NO STRING here will be decisive.
freezing of funds. Both of these must receive a sharp reply. 1. It is argued by college authorities that a constitution free from their interference is an impossibility because this breaks the law of the land. Indeed college authorities are quite prepared, as at LSE, to take the whole issue to the courts. This is no reason for the fight to cease. It is obvious to even the most apolitical student that many of the legal prescriptions which are now being invoked were only dug up in the present period. Their implementation is a quite clear political act and has to be fought as such. But, as socialists we should also be clear as to the nature of bourgeois law. It is always used in the last analysis to protect the interests of the few against the vast majority. It is a nonsense to prociaim its "Impartiality". It is precisely this "impartiality" which gave us, for instance, the anti-trade union laws and the racist immigration laws. No socialist would recommend that the majority of the working class or the blacks in this country should meekly submit to these "Laws of the land". Neither should we. There must be: Full support, including national mobilisation of all students, to any college which defies the law in the fight for an autonomous constitution. 2. In line with this first point, there must be unrelenting opposition to any standardised aims and objects clause. Such a scheme in conjunction with the courts would be precisely the registrar through the back door. 3. There must be UNCONDITIONAL support for all mass actions by students in furtherance of the autonomy struggle. Where funds are frozen, this must include active encouragement to seize administration facilities in lieu of the return of these funds, and also provision of loans to such colleges, by national levy if necessary.
It is vital that any leadership elected at this conference is committed to the implementation of at least the above points.
-J.R. Clynes