To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In your editorial of February 24, you objected to the Ivy Films-HLU petition, also supported by the U.N. Council, for asking the Dean to act as a scheduling clearing-house on the grounds that student organizations should settle their own disputes and that the Dean is overly meddling in these matters.

Film showings at Harvard are a major source of funds to an increasing number of undergraduate organizations. Several groups, including Ivy Films, could not exist nor other groups undertake their present range of activity without them. We may expect the importance and contribution of film showings to Harvard extra-curricular life to grow. Therefore, the showings should continue to be beneficial. Unfortunately, the present lack of regulation over the activity is rapidly proving detrimental.

Free competition can result in a rush to show strong pictures at the beginning of the term, but it would be better for the Harvard audience if the term's film fare were balanced. Some protection is necessary for late term showings. The organizations cannot solve the problem by any agreement among themselves because they have no power of enforcement. There is nothing to prevent cutthroat rescheduling. Once an organization has contracted for a film likely to net several hundred dollars profit, it is unrealistic to expect that organization to give it up on moral grounds. Nor can we expect an organization to agree at the beginning of the year not to try to get such a film because another group also wants to show it. Advance expense commitments can give a severe financial setback to the group cut out by cut-throat scheduling.

Just like a law, the Dean's word has authority. As it is justifiable to pass a law in the public interest, it is certainly justifiable for the Dean's Office to enforce regulations which will protect showings. We have had one theft and a schedule dispute in the last three months. Since we may expect film showings to continue to be big business, we may expect more irresponsible behavior. While dishonesty and cut-throat competition make news for the CRIMSON, they are hardly business acumen. Honest and ordered conduct of film showings is of vital concern to the College as well as the organizations involved. We can have more and healthier competition within enforceable rules than operating under unenforceable deals.

Finally, the Dean has not restricted our freedom. The only rule he has made is a limit on the total number of dates available to any one organization; organizations aren't even required to keep books. He has exercised his influence only to promote the benefits of film showings to Harvard extra-curricular life. We think he may have to do more to promote that end for the future, starting with our proposal. We are asking him to promote constructive freedom, not destructive freedom as you advocate. Walter Ulln '54   President, Ivy Films

In claiming that the only alternatives facing local film showers is cut-throat competition or paternalism, Mr. Ulln is ignoring the purpose which moves the College to grant student groups what freedom they have. That purpose has nothing to do with procuring good entertainment for undergraduates, for the officials could do that much easier and better by importing companies like the Boston Film Society, it has nothing to do with providing financial crutches for political groups or even creative groups, for pure money raising is irrelevant to the group's main purpose and threatens the University's tax-exempt status as well.

It concerns education, and education only. The discharge of responsibilities, large or small, easy or arduous, have a way of maturing students who otherwise might passively sit over their books too long. There is no better way to learn self-reliance of mind and will than by using it, and to that end the College encourages its students to undertake such duties as running an organization involves. That the various film groups seem incapable of planning ahead, that they cannot cooperate with each other, that in fact they depend excessively on their elders to make their decisions, is a very forceful argument for their release from paternalism. For farsightedness, cooperativeness, and the ability to make decisions independently are the very qualities Harvard seeks to instill in students by granting freedom to undergraduate organizations. When this is subverted, there is little point to the organization.--Ed.