To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

It is unfortunate that 20th Century Week could not have received a more balanced appraisal than that given it in your article of December 16. Surely some content evaluation of the seminars and panels was called for. Nor would it have been amiss to explore the evolution and conduct of the program by contacting committee members and participants. If any readers sensed that such phrases as "apparently the committee," and "many members of the 20th Century Week Committee" were occurring too often, they must also have guessed that the article was so superficial as to be nearly uninformative.

I should like to rectify two specific misimpressions: First, there is no call to resort to an easy criticism of the program's aims. There were quite well defined by last June and your reporter could easily have obtained a copy of the program subcommittee's report of that date. There was no inconsistency, as we saw it, in opening evening panels to the general public even though the primary emphasis of the program was on the seminars. The panels were designed for a dual role: 1) as preparation for the ensuing day's seminars, and 2) as interesting and informative forums for general attendance. We selected Senders Theatre for a number of reasons--accessibility, the permanently installed radio and TV hookups--which were valid apart from considerations of audience size. The fact of the matter is that 20th Century Week enunciated its goals many months ago and the actual program came creditably close to living up to our original conception.

Secondly, the description given of the financing is incomplete and inaccurate. The Ford Foundation at no time "offered to put up the entire sum needed" nor did we ever approach them seriously for money--they assisted us by advising us about other foundations. Had the author of your article opened the conference program he would have seen the names of four smaller foundations which did donate to 20th Century Week. The success of the fund raising effort was due almost solely to the energy and determination of the Finance Chairman, John Simmons.

My final criticism of the article is quite simple--it made no effort to assess the roles played by the various members of the 20th Century Week Committee. For six months or better, a group of undergraduates set themselves to formulating this program. They made a major contribution of their time and interest. Behind the conference and its successes and failures lie their efforts. Their competence and diligence evoke my gratitude and that of every participant in 20th Century Week, but evidently the CRIMSON has overlooked them. Roger M. Leed '61,   General Chairman   20th Century Week.