To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I have just returned from a trip to Japan and found on my desk a "news story" on my lecture of March 17 at the Harvard Law School. Since one of the main issues of my lecture concerned the general problem of "educated incapacity" (with particular emphasis on the difficulty that many progressive students of upper middle class back ground have in hearing. listening to, or reading simple ideas which do not agree with their preconceptions), I feel obligated to point out that this educated incapacity was amply displayed by your story.

I started my lecture with some comments to the effect that in Vietnam, moral issues were paramount, but that I would only discuss two of them and ignore the others (unless, of course, questions were raised)-not because these various moral issues were unimportant but because they were usually too complex to be dealt with in a few short remarks, and that the usual alternatives, simplistic and self-righteous stances, were mostly beside the point. This statement is very different from your lead quote, "Moral issues in the Vietnamese war are beside any point."

You then continue your misinterpretation of events by reporting that "Derisive comments from a few members of the audience marked various points of Kahn's talk, particularly in response to Kahn's statement that morality is a non-issue." This completely misdescribes the whole incident.

The rest of your story, by the way, was. I would judge, well below par in terms of describing both what I said and the reactions of the audience-and "par" in this case describes a rather low standard.

I am not accusing you or the reporter of deliberate and malicious distortion, but simply am drawing attention to this illustration of your general inability to listen to and report anything that conflicts with your biases. I do this for my own benefit, for the benefit of the Harvard community, and most of all for your benefit.Director, The Hudson Institute