To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

It is unfortunate that Mr. Crick's two-paragraph criticism of the CRIMSON's feature on Schine should have to be answered by a four-paragraph concoction of evasive answers and actual misinterpretation of Mr. Crick's intent. The CRIMSON apparently feels, however, that any criticism, left unrefuted, lessons the effect of its editorial opinion.

If the CRIMSON feels it necessary to re-explain its views after every letter, it reveals a weakness in the conception and construction of its editorials. However, and we think this more likely, if its intention is to refute any potential criticism, it is abusing its journalistic power.

By answering every letter it prints, the CRIMSON implies that its readers cannot judge for themselves the effectiveness of any criticism. We have always thought journalistic code demands that a paper's views be confined to its editorial column. A communications column is established to allow opposing opinions to be expressed unfettered by deprecatory comment. We feel that the CRIMSON can command respect only if its editors keep this code in mind. Warren B. Harshman '56   Evan R. Berlack '56   Eugene B. Mlhaly '56