To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I have been following the parietal hours controversy with somewhat interest, feeling certain that the House system is a sturdy enough teapot to survive even this vocal a tempest. Dr. Cobb's letter, however, compels me to point out a rather obvious ambivalance which has characterized much of the debate: a nervous hopping about between moral and legalistic justifications for a change in the rules.

No doubt "fornication" is only one of the more genial of a long list of activities illegal in Massachusetts; if Harvard is going to make itself responsible for this, it ought not to ignore duller sins. Certainly Harvard has the right to see that the laws of the Commonwealth are upheld by members of the University -- and I'm sure that residents of the Houses would surrender more gracefully to the inevitable if the problem were stated unequivocally. But why in heaven's name must anyone haul in "love and last" and a lot of other orotund phrases which are quite beside the point? I find it both annoying and presumptuous for anyone to attempt legislating my moral attitudes; it's quite another matter, however, to be required to adhere to an unadorned legal norm.

Finally, assuming that it is "fornication" that no distresses Dr. Cobb and other advocates of rule-tightening, I'm genuinely curious about the means to be employed for making infringement "obvious". I would like to offer helpful suggestions, but I really feel George Orwell has covered this ground quite successfully. Dennis M. O'Fisherty '