However, from a radical viewpoint-and it not from a radical viewpoint at least in my own view-there are also positive aspects to our being here. All of us have been exposed to a variety of ideas this year. Upon our return the results will be watched with caution by our employers at home; for them our stay here is also an experiment with unpredictable results. Some of us will have become radicalized in the view of our colleagues, although probably not as radical as NAC would wish us to be. Even if we could prove to be a lost generation-which I personally call in question-a few of us may sow the seeds of change in our environment.

The Center tries to select a type of Fellows who apart from some obvious qualifications, are still flexible enough to be responsive to new ideas. I would see it as a display of defeatism, if the liberal and radical students did not believe that at least some of their ideas found an echo with certain Fellows.

I hope that, whatever the reforms at the Center may be, the Program for the Fellows will be maintained. For officials it is a marvelous opportunity to refresh their minds and gain new insights. It is up to others to judge what value the presence of the Fellows at Harvard has for the academic community. I only venture to suggest to those who attribute part of today's evils to bureaucracies and bureaucrats that contact with some of the species offers an opportunity to test their thesis.

POETRY

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In 1917 the Harvard Advocate printed an utterly standardized little poem of mine, which was just about what a typical mauve little boy of seventeen would predictably enough have written.

I left Harvard by request, without a degree, and have long since forgotten the poem. However, the anticlimatic approach of the Fiftieth Reunion weirdly disturbs the deep psychic ooze and bottom silt, and disinters many, many memories (not all of them fond!).

Ruminating over the Past at dawn this morning. I wrote the following ??onnet for 1970, which I dutifully communicate to you in the thought that, conceivably, it might be of some evanescent and residual interest to you and to Harvard of today.

Having exhausted standard metaphors.

The troubled poet gropes for the bizarre.

No longer fearing surge of feathered tar.

Nor slosh of slops before unopened doors:

But clad in final dignity he soars

On wings of wax to meet Apollo's car-

The ghostly fragrance of the nenuphar

Still blurring vision of transcendent Mors.

And yet the young are wiser: definition

Has not replaced the logic of the dream-

All that remains to us is vast contrition:

Too late to focus incoherent beam.

To close the books and bar the abandoned

gates:

It is not ??, but Time, that hesitates!

And need more be said, dear Crimson? It need not.

GM IS NOT HARVARD

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Reading the Corporation's statement as to why it will vote its General Motors shares for the existing management's proposals. I was amazed by the speciousness of much of the reasoning. It would take a long letter to go into the many fallacies in their statement, but one misconception seems behind much of their argument: they feel it improper for the stockholders of GM to be permitted to interfere with the operations of the Board and management.

Perhaps they have forgotten what a corporation is-in theory at least. It is an enterprise which is owned by its stockholders, and the purpose of a stockholders' meeting is precisely to vote on how the Board shall be constituted and what its policies shall be. Management is hired by the Board to carry out the wishes of the stockholders.

The Corporation has forgotten that it spells its own name with a capital "C" and that GM is not Harvard.

KELMAN AND COMMENCEMENT

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I read Wednesday's (May 27) CRIMSON with utter incredulity. Are we so morally, spiritually, and intellectually corrupt as to allow a small group of "radical students" to decide that Steven Kelman should not speak at this year's commencement because they happen not to like his views? Ubinam gentium sumus?

Last year, some 14.000 people sat and listened at Harvard's commencement to an SDS speaker whose views, to say the least, were not very popular. But he was allowed to air them.

I hope that all of us, and especially the class of 1970, will have sufficient courage to enforce Mr. Kelman's right to deliver his commencement part no matter what the thought-police in our midst may have to say about it.