To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I would like to add several points to those made by the two letters appearing Friday a propos of the comp lit meeting last Monday. I signed the graduate students' letter, and now deeply regret having done so; the letter implies the CRIMSON's errors to be infinitely greater in import than they really are. Since I was the particular focus of an intense and personally exhausting controversy in the department, I confess I felt momentarily intimidated, and so added my name to an explanation the length and punctilious detail of which makes for an air of fearful apology I think was completely uncalled for. The fact that the students knew Professor Levin was writing his won letter, and the fact as well that some had even seen it, makes one wonder what emotion prompted the second reply. To whom or to what was the great injury? To themselves? To something called The Department? On Wednesday afternoon I was involved in a continuous meeting, first with Professor Levin, then with students; in all of that I was the subject of everyone's scrutiny, and was quite unpleasantly isolated.

I felt the CRIMSON report was extremely mild, as do others outside the department with whom I have spoken. When the report appeared, it was the automatic reaction of many in the department that because I was a radical, I had the power to influence the slant of the article, which they felt indicated some sort of radical onslaught in the department. (Not sharing the prevalent view of departmental sanctity, I had originally called in the reporter.) If I indeed wield such power, I feel mildly flattered. But in fact Scott Jacobs consulted three other people whose political views are considerably different from mine in order to have a many-sided account of the meeting, a balance I feel was effected.

To bring into perspective the power of radical views, now the focus of much anxiety in the Harvard community: before Monday's meeting I had met a few times with several other graduate students in comp lit. We had all discussed problems relating to our lives in the department and to the practice of the profession of teaching of literature, the cultural imperialism latent in such notions as that of "great traditions," the oppressive nature of professionalism, the way the job market dictates one's choice of field--and explained my views at some length. The others felt that these ideas were extreme. They therefore discussed other issues and formulated certain modest PROPOSALS and SUGGESTIONS for Monday's discussion--some of which were heard.

This whole incident proves a potent fact: even if radicals wanted to wield a tyranny, and they don't, they couldn't do so. The real tyranny, on the contrary, comes not from radicals but from the established powers, which make students so terrified of losing their degrees that they turn upon each other.

Just having read Scott Jacob's reply to both letters Friday, I should like to observe that he was caught in a situation not of his making; I applaud his letter, which is not only accurate, but witty and much to the point. Ellen Cantarow