To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In his comments on Dean Bender's report, Stephen F. Jencks is in error when he states that "only after the very latest tuition rise has the Faculty diverted any of the increase funds to the service of the scholarship office."

The unrestricted income of the Faculty has helped to support the financial aid program of the College for 11 of the past 12 years. Faculty funds have been used for undergraduate scholarships, beneficiary aid grants, and long-term loans in the following amounts: Year  Scholarships and Beneficiary Aid  Loans 1950-51  $ 65,000 1951-52  50,000 1952-53  44,000 1953-54  118,000  $ 14,000 1954-55  171,000  26,000 1955-56  129,000  73,000 1956-57  286,000  67,000 1957-58  154,000  39,000 1958-59  199,000  140,000 1959-60  165,000  217,000 Totals  $1,381,000  $576,000

In 1960-61 we were able to meet our commitments with-out support from Faculty income, thanks primarily to generous giving for financial aid in the Program for Harvard College (over $11 million). For 1961-62, Mr. Pusey has guaranteed up to $280,000 of Faculty income for scholarships and beneficiary aid, and up to $300,000 for loans.

These figures certainly complicate the case for Mr. Jencks' assertion that "The Faculty ... is being selfish." Fred L. Glimp,   Dean of Admissions   and Financial Aids.

Statistically, Mr. Glimp's exception is well taken. But the crucial point is indicated by his statement that, "In 1960-61 we were able to meet our commitments with-out support from Faculty income." Apparently, ever the entire preceding decade that Administration had developed no sense that it was obligated to contribute a portion of tuition to supporting those less able to pay. As soon as someone contributed funds to the Program's financial aid allotment, the Administration withdraw the money it had been giving. This was what Mr. Bender said, it was what I quoted, and it certainly sounds selfish.

President Pusey's recent commitment of funds, made after Mr. Bender had left office, is a highly commendable stop to reversing this trend, and one which was in no way minimized in Saturday's article.   Stephen F. Jencks.