Strt,—As a member of the University Labour Federation for the
last three and a half years, for half that time an active member of the Oxford City Labour party, and for the last half a member of the Communist party, as a delegate to the U.L.F. Conference at Liverpool, I would like to answer certain untruths in the letter you published last week from an anonymous "University Lecturer." The Communist students in the universities finance their own activities entirely, and, in addition, subscribe considerable sums to the local and national working-class movement. It may be surprising that Communist and other students prefer to spend what spare money they have on socialist propaganda rather than on sherry parties and hunting, but it is not yet a crime.
Communist and Socialist students have, like all other students, to take their exams. Any financial grants they may receive are dependent on their getting good degrees. The suggestion of your correspondent that we are full-time politi- cal agents is ridiculous. It might interest him to know, for example, that six out of the eleven first-class degrees in modem greats (philosophy, politics and economics), last sum- mer were given to active members of the " Communist " U.L.F. Four first-class degrees were gained by members of my college last summer—all by active members of the U.L.F. I do not think this is due to any Socialist or Communist bias in Oxford examiners!
Your correspondent stated that "it is iniquitous that college and State endowments should be available to support profes- sional political propagandists." Such a state of mind is alarming ; it threatens the future of democratic education and academic freedom. What is the use of conquering Nazism if
in the process our universities are to be modelled on Fascist lines, with political, not academic, tests for entrance? We cannot pretend to fight for freedom unless we preserve the right publicly to "subscribe to such perverted distortions of the truth" (presumably Marxist). If the State, and even University, authorities are to be empowered to make ex cathedra pronouncements as to the truth in academic matters —your correspondent implies he desires this—we will have reached the totalitarian state of education we are supposed to be fighting to avoid.
The political point of view adopted by the U.L.F. at its last conference is no more pro-German than pro-English ; it is pro-working class. It closely corresponds to the present policy of the American Student Union expressed in the sentence, "Hitler and Chamberlain made this war ; the peoples must end it."
It is alarming that your columns should be incapable of dealing with the U.L.F. conference save abusively. Since our membership has increased by l,000 in the last year, and we have sold a pamphlet on India produced by our members to one in every five English students, since the U.L.F. policy includes a great deal of considerable importance for the future of English universities, I would have thought that if your columns treated of the U.L.F. at all they might have contained an authoritative statement as to the history and policy of the U.L.F. This would prevent ignorance masquerading under anonymity. The U.L.F. headquarters in London would be only too willing to provide you with particulars, I am sure. The Communist party would be equally willing to inform you as to the activities of its members in the universities.—I am,
Previous page
