To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The line of argument put forth by the African and Afro-American students is strange to many. The argument is that the "association has not defined itself on racial terms by using the phrase 'African and Afro-American,' and that the group's members considered race unimportant to their membership clause." Opponents on the HCUA said the group was "racially discriminatory because in practice it would not admit whites."

The white race is one of many races. It is significant therefore that the HCUA did not say the Association would discriminate against Chinese or Arabs, but only against the white race. The spokesman for the Association, Mr. Armah, said, "The terms African and Afro-American cover many races including Arabs and persons of partial European descent." This means there is no discrimination on of color or creed: There is no discrimination on the basis of color or creed: Armah pointed out that Africans and Afro-Americans include "people who are more white than black"; the Association is not a religious organization.

I suspect that the difficulty for the HCUA and other persons arises in part from the way in which the Association has chosen to define itself and to select its members. The basis of the definition is that the members have a special relation to Africa, namely, that all of the members have ancestors who were from Africa or the members themselves are from Africa or both. Incidentally, the ruling elite of South Africa has by its own assertion pure European ancestors and consequently would exclude itself from the Association by definition.

If the proposed association were to be called "The European and Euro-American Association," would this group be discriminatory against Afro-Americans? Manifestly not. Most of the members of the group know as Afro-Americans have noticeable traces of European ancestry, e.g. the great variations in skin color. Therefore the inclusion of one race, the European, may exclude others, e.g. the Chinese, but it does not follow that it will exclude them all.

The HCUA argument that the Association would be racially discriminatory contains a pivotal fallacy: It assumes that geographical areas are racially homogeneous. The Association would include many races but not all. The position of the Association is that no matter whomever you will find in it, you will find the African and the Afro-American.

Are those who have proposed the formation of the Association to be held responsible for the fact that there are other people who are not Africans? Are they responsible because others do not have the choice to join or not to join the Association because they are white? On the other hand, would the HCUA and the Administration deny the right of these students to make choice which is not available to persons who are "purely" white? Are Africans and Harvard and Radcliffe students because they are not white?

These students are asked to give up the freedom within the University which goes with the right and the fact of being different. A principle is here involved which challenges the presumption that one race must be omnipresent and that it shall be the "yardstick" by which the freedom of non-white races will be determined. Archie C. Epps, III, 1G