To the Editors of the Crimson:

Your story of March 14th on the Bureau of Study Counsel stirred bittersweet memories. May I use your columns to correct two misstatements in the article.

First, there was no distinction between "the establishment of E. Gordon Parker '96" and Parker-Cramer. The late Mr. Parker was my associate in the Parker-Cramer School. Second, the "ill-starred suit" against the Crimson was not "lost." The action was terminated by an out-of-court settlement wherein the Crimson admitted it was guilty of trespass, and Parker-Cramer discontinued the libel charge instituted against your paper. The court records do not include the separate agreement in which the Crimson agreed to pay the costs of the action. The basic reason why the case was not pressed to a judicial solution would be incredible to a crusading reporter.

A few parenthetic thoughts occur. Was the success of some of the professional tutors due entirely to "unethical" or counter-educational practices, or was it basically an indictment of Harvard teaching? Since the college examinations are not affairs of fact and rote, it cannot be said that we trained the memory and impoverished the understanding. It is possible that, in brief compass, we taught our students to think on fundamentals sufficiently well to impress their academic mentors. If this be a fault, I ery "Peccavi."

As to the "commercialization" of tutoring vis-a-vis the Athenian gentility of Harvard, I agree that it is indeed fortunate for free education in a free society that university teachers are not paid and so may speak the truth as they see it, not caring a whitney what powers they offend. Lester Cramer, C '30.