To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

If I recall correctly, the editorial appearing in the CRIMSON on Thursday last, entitled "Hostility to Harvard", merely stated the fact that hostility had been shown, gave a list of possible causes, and invited anyone who so desired to single out one of the causes as the true one. That is exactly what was done in the communication in the following day. The writer assumed that it was the desire of Harvard to quench this "detrimental resentment." Therefore he suggested as a quenching agent the remodeling, or we might say, the cospomolization of the existing society. The recent communication under the heading "A Boost for Back Bay" suggests the impossibility of changing the existing order of things. Then my answer is, "do not puzzle over why Harvard fails to attract westerners". We must choose between two alternatives, a national representation in the College, or the present social order: which brings me to the point I wish to make.

The author of the communication of March 6 has assumed that the "youth from the middle-west", who wrote the early communication, did so with the idea of criticizing the existing social order. Our non-partisan communicator thereby made the double error of jumping to hasty conclusions, and of reading into the first communication something which was not written. Having based his entire article upon a false assumption, I fail to see in it any but that questionable value of personal attack. The criticism was intended to be constructive, not destructive.

The whole question resolves itself upon this: do we want a provincial or a national college? We cannot have both Shall we change the existing society or do without westerners? Take your choice, but, whatever it is, it must be supported unanimously. ROBERT S. KELLES '23, March 8, 1921.