO's ability to sell its
paper, which I believe you also know is wrong, as it represents an
attack on free speech, something I thought SAW was supposed to be in
the midst of defending.

Dave Carr: As someone who was actually censored by David Russitano
when I posted something critical to the SAW site (and I realize he has
moved beyond that position) about an ISO article, I know what stifling
free speech means. What has happened inside SAW is that all the non
ISO members are once again quitting. Through out the semester we have
sat through rigidly structured meetings in which we vote yay or nay on
ISO proposals. One of our non ISO steering committee members has
admitted that there was an ISO person who guided him so closely that
this person was essentially a non elected member of the steering
committee. When we raised the issue of discussing the situation in
SAW, the ISO attempted to block the process by proposing it be delayed
until after the summer, in a move that was reminiscent of the
administration's stalling tactics with CAASE/UAW organizing on campus.
Over the last semesters, every semester, almost all the non ISO people
have quit in disgust, as they tell us. Recently when a woman posted to
the SAW site about a cool anarchist "Really Free Market" event in
Golden Gate Park, she felt the need to first dismiss anarchism as
irrelevant. When I asked her why, and told her that I found anarchism
to be an important tradition, she responded "I assumed that SAW was
all ISO folks." We in SAW who are not in the ISO have come to feel
alienated from our labor in the antiwar movement, and we feel stifled
under the managerial leadership of the ISO in SAW. The ISO is not SAW,
or so we thought.
When we found out that there were others in the group who felt the
same way, we discovered we made up the majority of the weekly
attendees to SAW meetings. We knew we did not want to stifle the ISO's
right to present ideas, or their paper, so we thought about ways we
could limit there manipulation of the group. As I've mentioned, this
happened at the steering committee level, and it was happening with
the ISO fraction group strategy of setting the entire agenda for SAW
outside of the meetings before hand. We non ISO people learned that we
could challenge this vanguard leadership and came up with many
proposals to lessen the power of the steering committee and
restructure meetings. One thing everyone agreed on was that we needed
to address the impression of ISO front group status for SAW, and the
papers and in meeting recruitment was problematic in what we thought
was supposed to be a SAW meeting, a real anti-war group, not just a
stepping stone to the "real revolutionary wing". When I criticized an
article posted from the Socialist Worker, once again on the "future of
the movement" I was given a not very friendly warning from an ISO
member not to meddle with what the ISO does in SAW, and that they will
continue to operate as they see fit. That was bizarre as my comments
were about the article and how SAW is not the ISO. During the semester
we have seen the non ISO group in SAW make more room for real
discussion rather than simply pre cooked ISO led meetings. But that is
apparently very threatening, as this bunch of activists, a seriously
important core of the group, is now being labeled as McCarthyite
redbaiters who are attempting to move SAW to the right and stifle
radicalism. As someone who leans more toward anarchism, the idea of
moving the group further to the right than the already conservative
ISO structure would be unthinkable. Not only that, but it is another
mischaracterization of those who are not in total agreement with your
positions. To us, it seems that this framing of the struggle in SAW
has more to do with the pages of the SW than with the question of
making SAW a group that has actual autonomy from ISO manipulation.
Asking the ISO to lay off recruiting and pushing the paper because it
is probably scaring off members, and this is backed by countless first
hand accounts of people who were turned off to SAW as an ISO front
group, was not an attempt at stifling free speech, but limiting the
all encompassing presence of ISO throughout every stage of the SAW
meetings. We asked that the paper only come out in the announcements
section. SAW is a group that can try to address issues and problems as
it goes. Maybe this proposal was a mistake, but it reflects the level
of desperation of non ISO members, as does the fact that we will
likely be breaking off from the group to secure the needed autonomy
and try to attain an "organic" (I know you hate the term Katrina)
process in moving ourselves to be an effective antiwar group. This is
not McCarthyism, anti-socialism, or redbaiting. There are all manner
of socialist groups in the US and the world. Not all of them are
structured as the ISO is, which is problematic for the most of the new
left. The new left in the global sense, has largely moved on from the
failed attempts at vanguard seizures of state power. None of these
defeated capitalism, and since 1968, the world revolution has brought
about a new set of agendas that address old failures, be they
communist, anarchist, or capitalist failures. The World Social forum
addresses such problems in their structure, as do many new peace and
justice movements. But it is insulting when the ISO screams about how
we are all McCarthyites and unknowingly in league with the Democratic
party and rightward shift in the peace movement. The ISO has yet to
address the real problem: It stifles creativity, discussion, and
autonomy in SAW, and in CAN as well. This is why, after several
semesters for many of us, we are done trying to get through. I'll end
this piece with a personal email that was sent to my chat group,
unsolicited by me or anyone on the list, by an ISO member on what is
happening within SAW to give an idea of how out of touch this member,
and seemingly the whole group is with what is really happening: The
piece was posted as
"Red baiting (a good email from comrade xxx in the ISO)"
Comrades,
In the context of a collapsing left and the antiwar movement's
hastening move to the right, the ISO and other radicals has come
under increasing attack in the form of redbaiting and sectarianism.
The attack that we are experiencing within SAW is not isolated. It
is a conscious attempt nationally to marginalize radicals and blame
us for the state of the antiwar movement. Our best defense is a good
offense. By this I mean being confident about our politics,
confronting the redbaiting head-on, fighting for democracy in SAW
and winning people to our side by arguing that artificial divisions
in our ranks only weaken the antiwar movement.

--xxx

One of the most disturbing things about it, aside from not addressing
any of the problems in SAW, is that much of it is lifted from an
article from the ISO's paper. This should give an indication of the
level of indoctrination in the ISO, and this is what we find creepy
and limiting.
Tomorrow's meeting should be interesting. I'm still on board for
defending the ISO and SAW against the administration, and I think all
SAW members know I've contributed to the best of my ability to this
end. Thank you all for March 9th. This war is not over, and neither is
our struggle.
Sincerely,
Dave Carr