To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your May 24 story on Chester Hartman and the GSD faculty carefully describes the prolonged fencing over procedures for his appeal. It fails to report on the background of the case and its underlying issues. These need repeating. At the GSD Hartman was an inspiring teacher, a conscientious advisor, a productive scholar, an effective innovator of urban planning techniques and of educational methods. He was let go for a variety of reasons which had nothing to do with this outstanding record: not playing by the polite rules of the club, challenging the University's policies for how they affect surrounding cities, and presenting an approach to urban planning which was at odds with that espoused by some of his colleagues.

The rules of the club are bankrupt. They support just this sort of poor decision. They include a continuing refusal to act on student evaluations of faculty performance, a lack of commitment to teaching ability and professional currency as the primary criteria for hiring faculty, and a defensive preoccupation with style and decorum.

The time it has taken- already over a year- to handle Hartman's appeal is proof in itself that he has not been accorded due process. This foot-dragging is expressed in a mounting pile of Ivy League-alese which serves to obscure the real issues in the dispute.