WHENEVER I see black students and intellectuals cutting each other to shreds in the fishbowl of the news media--all the while under the guise of intellectual argument--I am advised by LeRoi Jones' words--"check yourself." This was precisely the reaction that seized me by the end of last week's heated exchange between Dr. Martin Kilson and black students over the nature of Social Sciences 5 (The Afro-American Experience in America).

It is tragic that with an issue as important as this one, we as blacks find ourselves caught up in a familar historical paradox; simply, polemics are substituted for problem-solving and what starts out as an intellectual problem atrophies into so much stone-throwing and name-calling. Of course one must realize that by jumping in the middle of a stone fight one always runs the risk of being hit and mediation is invariably viewed by one side or the other as a sneaky attempt at a put down. But for either side to view this issue in terms of victory or defeat would be exceedingly dangerous--victory in this case would be marginal and deluding and would, at best, ignore the qualitative problem of developing a meaningful approach to the history of black people in America.

In their rush to relevancy, Harvard, or more particularly the history department, overlooked the fact that black students would be concerned with the "intellectual salt" of a course on the Afro-American experience. Certainly the black students who called Professor Friedel into question took a more direct route than is usually seen at Harvard, and indeed some toes were stepped on. But I'm less concerned that some toes got stepped on (though I must confess a certain chagrin that it happened to a man who has been a constant, even if quiet, advocate for black dignity) than with the fact that the wrong toes got stepped on. It really is a question of aim. Professor Friedel is visible, hence most vulnerable to the frustrations of the black students who feel less than satisfied with the state of affairs in the course. But in lambasting Friedel I am afraid we are missing the mark and it irks me that we are wasting our ammunition on the wrong target.

Dr. Kilson's out-of-hand dismissal of the legitimacy of black student protest was little more than embarrassing. His was a blind reaction that saw the black students' criticisms as something of a personal vendetta; and while attributing to the black students "anti-intellectual" attitudes, his remarks were disappointingly sophomoric. Dr. Kilson's reactions are particularly surprising in light of the posture he assumed with regard to black protest in an article of the Harvard Journal of Negro Affairs ("Responses to Blackness: Negro Americans and Africa"):

". . . there is a curious commentary upon man's inhumanity to man whenever white Americans deliver that callous insult to the Negro's longstanding injury by questioning the validity of his chauvinistic or racist mode of retrieving his blackness. No doubt the black chauvinist mode of self-renewal is as mundane and vile as any other chauvinism at any period of human history. But it is no less an historically valid expression, for the history of white America's relationship to the Negro provided few meaningful alternatives."

JEFFREY HOWARD'S rejoinder to Dr. Kilson in his letter to the Crimson on October 31 was very much to the point, particularly in stating that Dr. Kilson should have provided "the natural role of liasion between students and instructors of the course." But, just as an aside, something seemed wrong with the strategy: if we as blacks have learned little else from our curious history in this society, we should have learned to avoid involvement in polemics that pit black against black to the detriment of our common struggle. For in this way we become the true "pawns," while the decision-making forces in the Harvard setting--and surely they watch bemused by the spectacle, even under the guise of dispassionate objectivity--remain unindicted for their intellectual negligence.

The majority of black students realize that intellectual criticism is more than so much mau-mauing; what Harvard must realize is that black students are deeply concerned with the integrity of a field of study dealing with their heritage and experience--they do not take their seriousness lightly.

And while I do not believe in "final words" on any matter--particularly today when America is willing to make anyone a spokesman for the "Negro" cause so long as he appears in blackface--allow these to stand at least to clear the present air. Harvard is only beginning to see the complications and concerns involved in relegating study of the black experience to the same institutional forms which have resisted paying attention to the affairs of black folk for so long. If anything constructive has come out of the past week's morass it is certainly that Harvard cannot take up the black man's burden without knowing what it's all about.