PAr-IS LETTER
417
present for the repression of the Algerian revolt. In so doing, they
asserted that they were remaining faithful to the Charter of the or–
ganization which, although it demands that the UNEF should associate
itself with no party, not only does not forbid it to assume positions on
matters of principle, but even recommends that it do so. The president,
M. de la Fourniere, made reference to the fact that the Ul'fEF had
also protested strongly against demonstrations at the Sorbonne by stu–
dents who had tried to prevent M. Jean Guitton from conducting his
courses, on the pretext that he had been a Petainist. In this case as
in that, the UNEF took its stand not on any political credo, M. de la
Fourniere said, but on principles of freedom and of honor which it
was its duty to defend, in the name of French students.
The attack against the present officers was led by M. Gautrot,
representing the European students of Algiers. No concessions that were
offered were sufficient to cause him to withdraw his opposition. That
the UNEF
also
condemned the atrocities committed by the Algerian na–
tionalists was not enough; he demanded that it condemn
only
those
atrocities. In the end, the group supporting the present officers won,
and 17 student associations, out of a total of about 60, left the UNEF.
Such is the present state of confusion. There is nothing astonishing
about it. France, and especially the Right in France, is accustomed
to such behavior. There was a time when to declare that Dreyfus was
innocent, that the officers of the Council of War who condemned him
were in error, was considered an insult to the army as a whole and,
through the army, to France. Consequently to say that Dreyfus was
innocent was to oppose or to betray France. To say today that there
are in Algeria men who have used inadmissible methods is regarded
in the same fashion. What a grave imprudence! The Dreyfus affair
cost the army the respect of everyone for years. There is a danger that
the blind obstinacy of the Right today may lead to consequences quite
as excessive and quite as unjust.
The break in the youth organization seems more grave than the
never-ending disputes of the Radical Party. The latter, shepherded by
M. Mendes-France, has issued once again a severe condemnation of
the government's policy. Once again, at the last moment, one of those
"motions of synthesis" of which the party was
liO
proud in Herriot's
time, has permitted it simultaneously to deliver its verdict of "guilty"–
and to permit tlie Radical ministers to continue to serve in the cabinet.
To act otherwise would have meant a new split in the group and
M. Mendes-France would have found himself at the head of a party
which, by dint of exclusions and resignations, would no longer repre-
