Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line

The staff of SCEF

Responses from SCEF: ’SCEF has made mistakes but does valuable work’


First Published: The Call, Vol. 10, No. 3, April 1981.
Transcription, Editing and Markup: Paul Saba
Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above.

We, the staff of SCEF, would like to comment on Delta Dawn’s letter.

The usefulness of the Southern Conference Educational fund was never “reduced to nil” as our growing list of supporters knows. With their help, we currently are playing an important role in the National Anti-Klan Network and helping the Southern Student Activist Network get off the ground.

Members of our 40-odd-year-old organization participate in battles on a variety of fronts throughout this region. We still publish the Southern Struggle, a major south-wide progressive newspaper, which has provided in-depth coverage of everything from the Miami rebellion to the position of women in the South.

In short, we are today a lot of what Delta Dawn believes we are not.

SCEF is certainly not the influential organization it was during the 1960s. It is a shadow of its former self. Bluntly, every Southern organization is. The participation of CPML members in SCEF was just one of many factors which influenced us for better or for worse.

Those of us in SCEF have made mistakes, undoubtedly are making mistakes today, and will make mistakes in the future. We don’t have the slightest doubt though that SCEF has, is doing, and will continue to do valuable work for the Southern movement!

Finally, SCEF will change its form, join a broader coalition, or maintain its structure and outlook when and only when its supporters and members decide to do so. Delta Dawn’s idea that the CPML should decide to abolish SCEF is a mistaken one. We assume that the CPML realizes and unites with this fact of life.

We are surprised that the Party’s newspaper would print a criticism of an organization of SCEF’s nature. We suggest that if you wish to let your readers know about SCEF in the future, you speak to our officers, staff, members and supporters. As is common in our type of organization, we disagree on many matters. But we can all tell you about the need for SCEF in the South, and about its slow but steady advances every week.

Thank you.