To the editor of The Crimson:

I winced to read in the April 21 Crimson that I declared flatly (even if in paraphrase) that "The racial quotas and timetables of the federal government's affirmative action regulations are unconstitutional...."

First, I was extremely careful to describe the statistical requirements of the affirmative action program as "goals," not "quotas," and specifically pointed out that quotas can only be imposed by courts after a finding of discrimination. Second, in response to the question on the constitutionality of affirmative action goals, I answered, first, that only the Supreme Court can decide what is constitutional; second, that reputable law professors--and I mentioned Harry T. Edwards, visiting professor at the Harvard Law School, and Theodore St. Antoine, Dean at the University of Michigan Law School--argue goals can be considered constitutional; third the direction of Supreme Court decisions since 1954 and Justice Douglas's opinion in De Funis suggest that the Court might find affirmative action goals unconstitutional; and finally, I hoped they would.

But all this is very different from saying that I asserted goals are unconstitutional. Nathan Glazer Professor of Education and Social Structure