To the Editor of the Crimson:

Since the time of "Lo, the butter stinketh" criticism of Harvard food has not approached that existing today. Besides, petitions in the various Houses the complaint has taken the form of arguments with waitresses and roll fights. It seems obvious that the present system will not be tolerated by the student body for long. If the Dining Halls expect to solve their financial deficit by such means I am afraid they shall fail.

It is quite obvious that they could not continue to operate at a loss of over $40,000 for the remainder of the school year. However, before a new plan with such drastic changes was instituted they would have found it a much wiser policy to consult the student body. This they say they did. They say the Student Council approved their action. However, I am told the Student Council never interpreted their plan to mean that absolutely no side orders and absolutely no substitutions would be allowed except at extra prices. Whether the Student Council was misled or not, the fact still remains that the majority of the students are dissatisfied with the present arrangement.

I feel that the prospective deficit and the present squabbling might have been avoided by a rise in the weekly board rate. The Dining Halls administration and the University authorities will say that such a policy would necessitate a greater increase than some students are able to afford. Yet they never bothered to show us in actual dollars and cents what such a plan would cost. We do not ask any unreasonable arrangement. If an increase in board rate alone would not cover the deficit, the student body would be willing to cut down on some of its table luxuries. But when the prices charged for extras and substitutions are so high that they make prohibitive even the purchase of such things as milk, then the students will naturally protest. At the present rates only one extra glass of milk per meal would cost $1.05 per week. The effect is for the students not to buy the milk. Such a system operates in a prohibitive manner.

If we were asked to cooperate by trying to eliminate excess waste, by not ordering more than we think we can eat, by limiting our side orders to one by having a choice of only two salads, I am sure the deficit could be covered. An increase in board rate plus more stringent regulations on the ordering of extras and substitutions would do the trick.

A policy such as the present one is foolish. Those who would support it in the name of national defense are mistaken. In the first place there is no real food shortage. We do not compete much with national defense when we eat more food. In fact the government would encourage such a policy in order to divert surplus money, from competing with the government for durable goods.

I suggest a reinvestigation. Howard A. Fromson '43.