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

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

This week I found myself in a very irritating position. Due to the fact which compels everyone to spend a certain amount of each week at the dining halls, I found out that I was paying $8.50 for $6.90 worth of meals eaten at the house. It was a startling discovery and one which I could not let go by without some comment. Is it not trespassing against our natural rights to make us eat where we do not want to, or pay for it anyhow?

Here is how I spent my meals: 13 at Adams House, costing $8.50; three at a fraternity house, costing $2.05; one with a friend in town, costing 85 cents; and three over Thanksgiving and one missed, costing nothing. These plain figures add up to $11.40, which I paid for 21 meals, four of them costing me nothing. $1.60 of this sum went up in smoke. It was just put on extra, because I had signed up to pay a minimum of $8.50 a week. Really, the thirteen meals which I ate are listed at a price of $6.90, and the added cost seems to be a real injustice.

There are several arguments against these statistics, one might say. In the first place, one can say it is not an average week because of Thanksgiving. But this is not a good argument because you notice that I stayed in Cambridge for the week-end. There are very many, hundreds I should say, who do not eat at college over Sunday because they either live nearby or have been invited away for the week-end. Thus one day is eliminated from many bills every week.

Then one can say that the fraternity meals could be dispensed with, that these meals are highly unnecessary and superfluous. Here we have to take into account the spirit of comradeship which is a great part of college life. In the houses it is a strange thing if you known who rooms directly above or below you. In the common room you drink an after-dinner cup of coffee with an acquaintance, but that is as far as it goes. So we do like to eat meals at a fraternity or club with our close friends. It is impossible to do so at other houses because the price of entertaining guests is prohibitive to any great extent. One may argue that an organization which depends upon meals for its contacts and friendships should not be allowed to continue. Ah then, why does the House Plan force its members to eat at the dining halls? It defeats its own argument.

There are times, too, when we like to eat in town with a friend, or times when some extra sleep would do us good. But no, we have to eat in Cambridge and have to got up for breakfast because our quota of meals has not been filled.

Do not think that I an opposed to the House Plan. I believe it has some very excellent points and is worth undertaking for a college like Harvard. And why force its members to pay for meals which they do not care to eat? Rooms cost enough already. The depression is an acknowledged situation. Is there not some way by which attendance at the dining hall can be made a matter of choice? Forty weeks at $1.60 means a loss of $64, an amount which some of us can ill afford to lose.

Our souls cry out against the Great God Dining Hall. Robert K. Vincent, '32.