(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 withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor of the Crimson:

There are several questions in regard to R. O. T. C. training at Harvard which I as a Mil Sci I student feel I may be able to aid in clearing up. It is unfortunate that this issue has arisen, but since it has, it is only right to try for a clear understanding.

One thing to be realized by all interested in this question is that the criticism offered by the Crimson was aimed primarily at the instruction in Mil Sci I. Harvard in the past has had excellent Mil Sci I instruction and the present instructors in Mil Sci II, III, and IV are extremely capable. In view of this it should be admitted that advance students in Military Science are not qualified to speak on this subject unless prepared to say that they are fully acquainted with the conditions in Mil Sci I.

It is not to be believed that the Crimson denies any instructor the right to express an opinion before a class. But then, no student in Mil Sci I can deny that the charges of the Crimson in general are true. Such persistent conduct on the part of an instructor can never result in good.

Through a rather tactless display of emotionalism various students have evaded the real issue. What really matters is not the views of any R. O. T. C. instructor but the effect their expression has on the quality of the instruction. As a Mil Sci student, I am forced to say that the quality of instruction has degenerated to the point where it consists of some rereading in class of the text and the showing of a few dated movies. This is the real harm in the relegation of instruction to a secondary position in comparison to the reading of emotional political articles.

Recently a test in Mil Sci I was given on material assigned in various degrees over the period of a month. Three-fourths of that material had never been explained or mentioned in class. Military Science is a highly technical subject. In spite of this, it has been two months since a firing problem, the understanding of which is an integral part of the course, has been worked in Mil Sci I. Due to the accumulation of such factors as these, I have, with others, decided it useless to attempt a continuation in Military Science.