To the Editors of The Crimson:

It was heartening to see that the APA's long overdue reclassification of homosexuality rated a front-page article in The Crimson [Monday, Dec. 17]. However, the account was unfortunately confused and somewhat confusing.

King's remark, "when people come into conflict over their homosexuality, then it's a treatable illness," only makes sense in light of Spitzer's statement (which followed in the article) to the effect that the new category--"sexual orientation disturbance"--is restricted to those who are troubled about their sexual orientation. Moreover, it might be pointed out that when people come into conflict over their heterosexuality, or over any aspect of their psychological make-up, it is a treatable illness. If more homosexuals are conflicted about their sex lives, it is certainly a result of the oppressive society in which they live.

Finally, one might object to the fact that Gary Schwartz was contacted by The Crimson to the exclusion, it seems, of any representative of the campus gay group. Whatever theory of homosexual etiology Schwartz discussed with your unnamed reporter, I can hardly believe he claimed--as the article implies--that it applies to every homosexual. This is neither the time nor the place to discuss whether one needs to explain homosexual behavior at all. But even if, as Schwartz suggests, there should be a causal link between hormone composition and homosexuality, one might more fairly describe it as a different distribution of, or a variation in hormones rather than as a "hormonal imbalance." If the traditionally conservative members of the APA are "not saying that homosexuality is either 'normal' or 'abnormal'" any more, couldn't The Crimson do better? Chairman, Harvard-Radcliffe   Gay Students Association