To the Editors of The Crimson:

Even from afar, I have been following with considerable interest the continuing controversy over the realignment of Harvard's Expository Writing program. I believe that any proposal to eliminate some (or all) of the upper level Expository Writing course raises at least two issues that are crucial to the undergraduate curriculum.

One is relatively specific: Expository Writing exists primarily to develop basic writing skills among all incoming students: most of that department's energy is poured into the regular Expos 10 course, which is the only required course at Harvard. As budgets tighten, the upper level courses, which have allowed for considerably more variety and flexibility, are the first to become expendable. The great crime in tampering with them, however, is that these courses--and I am specifically thinking of two that I took in Fiction and Autobiography--have been unique opportunities for undergraduates who have not been confident enough or experienced enough to compete successfully for the limited openings in English C, or other, even less accessible courses. These students and others deserve a chance to write, to experiment, to share new work, and not to be intimidated or limited in their choices. They also deserve group leaders who are just as excited about expressing and exchanging feelings through their writing as their students are.

The second issue is more general: does Harvard really stimulate and reward creativity? Does it not promote scholarship and critical competence to such an extreme degree that creative experimentation is effectively stifled? Who really feels free to try something absolutely new, in terms of individual expression, and then can find a way to go about doing it with experienced support and academic blessing?

Cutting back on the number of creative writing courses offered by any department seems to me to be a tragic mistake. Even worse, it strikes me as belonging to the general pattern of sacrificing creativity for objectivity--and of restricting appealing options to a privileged few--that is standard operating procedure at Harvard.

I can only remain thankful that I explored a-little and found some people there to whom the quality of interpersonal exchange was more important than the quantitative content of the "learning process." I wrote for everyone from my Expos 10 section man to Kurt Vonnegut, so I sampled my share. I consider my two upper level Expository Writing courses to be among the best half-dozen I had at Harvard. I am still writing, still learning, still reflecting on what in my four years there is of lingering value. I'm also wondering how many students back there will not be breaking through their own boundaries and discovering new resources within themselves because the opportunities--the courses and the empathetic teachers--simply aren't available. And that makes me sad for all of Harvard. Joseph P. Kahn '71