(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters but under special conditions, at the request of the writer, names will be withheld.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The criticisms made in your editorial Monday of Norman Thomas' platform, his chance of election, and the importance of his presence at Harvard are, it seems to me, themselves rather unsound.

The Socialist platform you call unconvincing. Do you mean that the other platforms are more so than the Socialist--when in the next sentence you admit a "baffling indistinction" between the major parties? In the program of the Socialist Party, there is explained an objective and material attitude, which recommends enforcement of freedom of speech, press, and assembly, and definite unemployment relief and labor legislation. The platform may be wrong on some specific points; but it tackles real issues squarely, and a sweeping condemnation cannot be scientifically made.

His chance of election you call a problem in higher mathematics. Norman Thomas will poll a small percentage of votes and he will not be elected; the error in any estimate of the number of his votes is insignificant in its relation to the result desired, knowledge of the outcome of this election.

Yesterday at the Harvard Union Norman Thomas in addition made perfectly plain that he is not expecting to meet the American test in this election--success--but that he is using this opportunity to educate the people of the United States. With faithless public servants in high office, with the tremendous bribes of the public, utilities, and with the increasing imperialism of the United States--this education is worth while. And the historical importance of a third party has always been in forcing changes upon the two major parties.

In view of these facts, the importance of Norman Thomas' visit to Harvard is more than an example of "opposition which ultimately aids knowledge", more than proof of the "existence of a party devoted mainly to the theoretical side of government", more than proof that Harvard is "unrestricted by the prejudice....which fears unrest and smothers disagreement." E.C. Berkeley '30

Ed Note: The CRIMSON wishes to make clear that it implied no slighting comparison of the Socialist platform to that of the two major parties in its editorial entitled, "Crying in the Wilderness". The sentence in regard to the clear cut principles of the Socialist platform and the baffling indistinction of the other, two was meant to establish this beyond a shadow of doubt.

The editorial tried to make clear that in spite of his meagre chances of election Mr. Thomas' candidacy was valuable from the standpoint of education and as a militant publicity for aspects of government often neglected. The CRIMSON takes this opportunity of reaffirming this conviction and pointing to its agreement with the spirit of the preceding letter.