To the Editors of the Crimson:

The Crimson's policy in regard to Cronin's Restaurant is, we believe, reprehensibly inconsistent. On Tuesday. February 8, an editorial column supported the strike now being held by the Harvard Square Waitresses' Union. Yet the usual Cronin's advertisement remained in its place on the back page of the Crimson, that day and on days thereafter.

Does editorial opinion have a bodiless voice? The Crimson rightly supported the waitresses, who are striking for such fundamental benefits as $1.35 per hour wage, sick leave allowance, overtime pay, and a nondiscriminatory hiring clause. It is to be hoped that the editors would not advocate crossing the picket line to patronize Cronin's. By continuing to advertize on the behalf of the management, however, it seems to us that the Crimson is implicitly condoning anti-union activity.

We think that the discrepancy between editorial voice and advertising practice should be immediately remedied. If the voiced policy is to hold good. Cronin's ad should be removed from the Crimson for the duration of the waitresses' strike. Natalie Reid '74   Hal Landy '72   Matthew Spence '73   Frederick Well '73   Pat Glynn '73   Laurie Schafer '73   Charlie Cumming '73   Katherine Shea '74   John Tooly '74   Alicia Landman '74   Stephen Lewontin '72