To the Editors of The Crimson:

I would like to draw attention to several features of Ann Juergens' recent article entitled "Inequality Persists in GSAS Policies."

The headline of the article, one observes with a start, is more than merely suggestive. Combined with the article's subject, it constitutes a declaration that discrimination against women in GSAS admission and aid consideration is a "persistent policy" of the Faculty. Though one suspects that Ms. Juergens would agree with this claim, the body of her article is clearly concerned with de facto inequality rather than a policy of discrimination. Admittedly, it is difficult to prepare an accurate headline within strict space limitations: nevertheless, The Crimson ought to be able to prevent the sort of irresponsible distortion which occurred here.

In addition, I am surprised that an article so serious in its concerns, the questions it raises, and its potential implications is so lacking in comprehensive numerical documentation of the overall admissions and aid picture and trends. Unfortunately, the few figures given refer to only one department, and even there give only selected percentages, as opposed to true numerical levels. Without reference to such levels, the implication of discrimination can sometimes border on the ludicrous.

In the Mathematics Department, for example, so few women apply for graduate study that the admission of three women instead of the actual two would have made the percentage of women applicants accepted this year comparable to the men's level. Surely one would not with to allege that the Mathematics Department is guilty of sex discrimination because it rejected 16 female applicants instead of the parity number of 15.

Perhaps, however, I should be wary of arguing, as Ms. Juergens did, on the basis of such a restricted sampling of figures. I am sure that the entire Harvard community would welcome a more complete and accurate report on this subject from The Crimson. Daniel Raider '73