To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The letter printed Feb. 8, concerning the "Negro (White) Problem" was disturbing for its accuracy more than its bitterness. The author was right, of course: failure in American race relations lies with the liberal as well as the apathetic, or outright racist. The latter acts for the satisfaction of setting one self above another. The former is motivated, as pointed out, not by a felt sense of equality, but rather by the need to assuage conscience, to fulfill an externally imposes self-image of virtue. Missing in both attitudes, of course, is genuine respect for the Negro as a man. Furthermore, the response of the black to this continued disrespect from others is profound racial insecurity. Treated as an inferior he acts one, and vice versa, and thus the circle snaps shut. All this is sad but true.

I would differ from the writer, however, in assessing the role of the liberal or sympathetic white. This role is often complex. He does not respect the colored race genuinely, because it does not command respect. Given this, it is natural that he be smug about his eschewal of overt discrimination. He passes up the latter for the luxury of apparent charity. Conscience is the motivation only because real respect is absent. He will not surrender his smugness; there is no reason to.

The real liberal attitude will change then only when the Negro commands respect, when he is able to assert a manifest equality. But precisely by treating the Negro, at least superficially, as an equal, the white liberal helps break the vicious circle, which depends upon perceived social and economic inequality. Colored pride and white respect must somehow be enkindled, and if the white community cannot do it, some think the Black Muslims can. Only when "niggerness" is itself extinct will the liberal conscience lose its usefulness, and that millenium does not seem at hand. Nicholas Fels '64