To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Last Thursday's article about my study of Harvard students omitted some important information I gave to the CRIMSON. I did say that the leaflet by "some members of SDS" opposing the research was insulting, but I indicated greater concern for a matter of principle that was not mentioned in the article.

The principle that concerns me is academic freedom. The question raised by the leaflet is whether or not an investigator whose purposes are scholarly and who has taken all possible precautions to prevent injury to anyone on account of his research ought to be able to work without interference. In general, the right of an investigator to do research without interference is well established. In social science research, however it can be difficult to distinguish interference and intimidation from expression of ethical and political positions by persons who feel that regardless of the investigator's intention, his results will be harmful to them.

The members of SDS who wrote the leaflet could have urged students to refuse cooperation with my study on ethical grounds. They could have argued, first, that as a political movement SDS seeks to conceal certain information about its tactics and successes (or failures), and, second, that it values political ends more than scholarly ends. Such a statement would have raised the larger issue of whether social science can coexist with social change. This problem will cause much reflection about the aims and methods of social science, and discussion of it in no way challenges academic freedom. But when the issues are obscured by a veil of polemic, reasoned discussion becomes impossible. Academic freedom suffers because researchers are threatened with or subjected to personal attack for doing studies which are perceived as inimical to someone's or some group's interest.

I should note that as of this writing, just under half of the students who received my questionnaire have completed and returned it. A few respondents, but only a handful, have indicated that they are members of SDS. In other words, the leaflet has done only negligible damage to my study. I mention this in order to emphasize that I am more concerned with the principle of academic freedom than with the effect of the leaflet on my research. Marshall W. Meyer   Lecturer on Sociology