The Daily Orange

Early this fall Adam Katz and I, Bob Nowlan, were contacted by a reporter from The Daily Orange who wished to do a story for The Daily Orange about the Marxist Collective at Syracuse University. What transpired may be of some interest to readers of The Alternative Orange — and to readers of The Daily Orange.

To begin, I was first contacted by phone when Dave Clary, the D.O. reporter, left a message on my answering machine on the evening of Monday, September 14th indicating that he was writing a story on the MCSU and wished to talk with me about it. Since I did not return home until late that night, and since I did not think that a D.O. story was a matter of great urgency (and in fact was not particularly interested in the prospect) I only noted this message as a point of information. The next day Adam Katz called me and told me that Mr. Clary had called to arrange a time to talk with Adam about the same story later in the week. Late that night — at 11:30 p.m. — Mr. Clary called me, and I told him that this was not a good time to talk, and that he could try calling me back later in the afternoon on the following day, Wednesday September 16th. I was not available, however, on that day as I had a number of matters to attend to related to the courses I am teaching at O.C.C. that afternoon. However, on the 16th, Mr. Clary did talk with Adam for between 30 to 45 minutes on the phone. Adam attempted to answer Mr. Clary’s questions, and yet, it seems, not necessarily in the way that Mr. Clary had anticipated, as Adam felt it was necessary to point out to Mr. Clary that many of his questions, as he posed them, presupposed the kinds of short and simple answers to complex and difficult problems that Adam could not give without distorting and trivializing what marxism — and the MCSU — are all about. In particular, these questions asked about how it was possible to continue to be marxists given the collapse of the Soviet Union, whether socialism was realistic, and whether or not marxists were simply dismissive and disparaging of matters such as religious commitment that mattered to many people. Adam suggested that he would be happy to answer these questions and yet they could not be answered as Mr. Clary seemed to want, quickly and simply, and virtually with just a yes or a no. Adam also asked Mr. Clary to explain why he — and the D.O. — was interested in the article, what kind of article it would be, and why we would want to cooperate with an article that simply covered the MCSU as “just another student group” on campus that was different from other student groups only insofar as it supported rather “far out” kinds of ideas that most people greet with great scepticism, even if these ideas contain some — few — good points. Mr. Clary could only respond to this by suggesting that we should want an article about us to appear in the D.O. because this article would provide us with “free publicity.” Mr. Clary refused to recognize that he — and the D.O. — approach an article about marxism, and a marxist organization, from an interested political perspective, and that this interest effects the way in which they select the kinds of questions they ask us and the way they organize and describe our responses and other information about us in the articles they write — and, that, therefore, such an article could not simply be merely an occasion for “free publicity” for us. The D.O. is not simply a neutral organ, and we are not simply just another campus group. If the D.O. were simply interested in giving us free publicity, then we would be allowed to take out a free ad in the D.O., or, better yet, to write our own article about ourselves — at least dictate our own article — because, after all, we would know more and better about our organization and how we want to represent ourselves than a non-marxist, non-MCSU reporter for the D.O. In addition to this, it seemed to have been even more incomprehensible to Mr. Clary that we might not be looking for “free publicity” at all, and that joining a marxist collective is not something that happens simply by making available information about meeting times and dates — for all the budding revolutionary marxists out there among the S.U. student body to take note of and follow up. Our purpose as marxists might not be simply to try to “recruit” as large a number of members from “the general student body” as possible, but rather, as we ourselves indicate in our own self-decription, to work, by means of education, study, and research, to develop and advance marxist theory — and marxist critique of capitalist society and culture — as far as possible.

In any event, to return to the chronology, after Mr. Clary talked with Adam on the 16th, Adam called me to let me know that he had advised Mr. Clary to call me to get any additional information he needed from me to write his story should he wish to pursue such a story. I decided that I would prepare a letter indicating the MCSU’s position on a D.O. story at this time, and send him a copy of the syllabus for our prospective course in revolutionary marxism which included not only a 17 page statement of position on how we understand marxism “in the new world order” of late capitalism — and in particularly within the late capitalist academy — today, but a precise and thorough description of what the MCSU is about, what it has done, when, where, and for how long. We (and I had talked with all others in the MCSU about the prospect of a D.O. story by this time) agreed that one interview and this material would be enough to supply Clary with the material he needed if he felt like a story on the MCSU was important to the D.O. We did not want the D.O. to run a story which would distort or trivialize what we are about and what we are doing — and we had ample historical reason to fear that this might well be the case. So I typed up the following letter and enclosed a copy of the marxism course syllabus with it and sent it to Dave Clary by campus mail; and this is what I told Mr. Clary when he called me back later that weekend.

♦ ♦ ♦

September 18, 1992

Dave Clary:

I regret that I was unable to return your phone call and get back to you about your proposed story for The Daily Orange on the Marxist Collective at Syracuse University. I would like to take this time, very briefly, to address your interest.

First, I understand you talked with Adam Katz and that he provided you information in response to a number of questions you asked. I do not believe it is necessary for you to interview any other of us given that fact.

Second, we do not believe that a feature story about our organization in The Daily Orange at this point in time is likely to be of any use to us. Frankly, we are very sceptical about a story which attempts to present a “neutral” introduction to an organization such as ours as part of a series of such stories about diverse campus organizations. We believe that it is only useful for us to engage extensively with The Daily Orange if The Daily Orange will account for its own interested political position and the ways in which such a political position is in conflict with ours.

Third, we had a story about us run in The Daily Orange less than two years ago that was a complete disaster, despite the fact that the reporter taped an interview with Mr. Katz and myself. The article was full of inaccurate quotations, unaccounted for extraneous material, and even wrong facts and names. Since this reporter was at that time a student in one of Mr. Katz’s classes, and had discussed the story with Mr. Katz before the interview, we doubt any story based upon an extensive interview with us at this time is likely to be any better.

Fourth, in all of the time that I have been part of the Marxist Collective at Syracuse University, The Daily Orange has been consistently erratic in printing For Your Information material about our activities and in accurately reproducing letters to the editor from us; never has either an announcement of an activity of ours or a letter from us been reproduced with complete accuracy.

Fifth, we do not think what the MCSU is currently principally involved in doing — critical- theoretical work — is of great interest to Daily Orange readers.

Finally, since we are now cancelling our previously planned free university course and video series (see enclosed cancellation notice), what we are currently doing is even of less general interest than before.

Nonetheless, in the event that you still would like to run a story about us, I have enclosed a copy of the syllabus for the Revolutionary Marxism course (now cancelled). I suggest that the statement at the beginning of the syllabus will provide you more than enough material to know where we are coming from and what we believe. Also, you may check the section towards the end of the syllabus describing the Marxist Collective at Syracuse University as this provides a fairly thorough summary of who we are, what we do, and for how long, when and where we have been doing this.

Bob Nowlan

President, the Marxist Collective at Syracuse University

♦ ♦ ♦

Evidently Mr. Clary was not happy about any of this, because he wrote and sent the following letter to me.

♦ ♦ ♦

September 27, 1992

Dear Mr. Nowlan:

I was disappointed to read that you would rather The Daily Orange not run an article about the Marxist Collective. Of course, that is your choice, but you should have informed me of it when I first contacted you.

More than once I had to explain to my editors that this story would not come in on time because of a complete lack of cooperation by the members of the Marxist Collective. It would have saved needless time and effort on my part if you had told me of your feelings right off the bat. Instead, you and Adam Katz decided to play asinine intellectual games with me, ignorant of what I was attempting to accomplish.

My intention was not to portray the Marxist Collective as a group of ostracized “dinosaurs.” It was to be a simple piece outlining basic information about the nature of the collective so the public could read about it. The reader decides whether an article is of interest to them — not you.

There will be no article in The Daily Orange about the Marxist Collective, as you had wished in your letter. That is a pity, because I looked forward to the opportunity to learn more about Marxism from interviewing people in the collective. Unfortunately, that will not happen because of your manifest distrust of journalism and your group’s sheer arrogance toward me.

Yours,

David Clary

The Daily Orange

♦ ♦ ♦

Now it is not worth belaboring this rather mundane exchange much further. And, furthermore, readers can judge the facts for themselves. However, in response to Mr. Clary, I will simply make a few points and ask a few questions.

1. We certainly did take a considerable amount of time to “cooperate” with Mr. Clary even though we did very clearly, from the beginning — when we did have the opportunity to communicate for more than a few seconds on the phone — indicate what we thought about the prospect of a D.O. story and what kinds of questions we would answer and how so. And yet, why should we have had to go out of our way to “cooperate” with a reporter who has decided to write a story about us when we did not solicit such a story and when we saw no reason why such a story would serve any interest of ours ?

2. Why should the difficulties Mr. Clary had with his editors be a concern of ours since we did not solicit this story and saw no reason why such a story would serve any interest of ours? Why should we cooperate with the D.O.? What compels us to do so? Does freedom of the press mean that the press is free to require anyone it wants to do a story about to cooperate if it decides this is necessary? Interestingly, Mr. Clary never said he was “interested” in doing a story about the MCSU and would like to know if we would be interested in working with him on this story about us; he simply told us he was doing a story about us — and from what seemed to be the case, regardless of whether or not we were involved or not.

3. How is spending 30 to 45 minutes in an interview and sending a lengthy text with information about us and our positions “complete lack of cooperation”? If this is simply “free publicity” for us then why don’t — why shouldn’t — we have the opportunity to decide what we wanted to say or otherwise make available to the D.O., and what we did not?

4. Is simply indicating — very directly and straightforwardly — what we thought about Mr. Clary’s questions “playing asinine intellectual games”? Is asking Mr. Clary to explain why he is writing a story about us, from what vantage point and in support of what interest, and why he is asking us the questions he is and in the ways he is “playing asinine intellectual games”? What kind of “hard-nosed” reporter is Mr. Clary likely ever to become if he becomes hurt and offended so easily — and with so little cause?

5. If we were “ignorant” of what Mr. Clary was “trying to accomplish,” why did he refuse to take the opportunity — which was certainly available to him — to explain this to us? And wasn’t it all pretty clear — the D.O. decided to fill space in its pages this semester by doing a series of introductory descriptive pieces on all the campus departments and organizations and neighborhood and community businesses it could think of — for lack of the ability to imagine any other kind of campus and community news and analysis of greater interest and significance? And isn’t this the most conservative kind of news coverage possible — simply, and superficially, describing what exists?

6. If Mr. Clary’s intention was not to portray the MCSU as “ostracized dinosaurs,” then it is very surprising that his questions to Adam Katz seemed to almost literally presuppose that this was the case in the way that these questions were framed.

7. What gives Mr. Clary the right to speak for “the public”? What interest has “the public” demonstrated in what the MCSU is about and does? And is the D.O. really a good place to turn if “the public” is so interested? Those members of “the public” interested in us have had no trouble contacting us and inquiring for themselves.

8. If Mr. Clary really was interested in marxism or the MCSU he could have learned a lot by listening and talking with Adam Katz and carefully reading through the statements in the syllabus for our revolutionary marxism course. And yet he didn’t do this…

9. Is Mr. Clary and the D.O. “journalism”? And does not a revolutionary organization have quite reasonable cause, even so, to be at least somewhat suspicious of the “neutrality” of “mainstream” institutions that we would like — at least ultimately — to destroy and replace — and that we advocate so doing in our praxis (and this certainly includes newspapers like the D.O. — and communications schools like Newhouse…)?

10. Now who is really arrogant here (setting aside, for the purpose of this letter, whether or not “arrogance” is necessarily by any means a bad thing; on the contrary, it is hard to imagine working effectively as a revolutionary marxist, or as any kind of radical activist for that matter, if one does not at least in some part “arrogate” to him or herself the right and opportunity to question, contest, critique, challenge, and oppose that which is established, accepted, and entrenched…); after all, who was it but Mr. Clary who acted — and in his letter to me, writes — as if we in the MCSU should have nothing better to do with our lives but rearrange our busy schedules to “cooperate” with a reporter for The Daily Orange when he decides he wants us to do this, within the time frame he wants us to do this, and in the ways he wants us to do this. On the contrary, Mr. Clary, being marxists means we have other things to do besides waiting around to be interviewed for descriptive “feature” articles about us in mainstream student newspapers — and, forgive us our “arrogance” for presupposing that many of these other things are actually more important for us to be doing, as marxists, than “cooperating” with you on your terms. And, well, we guess you will just have to accept the fact that we are going to play one more “asinine intellectual game” with you, Mr. Clary, by not taking any more time to explain here and now, in the space of this piece, exactly what these more important other things we do are — or why we think they are more important. If you really want to know, read the Alternative Orange and find out.

Bob Nowlan

Syracuse, N.Y.