To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The problem presented in the CRIMSON editorial of February 23, is discussed on such a superficial level that it demands' further consideration. The first error of which the CRIMSON is guilty is contained in their statement that Lamont Library is responsible for the Negro History Week Exhibit. This is not true. The exhibit is sponsored by The Harvard Society for Minority Rights and is one of the many displays set up by undergraduate organizations in the library throughout the year, none of which is sponsored in any way by the library.

After this initial mis-statement the CRIMSON goes on to quote from one of the books on display. The Negro and the Democratic Front, by James W. Ford. Because Mr. Ford is a 'Communist and because he has written a book expressing a communist viewpoint the CRIMSON suggests that ". . . it (the book) is hardly proper reading for Negro History Week, since it represents neither Negro history nor sympathies." The editorial ends with the suggestion that before a book is recommended it should be read. In other words the CRIMSON is suggesting that if this book had been read it would not have been recommended. It is with this viewpoint that we must disagree.

A relationship between the Communist Party and the Negro people did exist in the '30's and as such is an integral part of Negro history. Therefore it must be considered along with all other aspects of that history if we are to appreciate the position of the American Negro today. Regardless of what one thinks of that relationship, to deny its existence by refusing to read the works of those who took part in it is not the act of a mature individual or organization.

There is still another point which must be made regarding the CRIMSON's position. The CRIMSON has made a value judgment about this relationship. It suggests that this was not "One of the proud contributions of Negroes in this country." If one recommends reading only in those periods of which one approves it follows that the person dependent on these recommendations is going to receive a rather inaccurate view of history. Unfortunately it is a short step from this position to one which makes available for public consumption only those books of which one approves. In past editorials the CRIMSON has expressed itself to be in basic disagreement with a man who holds just this view. And for the CRIMSON now to express one so similar is a rather unfortunate comment on the clear-headedness and editorial consistency of that newspaper. James Beck For the Harvard Society for Minority Rights

After pointing out that the HSMR, and not Lamont, is responsible for the display in the library, Mr. Beck turns to the basic issues in the editorial which cannot be termed "errors."

The editorial repeated a long-standing CRIMSON axiom: "A book like this has a place in the library." This is hardly inconsistent with past policy or a suggestion that only approved books be made available. Rather, the editorial and Mr. Beck's answer point up the difference between an historical display and the recent collection at Lamont. If the books had been chosen with the idea of illustrating trends in Negro thought, an entirely different presentation was necessary. The books, with explanations of what they represent, should then be fitted into an historical pattern. In this way, the Ford book could be judged in proper perspective. But in the HSMR display, all books pertaining to Negro history were stacked together with no differentiation between the typical and the less representative. We can only repeat that piling these books on a shelf as introduction to the large, historical contribution of the Negro people shows either carelessness or an unfamiliarity with the material.   --Editor