To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your unconscionable editorial (October 21) on the award of the Nobel Prize in Economics to Milton Friedman is a new low in Crimson history.

I would have hoped that one could discuss the scientific or artistic accomplishments of a person without reference to his political views. One can admire Solzhenitsyn's or Bellow's novels without embracing the Slavonophilic views of the first or the pro-Israeli view of the second. Nor should Friedman's views on Rhodesia (mistaken in my opinion) stand in the way of recognizing his scientific contributions to economics. That the latter have been extensive and significant is not really disputable (cf. Samuelson's column in the current issue of Newsweek).

The assertion that Friedman supports the Chilean Junta is a Goebbels-like big lie. Friedman gave a number of lectures in Santiago at the invitation of a private bank there. That doesn't make him a supporter of all the various and nefarious activities of the Junta. I gave a number of lectures in Moscow at the invitation of the USSR Academy of Sciences. I hope this doesn't convert me into a supporter of the Brezhnev regime.

It is true that a number of the "Chicago boys" have been working for the Junta in various economic posts. It is also true that some "Chicago boys" are in exile and are not working for the Junta. (By the way, most of these Chilean economists were not direct students of Friedman, not that it matters.) The issue is not all that black and white. If you were a plumber in Franco Spain and were called to unstop plugged-up toilets in a political prison, would you refuse to do that because it would shore up the system? The moral issues of collaboration are not all that clear cut. People might think that they are working for Chile even while they are working for the Junta. They might be mistaken but the dilemma is there. Of course, if you have made up your mind that it is better to bring down today so as to build a better tomorrow on its ruins, then the choices are clear to you. If or when totalitarianism comes to America, I'll be curious to see how many Crimson editors will find their way to doing the honorable and expost morally correct thing.

As to Friedman's economic policy proposals, such as educational vouchers, a negative income tax, and a stable monetary policy, they show more real concern and would result in more true aid to poor people all over than most of the political and economic reform schemes advocated in the pages of The Crimson. Zvi Griliches   Professor of Economics