To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I naturally had a considerable personal interest in Bernard M. Gwertzman's story in this morning's CRIMSON regarding the Army ROTC plan. While I cannot disagree with the facts presented by Mr. Gwertzman in his reporting, I should like to suggest that the negative presentation results in an interpretation which I believe to be somewhat misleading.

The fundamental aspect of the Harvard proposal for modification of the ROTC was to bring about a closer integration of the civilian and military subjects in order to assure a more fully integrated program of preparation for military and civic leadership. A means to this end was the suggestion that more practical military training be done at camp, allowing the introduction of courses such as the new Military Science 2b and 4b into the College ROTC curriculum. . . .

For the reasons mentioned by Mr. Gwertzman, the Army has decided that it could not fit an augmented ROTC summer camp program into the increasingly crowded summer training schedule for Regular Army, Reserve and National Guard units.

A review of the revised Army ROTC program, however, will show that, with this single exception, the Army is allowing the Department of Military Science and Tactics to introduce the fundamental modification which we requested, and at the same time to accomplish a substantial portion of the other important subsidiary change which we desired. . . .

There is, of course, an added benefit to the Army ROTC student from the new arrangement. Under existing Faculty rules, this means that future Army ROTC students, including members of the classes of '58 and '59, will need to present only 16 1/2 course credits instead of the 17 1/2 course credits which have previously been required of all ROTC students at Harvard.

As a member of the original Faculty sub-committee which prepared the draft of that proposal, I naturally hoped that the Army would adopt it in toto. For the reasons which I have discussed above, however, I am extremely pleased with the substantial progress which we have made. . . . T. N. Dupuy,   Colonel Artillery