To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I hope the following comments are not too late to be useful. To many among the large audience which attended the Eliot House forum on the "Idea of a University" last Wednesday the CRIMSON'S coverage of the event must have seemed inadequate. The article headlined "Bundy Proposes Individual Treatment of Investigations" played up an un-original and incidental comment by Professor Bundy, without having first clearly reported the arguments of all five speakers, Professors Quine, Finley, Bate, Bundy, and Richards.

Each of these men contributed something more than the weak-kneed catch-all phrases, such as "excellence of the university" and "Integration and departmentalization," of which they were accused. Aside from these general hints, the CRIMSON did not say what each one had argued. And yet this forum, well attended by large and representative audience, was dealing with the fundamental reasons for Harvard's existence and the ideals it tries to embody. The purpose of the forum was not to determine Harvard's policy regarding Congressional investigations.

It was therefore tantalizing when Professor Bundy wrote on Saturday to criticize the article. He corrected the statement that he had proposed "individual treatment"; he had merely concurred with the University's policy. He also disclaimed his ownership of an epigram by Lord Keynes. He protested no further than this. He did not point out that if he had any ideas about defending ourselves against the attacks of "society," they were more precise than a "constant concern with the excellence of the University," and that he was poorly represented by such a quotation. He did not complain on behalf of his fellow speakers, whose ideas were excluded to make room for more talk about investigations.

For the CRIMSON to ague that "there isn't enough space for complete coverage" does not change the fact that this article presented a one-sided, and incomplete account of the forum. In disposing of Professors Bate, Quine, and Richards, the reporter skillfully avoided what Mr. Bate called "the real labour, the labour of thinking." Of Messrs, Quine and Richards it was said that they "also discussed integration and departmentalization in the ideal University." That covers everything, if it is true. Now what did they say? Or were they merely talking? The audience thought not; the audience applauded them warmly, more so perhaps than the other speakers.

The problem here was to restate briefly what each speaker said and thereby give those readers who were not present something to think about. Brief restatement requires paraphrase, not quotation. The latter calls too often for further comment, and those words that are all things to all men, like "departmentalization," only put the reader to sleep. You cannot afford to neglect this matter of style, despite your deadlines. It should be a concern second only to deciding which news is most useful to a community representing, so many different interests. Angus Stewart Fletcher 1G