To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

As a presidential scholar at Harvard, I have been involved in the activities described in your article of October 13--the original suggestion of a Vietnam protest by the Presidential Scholars, the counterpetition to avoid incrimination of those who didn't sign, and the individual and isolated reactions of many of the Scholars here.

From this perspective, I find I have to comment upon your reporting of the incident. As an incentive to thought and action, the original petition was quite different in character from the large-scale protest implied in the CRIMSON report; clearly a unanimous protest by Presidential Scholars is impossible from the very nature of the group, selected for its representativeness and diversity. The petition was accompanied by a covering letter that stated: "We urge you to take whatever action you think most appropriate. Write to the President yourself, sign the enclosed petition, pledge to return your medallion, sit-in at the White House, or enlist in the army."

The action thought appropriate by--at your count--105 of the 242 scholars was to sign the counterpetition pleading noninvolvement. "This is neither an endorsement nor a criticism. . . .we merely object to this irresponsible form of protest."

The failure that needs to be stressed is not the failure of a politically radical minority to create massive support, but the failure of most of the Scholars to use this opportunity to reappraise their attitudes towards Vietnam and their roles in this democracy, the failure of most of the Scholars to consider how they can best express their opinions and whether it is worth the bother. And these are in turn part of the failure of American attitudes and institutions to accommodate--let alone encourage--dissent. In view of this, it is important to mention the individual actions inspired by the appeal--that Jacquelyn Evans and George Cave returned their medallions, that I wrote to President Johnson and the Times, that perhaps other Scholars have acted of whose behavior we three are unaware.

It is inaccurate to report only on the Scholars who refused to think. But these students who did nothing or rushed to protect themselves were in part guided by anticipation of the futility of protest, or worse the harassment it might entail (perhaps the loss of a grant to keep them in school until too old for the draft). The CRIMSON, as a newspaper in a democracy and a university, has an obligation and opportunity to help change these attitudes, which makes it imperative that you publicize individual protests. Since the three Scholars who did act were all Harvard-Radcliffe students, your omission is particularly regrettable. Margaret Rossoff '68