To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The article by William Kutik that appeared in the Saturday, April 19, edition of the Crimson contains several in accuracies. First, the so-called Holworthy Group which arranged the second mass meeting met at 11:30 p.m. in Grays common Room Thursday, April 17, not in the Holworthy common Room. Second, as a new member of this apolitical group I was responsible for keeping the press, including CRIMSON reporters engaged in harassing Technical Details Committee members from congesting the speakers dias at the second mass meeting. Third, I was not a member of any "group of fourteen" or any other political group , nor was I ever present at any "secret meeting" inasmuch as I was in attendance at the agenda meeting in Grays from 11:30 p.m. on.

At approximately 1:30 a.m. several members of the agenda committee received word that Afro and SDS would possibly occupy a building if the strike were not continued. At this point no proposals had been received from such prostrate groups nor had they communicated a desire to speak to the meeting. Several of the members of the committee including myself thereupon voiced the opinion that if such pro-strike groups were not accorded places to speak in the agenda they might result in the closing of the University, an outcome which all of us dreaded.

I did not ever suggest making sure that the speaker from "Keep Harvard Open" be "as dumb as he can be" nor was I even aware until Mr. Kutik's article that a representative of the Corporation intended to speak. As for my alleged use of "scare tactics", I believe that the attempt to awaken the agenda committee to the possible dangers of not providing spaces for pro-strike groups was intended not to "scare" the committee but to present a point a point of view concerning the possible repercussions of an unbalanced agenda.

As it was explained to me, the decision of the committee not to admit the press to its meeting was intended both to minimize confusion and to avoid exactly to sort of journalistic misinterpretation of the committee's actions that is now occurring.

There was no "rigging" of the agenda to the best of my knowledge. If there had been, I doubt that I would have given my name to the reporter as a member of the committee. It is impossible to "rig" a mass meeting of that size and structure where all views are, as they were, presented. In any case I wonder at an article which, on a nonobjective basis and without describing any sources of information, indulges in unjustified character assassination apparently for the sheer pleasure of it. The pointless vindictiveness of the article is underlined when one considers that the agenda was apparently changed and the strike suspended regardless of any such alleged "conspiracy".

I hope Mr. Kutik's article has not guaranteed that no one will step forth to assume the thankless and obviously personally perilous task of conducting the coming referendum. I certainly shall not, although I still desperately desire to serve the free academic community of Harvard in this its darkest hour.

Two of Mr. Maurier's corrections are accurate. The meeting was held in Gray's, not Holworthy, and he was there and received a letter from one person in the other meeting. It was learned that the other meeting was in Holworthy. His third point-that he guarded the stadium dais-was never contended. The sources of information were noted several times as individuals present at the events described. The article did not allege a "conspiracy."

Mr. Rosen's contentions will be answered this week in the second article of the series. Michael Maurier   WMK