To the Editors of the Crimson:

This is a belated response to the letter from the Concerned Members of Dunster House of December 6, 1971, which you sent to the faculty signers of the "Herrnstein" statement, published in the Crimson of November 29. Though my name did not appear in the Crimson ad, I did indeed sign the statement. I asked to have my name added to the list when I heard about the ad, but by that time the statement was already in the press.

I happen to be critical of Herrnstein's article on many counts (as are at least some of the other signers of the statement). I challenge most of the article's premises: I disagree vehemently with the sociopolitical values that it reflects: I object to the policy implications to which it seems to point; and I feel that not enough was done to clarify the value premises and speculative nature of the article and to avoid its misuse by those who want to believe that Blacks are intellectually inferior.

It is not just despite these objections to the article, but indeed because of them that I wanted to be included among the signers of the statement protesting the nature of the attacks on Herrnstein. First, I am angry that SDS and UAG have (once again) undermined efforts to debate the issues raised by the publication of the Herrnstein article by diverting the attention of the Community to the nature of the their attacks on Herrnstein. Second, I feel very strongly that those of us on the Left have the obligation and the self-interest to speak out against threats to academic freedom wherever they occur. As a frequent and active dissenter for more than a quarter of a century. I am only too well aware of the fragility of academic freedom and of the vital importance of maintaining the integrity of this principle.

I am deeply distressed that many members of the Community do not seem to realize what academic freedom means and what conditions are necessary to preserve and enhance it. I share your concern about the assumptions and implications of the Herrnstein article and I believe that it calls for response--including political response. If the form of the response, however, violates the principles of academic freedom--and, I might add, the associated principles of adherence to truth and respect for fellow-humans--then it can only result in a net loss for the values that I believe we share. Herbert C. Kelman