To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I welcomed the publication of John Rorer's article in Monday's CRIMSON. It was a refreshing example of pluralism, which is perhaps not so rare at Harvard after all. Some interesting insights into the mind of a Mississippian were provided, as well as into life in Mississippi. For instance, why was it so important to the white Mississippians that the COFO workers were "shabby" and "unclean"? Perhaps it was convenient for COFO's opponents, but I see no real significance, even in terms of "white standards." But it is possible that the COFO workers would have made more progress if they had made the sacrifice of cleanliness. Or, if this would never have impressed the narrow-minded Mississippians, it is possible that nothing would have, short of violence. Perhaps, then, the newspaper buildup, on which point I feel Rorer is quite correct, was justified. But then, was not considerable anxiety on the part of the white inhabitants of Mississippi also justified? I think it was. But anxiety can only explain some things. I do not really think that Mississippi's Negroes were fortunate that more severe acts of violence did not occur. And I'm not convinced that street riots, shootings, and church bombings are a restricted form of violence.

But I was glad to see it. I'm sorry that someone at the CRIMSON felt he had to label this essay "A Segregationist's Viewpoint," though. Rorer definitely does not impress me as a segregationist, in any legitimate sense of the word. Being a white man from Mississippi does not make one a segregationist, nor does differing with COFO aims and methods. He states that most Mississippians believe that segregation is morally right, and that Mississippi is trying to maintain a segregated mode of life. But does he support it in this aspect of its struggle? Does he defend the Mississippians' "civil right" to segregate? He does not. Were segregation as solidly entrenched in national policy and opinion, were it as popular as integration, segregationist bigots might declare every deviation from complete and submissive agreement "integrationism." But racial Bigotry is out, and so is Rorer, because he has let himself be associated with it. Moral bigotry is in, and it looks like it will stay awhile. Sanford R. Thompson '68