I guess I should chime in since I was in Samson’s class when that WMLA guy came by. My memory is pretty fuzzy. If by bringing this up, Kane is trying to support a theory that Williams profs systematically seek to indocrinize Williams students in radical socialist policy, which I feel is the implication, than I vehemently disagree. If it’s merely an exercise in historical curiosity, then sure, the WMLA, in hindsight, should not have been invited in.

Samson is a really, really good guy, he was one of my favorite profs as a first year. I imagine he is a liberal, but he taught Econ 101 straight-up. I believe the WMLA spoke for one part of one class period. I imagine Samson’s motivation, and I don’t think it was misconceived in theory, was to get a little balance from the neat oh-so-appealing basic theory of Econ 101 to show how, in reality, there can be troubling consequences for an entire economic region that mathematical theories don’t necessarily adequately account for. Given that N.A. was in dire straights in the mid-90’s (much, much, much better shape now), learning about a local economy that had been devastated by factories leaving the area was interesting and appropriate. Actually, I think the history of North Adams is a fascinating case study in many ways (see Downside Up for a good introduction) but now I’m getting off-point.

Now, I do vaguely recall the WMLA guy wearing plaid shirts and work-boots and making us all feel really guilty, and if memory serves I signed a sheet just to not look bad, and was hounded by them for a little while afterwards. In hindsight, the WMLA invite was certainly a bad idea. But at least for Samson, I’m confident he didn’t expect a radical cult-like prosthletzying, but rather an interesting real-life perspective to complement the straight spoon-fed appeal of keyensian econ 101. And I can’t say it was the most troubling / disturbing speaker I saw at Williams (that would be Conrad Muhammad for sure, with Robert Novak as a close second just because it was disturbing how such an enormous idiot could become a prominent conservative voice).

As for Willingham, although I had him as a prof, I don’t think the group came in to my Willingham class, so I won’t comment. But at worst, perhaps one prof on campus was misguided with good intentions, and one may have had an agenda, but one prof with an agenda does not a conspiracy make. And in any event, as Samson notes in his comments, Williams students get far more of the Goldman / Morgan Stanley perspective on the costs and benefits of corporate restructions (or should I just leave it at benefits from their perspective) than the leftist neo-marxist perspective in any event.

In sum, I think the idea of inviting WMLA was not necessarily ill-conceived, the problem was with the definite cult-like propensities of the group and the fact that they used their invite (which I am guessing, knowing Samson, was obtained under at least partially false pretenses) to try to guilt students into signing up for the organization.

Jeff worries that “Kane is trying to support a theory that Williams profs systematically seek to indocrinize Williams students in radical socialist policy.”

Untrue! How many times do I need to say this? There is no meaningful amount of systematic (or unsystematic) indoctrination at Williams! I would teach, say, PSCI 100 in an identical manner (although certainly less skillfully) than Marc Lynch or Sam Crane or virtually anyone else. The only reason that we have gone down this rabbit hole is that Morty insisted on misleading the readers of the Diversity Report about what suggestions had been received from outsiders and about their likely motivations.

But, having drunk the magic elixir, I will do everything I can to find out what really happened. Thanks to Jeff for taking the time to tell us this bit of history.

Also, for the record, I am not sure if I agree with Jeff that the WMLA “should not have been invited in.” First, professors at Williams do (and should!) have virtually total freedom in what goes in their classrooms. If Samson wants to invite in WMLA, then that is fine by me. Second, being a great lover of all things extreme, I would probably invite in WMLA. The more different viewpoints that students are exposed to the better.

To the extent that mistakes were made, it was in not realizing the cult-like aspects and hard-core totalitarian connections of WMLA and warning students about them. That mistake is, presumably, no longer made.

Kane has already come to his conclusions on this and is now playing a game with us: pretending to be the objective seeker of facts and truth. This is all about an ideological agenda to embarrass the college into enacting affirmative action for conservatives. Here is what Kane said in his last post on this issue:
“Ignoring the highly unusual and extreme examples of people like Alex Willingham allowing his classroom to be used to suck Williams students into a dangerous cult, there is nothing wrong — from an ideological diversity point of view — with what goes on in a Williams classroom.”
So, “people like Alex Willingham” are “extreme.” The verdict has already been established. Willingham is in cahoots with a “dangerous cult” of crazy leftists bent on brain-washing our children and destroying our beloved Williams. All I can say to this is: bullsh*t (and I mean that in the philosophical manner a la Harry Frankfurt).
So, when Kane says: “Sam Crane asserts that I am a bad person for even wanting to know what happened, for reporting what people say about those events,” it is an example of the same philosophic principle discussed by Frankfurt. What I object to, as I believe is made plain in the language of my last post, is the characterization of Alex Willingham as an extremist. Kane has never met Willingham, has virtually no real understanding of who Willingham is, but he somehow believes that he can casually defame him by calling him an exremist on this public blog. That is just wrong. And now he has the temerity to come back with this post, pretending that he is on some sort of fact-finding mission for the good of all.
But let’s step back for a moment and see what has actually been accomplished here. In the midst of a “seminar” concerning diversity issues at Williams, Kane has managed to single out the black man for unfair criticism. Brilliant. Whatever Morty’s problems in managing the diversity initiatives here, he is head and shoulders above the sorry embarrassment of Ephblog.
In anticipation of Kane’s rebuttal: yes, you are singling Alex out. Tauber had, by your account, merely misled himself; while Alex, supposedly, knowingly persisted. And, yes, the criticism, especially the characterization of extremist, is unfair. You are labeling an entire career, a career that includes much good and much value to Williams. And the label you are using - extremist - is inaccurate and biased. The only honorable thing, at this point, is to retract that label and apologize.

I don’t understand why you don’t accept Samson’s and Willingham’s assertions in the article that “both asked Coffin to talk to students in their introductory classes about the difficulties of living in the Berkshires on a minimum wage salary”. Seems like an open and shut one-time “oops” moment unless I’m missing something. as such, it is no sign of a college problem of proselytizing, just a very disturbing tale that should serve as a precaution to anyone interested in bringing outside speakers in to class. as such it is valuable. as a sign of morty misleading people, considering I had never heard of this incident until many years after graduating, isn’t it slightly possible that it wasn’t on Morty’s mind when he started and wrote about the Diversity Initiatives in response to accusations of a racially uncomfortable campus.

Of course, perhaps you (or someone else) wrote to him about the incident. At which point, he may have looked at Williams under him and discovered that no such mistakes have been made (or made and discoverred) and thus was a non-issue. Wouldn’t that be a feasible argument?

Professor Crane,

Maybe you should pull out a grammar textbook for a refresher on diagramming sentences, because your assertion that David Kane is saying So, “people like Alex Willingham” are “extreme.” is incorrect at best, and a selective strawman at worst.

It’s is quite obvious from Kane’s sentence that he is NOT calling Alex Willingham extreme

“Ignoring the highly unusual and extreme examples of people like Alex Willingham allowing his classroom to be used to suck Williams students into a dangerous cult, there is nothing wrong — from an ideological diversity point of view — with what goes on in a Williams classroom.”

Note that the EXAMPLES are extreme (i.e., outliers), not people. And what examples might we be talking about? Alex Willingham allowing his classroom to be used to suck Williams students into a dangerous cult. David Kane is, in no way shape or form calling Alex Willingham extreme, and it is completely irresponsible for you to warp the sentence to say that.

Note that this is not the first time we have seen the inability to read and parse sentences lead to wild accusations based on a flagrant misreading of text with a prejudgment of the utteror. This same “ingrammacy” lay behind the Horowitz tempest in a teacup, simply because a bunch of students could not figure out that “the virus” was the idea of antisemitism, not Muslims and Arabs.

Incidentally, even if DK were to refer to Alex Willingham as “an extremist”, it would not be defamatory as Prof. Crane incorrectly asserts. Not only would such a statement be an assertion of opinion rather than an assertion of fact that falls well within the Fair Comment exception, but it would not even not fall into any of the libel per se categories.

I did not call Alex Willingham an “extremist”!

To the extent that Sam (or Willingham) interpreted it that way, I apologize. In retrospect, I can see how my original formulation was unclear. Let me restate.

The entire situation of Williams College professors inviting representatives of a totalitarian-leaning cult to lecture in their classrooms and recruit students to their group — leading to three (!) students dropping out of Williams and, in at least one case, being forcibly separated from their families and friends in a terrifying fashion — was extreme and unusual and shocking and, one hopes, unlikely to be repeated.

I would be pleased to know what adjectives Sam Crane would like to use to describe this incident if he does not like mine.

Alex Willingham is not an extremist. By all accounts, he is an excellent professor. How many times do I need to confirm this?

By the way, what does Willingham’s race have to do with any of this?

One of the purposes of this little trip down memory lane is to establish whether or not this was, in Rory’s words, a “one-time ‘oops’ moment.” If it was, then great.

But my source for this history, a member of the Williams faculty not in the Political Science department, claims that it was not an “oops,” that Tauber was, more likely than not, misleading others and that Willingham was, after the facts came out, defending WLMA as an organization, not just his decision to invite it to his classroom.

Now, perhaps my source is wrong. Many years have passed. Memories fade. Perhaps my source is malicious, reporting to me things that did not happen. But, if I have established anything in the last few years, it is that when I claim that a source says X, you can have a fair amount of faith in the claim.

Not to mention the fact that I have documented that Josh Resnick ‘95 referred to Willingham’s actions as “incredibly irresponsible.”

Again, just because I say something or my source says something or Josh Resnick says something does not make it true. Nor are we even all saying the same thing. But Sam is much too smart to believe that my only or even main goal here is to push for “affirmative action for conservatives” at Williams. Surely this blog has demonstrated nothing if not my dogged interest in interesting parts of Williams history.

With luck, much of this history would become more clear if we could get a look at the Record coverage of that era.

As to Rory’s guess about Morty’s thought process, I agree. I do not think he was thinking of this incident. Indeed, since he was not at Williams at the time, he might not even know about. His use of the word “proseltyzing” was, I think, a misleading characterization of the main concern of people like me. It is without a doubt a misleading description of the actual submissions to the Diversity web site.

Hi-

I remember when the WMLA came into one of my classes, although I don’t remember which class it was (I took classes with both Samson and Willingham). I remember the hard sell and I also signed the list that was passed around. I don’t remember the prof actually endorsing the group– it was just one more perspective that was added to the mix. I do remember that they attempted to contact me afterwards, but it was just once and I was left alone after that. It was understood amongst my peers that there were a few groups hovering around campus with cultish tendencies, and WMLA got pegged as one of those types of groups pretty early on.
Loweeel– I didn’t read Prof. Crane’s comments as an accusation of defamation in a purely legal context. Law student?

Yup, and finally more than halfway through it.

I don’t really see any accusation of defamation (or even the word itself) as having any non-legal meaning. I mean, it might be unfair, misrepresentative or even disparaging, but it’s not defamatory.

Can tell. I don’t intend to be partonizing, but when you’re in law school its hard to not see words like “casually defame” as anything but an actual legal accusation. I sincerely doubt that was Prof. Crane’s intent.
It took me a couple of years to deprogram myself from seeing law everywhere, although my clerkship prolonged the suffering of my friends and family (lets just say I was able to ruin most anything with a legal bent-the news, movies, or any television show with a legal storyline. I miss Law & Order. Terribly.) Although I maintain that I have a well-founded fear of rogue scales falling on me whenever I’m in a train station.

Sam,

Bo hao ma?

“Ignoring the highly unusual and extreme examples of people like Alex Willingham allowing his classroom to be used to suck Williams students into a dangerous cult, there is nothing wrong — from an ideological diversity point of view — with what goes on in a Williams classroom.”
So, “people like Alex Willingham” are “extreme.”

I simply don’t think your implication is accurate or fair.

I do not share David’s “ideological agenda,” if such it be. I grew up under the influence of Jack Schaar (who always wore checkered workshirts, and supported various labour organizations over the years) and his student, Mark Reinhardt. However I critique that tradition, I fundamentally believe in its underlying values.

And the only way I can parse the sentence you quote above, is that “extreme” modifies “examples” references “allowing.” The example action is extreme, Alex is not.

Now, after years of training in Rhetoric and associated disciplines, I’m all for allowing referentiality to slip, and examining other possible interpretations of a sentence; and for seeing that a statement’s “meaning” may lie in the sum of its potential readings, not any fixed “literal” interpretation.

I don’t see that in play here. I don’t see an ad hominem against Alex. Previously, I did not take David’s comments about Mark Reinhardt, whom I consider a mentor, as “ideologically driven insults.” I’m not interested in picking fights and getting my feathers in a huff.

I believe you are engaging in a “error of grammar,” as Wittgenstein put in the the Tractatus, which I read on the plane between Detroit and Boston, on the way to Prof. Gerrard’s 1:10P seminar in the second floor classroom of Griffin, in the mid-winter of ‘95, it must have been.

That seminar was intensely frustrating: the students didn’t begin to touch Wittgenstein’s theory of language. Ironically, they made the very “errors of grammar” that Wittgenstein had seen as so critical to human history, as he sat in a kajak in the fjords of Norway, putting together the principles of the Tractatus. They turned random pieces of Wittgenstein into a lot of drivel.

Thus they didn’t even touch the larger principles, the theses, the theory of history and causation, the prescriptions for human language and thought. They didn’t get that these elements were there. By the end, the discussion declined to comparing random Wittgenstein quotes to last week’s Simpsons episode, as the few engaged students rolled their eyes.

Of course, four weeks earlier, I wouldn’t have been able to get Wittgenstein in the ride from Detroit to Boston. Judith Butler had just taken us through parts of Hegel, Freud and Althusseur (again) in the Rhetoric seminar room in Dwinelle; had just shown us how she grasped those levels of the texts. And that was enough of a “primer” to see levels of Wittgenstein that would otherwise have taken me weeks of hard work– if I had gotten them at all.

Had anyone tried comparing Hegel to the Simpsons in Judith’s seminar… well, they had better have been darn right, which the Williams students weren’t. As I sat in Steve’s class, I worked through my memories of Judith’s seminar a few days before, and the points at which she had sternly shut down “dumb” comments, keeping the seminar on track.

As Chris and I walked away from Stetson, I wondered what it was like for Steve to teach a group of students who… well, weren’t there to learn. Whose heads were still in Simpsons episodes for half the class. Who probably hadn’t read as much of the text as I had on the plane. Chris and Jose and I would have a better discussion, later that night, before I headed back to Boston for the midnight shift at BBN, but that discussion was limited by the fact that so many of Chris and Jose’s Williams classrooms were not engaged in the material.

Stepping away from these ancedotes of the consequences of education past– basic grammar matters. It matters if our students notice that David is talking about an incident, and not making an ad hominem attack on Alex. “Rules of Grammar,” like Robert’s Rules of Order, stop us from stepping on each others’ meanings and interpreting statements through our own limited ideological perspectives.

Which is what I will respectfully submit that you may have been doing above.

And to beat my favorite lame horse, why are we so focused on conflict with each other, instead of co-operation?

And looks like Lowell got to the main point here, though not in a way I would have chosen to say it.

I consider myself a sophist in the sense that, in the Greece where that term took hold, it applied to both Socrates and Plato. To try the kind of alternate translation that Harold Bloom is so much better than me at, Philo-sophia is “love of language,” “love of speech,” or to reference the tenth book of the Republic, “love of the ideal kingdom of speech,” the polis governed by true speech.

While I understand Lowell’s distinction, like those early sophists– including especially Socrates, at least as presented by Plato– I believe there is nothing but doxa, “opinion” in modern English, though the “dogma” implication is quite present. I believe that good and correct opinions are all we can strive for.

Thus, I’m not so much concerned in whether David would be legally defaming Alex. I’m concerned whether to call Alex an “extremist” would be a wrong opinion. I’m pretty sure it would be.

Now, not to take the above discussions of someone like Althusseur back up through Freud and Nietzsche to Kant and Leibniz and Descartes, or forward to Foucault and other more contemporary theorists– but it seems to me that what is at stake here is a little more than just reading our grammar books.

Thought we could stop at Orwell’s Politics and the English Language, and other essays, to get a sense of just how important structuring grammars are…

The point of that is not that Sam’s “error” is not simply an “error…” Errors of grammar are themselves structured; they follow a pattern, and they determine the shape of our thoughts and politics.

Or to stake that as one of the founding principles of Rhetoric today– insomuch as there is Rhetoric today– language forms discourse and politics. The practices of language, as practiced, create the bounds of politics.

I am sorry that this arises from a personal example– but how is it that a relatively innocuous claim by David, is taken as an ad hominem by Sam? What end does the “error of grammar” serve? And why does it lead to such an extreme, vocal and gutteral denunciation of David, his project and intents?

As Foucault would have it, the above is a disiplinary practice. The literal meanings of the statements– and their logic on first reading– has nothing to do with it. The meaning of the form is that David is being told his statement is outside the bounds. That is a disciplinary action.

Boundard violation. Penalty box. Sit over there. Who is in charge here? Who– or what process– makes the rules of inclusion?

Not to say that I haven’t been guilty of the above. But I don’t see the above as all that different from the bus driving off from Rosa Parks after she paid her fare or, later, refusing to sit her in the whites section.

This is about inclusion. Will David have to clean himself up and speak right and mind his opinions to sit with the white boys in the clubhouse at Williams? To get an invite to the next party?

Will URMs? International students?

When will Williams be “ours?,” in the sense of pluralism and togetherness that word implies? Sure ain’t today.

Let me make sure what I wrote previously is clear:

I do not remember Jennifer disputing any empirical facts of the article, nor did she claim any quotes attributed to her were not what she had said. Rather her claim was more along the lines of “If I had written about my experience, it would have come out very differently.” A further claim was that she felt the reporter did understand her perspective but chose not to communicate it.

The philosophical issues of a journalist writing an article from a viewpoint very different from the viewpoint of its main subject are too complicated for me to think about now.

I did not know Jennifer all that well, and I probably remember this incident for what it taught me about newspapers more than for any other reason. I am unable to accurately further elaborate on Jennifer’s viewpoint, or to pass any judgement on its validity or usefulness.

What matters is that David was constructing a category of “exteme” behavior, and had already placed Alex in that category, all the while saying he was not “passing judgment.” He had already passed judgment.
I will take up Ken’s point on Foucault but revise it to say mine was a counter-disciplinary disciplinary action. David is attempting to discipline what he sees as the leftist-liberals at Williams. He complains constantly that none of us is willing to take up Republican Party positions. He wants self-defined conservatives on the faculty. He must right this terrible wrong! And then he goes too far: suggesting Reinhardt is a political clone of his father; asking publicly if Shanks uttered a racist term; lobbing the ocassional snark at Lynch and me. So, yes, most faculty have given up on the silliness of Ephblog (they shake their heads and wonder why I persist). Only the intrepid McAllister comes anywhere close (does he know you have added him to your “authors” list?) But somebody has to push back when he brings out the paddle - this time the image of Alex as leftist cult facilitator - to discipline the wayward political science department yet again.
So, I guess I will give up. Ken is right. I have sunk to the level of rhetorical referee. And that’s no fun. So, adieu Ephblog. You’ll just have to argue among yourselves from here on out, without my disciplinary actions (I have to do enough of that with my kids, anyway).

I apologize if i make an errror of grammar, but here’s how I saw the original sentence and why it caught my nerve, as it did Professor Crane’s:

“people like”. What type of people is this? One could think he is speaking of “foolish” people, but there is no indicator that that is his meaning. In fact, the only word that could explain what type of people Willingham is like is the term “extreme”. Now, I see that such an understanding is grammatically incorrect, and David can claim (and this is likely true) that he was being misinterpreted.

However, as much as grammar has rules and the such, there is also truth to the fact that such moments of ambiguous language use (that’s not exactly the best way to describe it) lead to connections in people’s brains. So in seeing a sentence that uses the terms “extreme” and “people like” without a clear adjective explaining the type that “people like” is referring to will lead to an assumption that “people like” speaks of something that leads to “extremism”. Such careful (or, I hope and believe in this case, unintentional) innuendo is a very common tactic in dirty politics.

Kinda like that last sentence could be seen as accusing david of dirty politics. which i’m not doing. which is why I have this additional worthless paragraph. I think I’m going to end now…

I hope to be able to respond to Sam’s comments above in more detail at a later date. In the meantime:

1) I am sad to see Sam leave EphBlog. For several years, he has been one of our most informed and insightful commentators. He will be missed. With luck, over time, we will all produce an on-line community of such depth and diversity that he will want to come back. Time will tell.

2) Sam asks “[D]oes he [McAllister] know you have added him to your “authors” list?” You have known me (virtually) for almost two years. Do you really think that I would add someone to our authors list without there permission? In any event, the answer to your question is “Yes, with his permission.” Feel free to check with James yourself, if you like.

Alas, all of this goes back to the central problem with EphBlog. The central problem is that, in the main discussion starting posts, there is too much me and not enough everyone else. What EphBlog desperately needs is someone with a different outlook from mine who is also willing to put in the time and effort to start the conversation. We have an excellent range of viewpoints in our discussions and our current authors cover the political spectrum. But we need more posts from someone who looks at the world and at Williams differently than I do.

In fact, what we really need is for Sam to join us as an author, to help lead our virtual conversation with the same skill and verve that he leads a classroom discussion at Williams.

Sam, we have hundreds of readers a day. We are more widely read by Williams students than any single Williams faculty member. We are more widely read by alumni than anything other than the Alumni Review. But we need you. Please join us.

Rory,

Thanks for your explanation of your thought process; it is appreciated, and as with Sam’s comments (also much appreciated), will be thought through.

Sam,

As above, thanks for your comments.

When I have a chance, I will review the history of David’s comments that you cite above– many of which occurred before I cam to this forum–, and see if I come to a different conclusion.

I have also held off from any comment here for about 24 hours, because my comments above were certainly meant to be inflamatory, and I wanted to make some attempt to try to see things from your point of view. Which I will continue to do.

However, at this moment, what I want to ask is, “what do you expect from this forum?” And what is it about this kind of public forum that is so disturbing to, if I may turn a phrase of Wendy Brown’s, “the liberal boys who raised me?”

What kind of response or discussion could I give that would be satisfactory? What would be a meaningful and useful discussion– from your perspective.

My series of arguments above– though presented in a sort of folksy style– were hardly unintended and unconsidered. It might have been more artful not to draw them to final conclusions– to not be so blunt and accusatory in the final paragraphs– especially given that I was fairly sure what kind of reaction it would provoke.

After all the review above, the bottom line is, I don’t feel myself likely to come to the same conclusions you do. My quick characterization of that would be that, while David may engage in the occasional “hack job,” and while I can see why and how his characterization of Mark Reinhardt can be taken negatively, — and while David and I have very different approaches and perspectives– I’m still inclined to take his approach at “face value,” ignore anything that I otherwise take as a “deficiency of approach”– and simply not see the “disciplinary” attack on professors that you assert.

Not to go so far as to say that I don’t think professors need a little more discipline.

I’m perfectly willing to re-evaluate the above, immediately, and over a period of years. Many of the personalities involved are dear to me, after all, not to mention the intellectual issues.

Are you willing to respect and accept that I may never come to a similar conclusion as you? The implication of what you write above seems to be that you are not; that such opinions are beneath your consideration, and simply wrong, and… well, while I am not naming it very well, there also seems to be an assertion of comparative intelligence and judgement.

While I appreciate your frustration in the face of the above, I also believe it was fair. And one of my many points was to put you in a light that was as condemnatory as that which you seemed to be shining on David.

As Hannah Arendt so frequently remarked, the public sphere is withering to the individual. But in contrast to “Ms. Arendt”– I always use that phrase because Hannah uttered it to Morris Kaplan ‘63 when she met him on the steps of the library at Columbia, correcting his pronunciation– I believe that we only learn to withstand those pressures by the practice of politics. My evaluation of the “Left,” wherever it is these days, is that it abandoned the public realm some decades ago. (Morris started telling me me that I needed to build a New Left, many years after Bob Jackall started feeding me the line that the left was “exhausted,” if you want some idea of how far I may be from David in founding principles).

From the above, I hope you will understand that any insult to faculties of intelligence and judgement produces little more than a quizzically raised eyebrow– and a bit of wonder at what seems an ill-advised attempt at browbeating.

More quizzically put, I believe that campuses are the tombs and sepulchers of that tradition– though Walter Kaufmann ’41’s translation has never been adequate to that phrase in its original.

Regardless, I very much hope you return here. And that, in a few years, we might try these sorts of conversations in Mandarin– though for the next months, I have reason to focus on Spanish competency.

Yours,

I was a full-time organizer with an affiliate of the National Labor Federation, which WMLA is a part of for 14 years. Although I know for a fact that WMLA does provided much needed aid to the low income community, full-time volunteers have been subjected to physical, mental, verbal and emotional abuse, not justifiable by the benefits provided to the community. There is a discussion going on among ex-full-time volunteers/organizers at:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/304593.shtml
It is of note that no one taking part in the discussion who worked with National Labor Federation for any length of time suggest anyone get involved on a full-time basis.