To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The University community exists for the academic and intellectual education of its members. It is natural, therefore, that there should be preserved on the campus as wide an expression of opinion as possible. Freedom of speech must be guarded as essential to the proper functioning of the university.

That a concommittant "right to recruit" also exists is fallacious. Unless the indescriminate prostitution of University facilities to outside groups can be demonstrated to contribute directly to the intellectual welfare of the community, it must be concluded that this "right" is rather a privilege, to be exercised by the University with discretion.

The Administration claims that business corporations are brought to Harvard for the students' benefit. Even if this justification be accepted, it still must be determined, 1) whether the students do in fact desire the presence of these extra-university elements on the campus; and 2) whether the moral character of these elements is such that the university is willing to make available to them its name, reputation, facilities, and student body.

Neutral action does not exist. Refusal to decide who will use our resources, who will use us, is a decision in itself. One is reminded of Edward Teller's disclaimer of any responsibility for the purposes to which his research in nuclear physics might be put. Teller was fully aware of what those purposes were, just as the University is aware what Dow's purposes in recruiting Harvard seniors is.

This is not to say that the University should judge every contemporary social issue. We are charged, however, with preserving our integrity as a morally and intellectually responsible community. There is a grave possibility that the actions of the United States government in Vietnam, aided by companies such as Dow Chemical Corporation, are in the long run inimical to those values of freedom and human fulfillment this institution espouses. It is all the more incumbent on us to decide whether we will assist in the execution of the policy--not in violation of freedom of speech, but in its support. Jeffrey L. Elman '69