To the Editors of The Crimson:

I must protest the slanted nature of the article by Judith Kogan (May 14) on my recent piece in the New England Journal of Medicine. The issue is a complex and delicate one, and when I learned that The Crimson was preparing to run a story on the matter without even having seen my article I personally delivered a copy that evening, suggesting that reprinting it would convey my message more accurately than a set of paraphrases and selected quotations. Instead The Crimson started with an outrageously inflammatory headline (Professor Assails Blacks' Performance) and then quoted exclusively the critical aspects of the article. It ignored the parts that made clear my support for minority programs and my desire to see them strengthened by resisting pressures to stretch standards excessively. Thus "...medical faculties have always taken into account qualities of character and motivation as well as scientific ability and knowledge. In addition, we have begun also to take into account long ignored social needs...It would be a rare person today who would question the value of stretching the criteria for admission, and of trying to make up for earlier educational disadvantages, to help disadvantaged groups...Medical faculties can derive deep satisfaction from their success in recruiting and helping many able students from groups that were formerly excluded...Considerations of tact and guilt over our history of enormous racial injustice have made it difficult to face the problem. But there are dangers in a policy that fails to evaluate the results of our recent experiments objectively."

The Crimson has thus created the false impression that I am criticizing the performance of black students as a whole, instead of emphasizing the need to distinguish a satisfactory from an unsatisfactory student, regardless of ethnic origin. By so distorting the picture The Crimson has injured the black community, and also those (including me) who are sympathetic with their needs and aspirations. Indeed, I do not blame anyone for getting angry at my views as portrayed by The Crimson.

It is important to correct not only that picture but also any possible connection between the content of The Crimson article and the views of Professors Amos, Anderson, Hubel, Karnovsky, and Rosen. They consigned the original document, prepared for the Faculty Council, that was the basis for my published article, and no statement by me outside that document should be ascribed to them. I apologize for my indiscretion in identifying those colleagues: I felt free to do so since the document is scheduled to be distributed at a Faculty meeting, which students can attend. To clarify the position of the cosigners, and my own position, The Crimson should reproduce the original document, and perhaps my later published one as well.

The original document was accepted without criticism by the Faculty Council, which unanimously passed two resolutions addressed to the problems. It is thus clear that these problems are widely perceived, by educators close to them, as real and significant. Because this formulation had proved so useful I submitted to the New England Journal a condensed and updated version, intended as a reflective comment for consideration by medical educators at other schools. In this article I did not criticize my school-- indeed, I am very pleased by the progress we are making. In particular, I did not identify Harvard as the school that had finally awarded a diploma to a student who had failed Part I of the National Boards five times. (I would now like to add that the recommendation for a late award of the degree was based on evidence of subsequent satisfactory clinical performance.) I specifically asked the reporters from The New York Times and from The Crimson not to identify Harvard Medical School in this connection. A reader of my article could, of course, make a reasonable guess-- but I hope there is still a place for tact in discussing such issues. The Times honored my request; The Crimson did not. I apologize to the administration of Harvard Medical School for the result of my indiscretion.

I am very sorry that statements quoted in the press may have led minority students to believe that I have been criticizing their performance as a group. I trust the original document will make clear my recognition of the fundamental success of minority programs in medical schools, and my concern for ensuring good medical care for all segments of society.

Now to the most serious matter of all. The comments by Beckwith and by Furshpan in the Crimson represent legitimate disagreements, though it is not clear whether these comments are based on my article or on secondary sources. Lewontin's comments, however, are another matter. He is quoted as saying "[Davis] thinks blacks are mentally inferior and incompetent...[He] argues that these minority students don't have the intrinsic ability to become doctors." Nothing in my article justifies this grave charge. Neither does anything else that I have said or published. I have written to Professor Lewontin demanding an immediate and full retraction. Bernard D. Davis   Lehman Professor of Bacterial Physiology