To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The United Ministry to Students certainly joins with the students of Harvard in opposition to racial discrimination, regardless of its point of origin. However, the failure of moral embargoes in wordly affairs should teach us to implement moral opposition with every instrument available. Although the United Ministry cannot endorse the right of any student to patronize night clubs, we are very willing to join with all other groups in an attempt to close down the Club 100. As we see it, at least three issues are involved in the Club 100 controversy, and although the first is the primary point of student concern, the other two issues provide the means of enforcing public opinion.

The first issue, of course, is that of racial discrimination.

The second issue is whether or not this is a private club in fact, operating according to the license granted to it; if not, the license should be revoked.

The third issue is the immorality of a law which allows an organization to operate on the level of a private club and on the level of a place of public sale at the same time, while failing to fulfill the responsibilities of either.

Before we went to grammar school, most of us recited the jingle, "Sticks and stones can break my bones, but names will never hurt me." Picketing amounts to little more than restrained name-calling; revoking the license would perhaps break the Club 100 in more ways than one...and provide other establishments with an example of what a student opposition can produce. Sincerely,

The University Ministry to Students BAPTIST: Rev. Prentiss L. Pemberton; CONGREGATIONAL: Rev. Leonard G. Clough; EPISCOPAL: Rev. Frederic B. Kellogg, Rev. John. W. Ellison; FRIENDS: Mr. George A. Selleck; JEWISH: Rabbi Harry Essrig; LUTHERAN: Rev. Edmund A. Steinile; METHODIST: Rev. Earle H. Furgeson, Rev. George T. Kennedy; PRESBYTERIAN: Rev. Cecil H. Rose, Rev. Alison R. Bryan; UNITARIAN: Rev. Robert B. Day.