To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In the January 14th issue of the CRIMSON (page 3) you reported erroneously a portion of the statement I made in Court in connection with Burrough's book, the Naked Lunch.

I did not say, as printed in Crimson that "Burrough's description of a subculture 'can be achieved most easily and symbolically by the use of four letter words generally tabooed."

What I said was that"...given the milieu the author selected there is ample justification to use a slang...of which obscenities form an important part. The world he presents is an underworld, a subculture alienated from and contemptuous of the norms, values and standards of society at large. People who belong to it...are engaged in flaunting these standards which can be achieved most easily and symbolically by the use of words generally tabooed."

I think there is a difference between the two statements. The way I was quoted makes my statement appear both unclear and misleading, as if I had suggested that subcultures can be best described by four letter words or that all subcultures are characterized by the use of such. Neither of these suggestions would have been correct or relevant and I did not make either of them. Paul Hollander   Assistant Professor of Sociology