WE SUPPORT the Crimson majority decision to reject Mr. Chan's advertisement soliciting Radcliffe women for Playboy's Ivy League spread. However, we strongly disagree with the majority's conception of "free" access to newspaper advertising space and the majority editorial's advertising policy statement which is a result of this conception.

The majority opinion expresses "concerns that advertisers be allowed space for any ads that are not deceptive, discriminatory or libelous." Implicit in these concerns is a conviction that unrestricted access to newspaper advertising space is a fundamental aspect of free speech.

In fact, since advertising is not free in a financial sense--it costs money--it can hardly be considered free in a political sense. Advertising is only "free" to those who can pay for it. Therefore it is inherently biased towards the interests of the wealthy. Political advertisements--those that make an overtly political argument (such as Mobil's weekly pro-business columns on the op-ed page of the New York Times)--promote the self-interested views of the advertisers. Promotional advertisements--those that attempt to sell a product or solicit a service (such as Mr. Chan's ad)--promote the material interests and values of the advertisers.

We do believe that a newspaper has an absolute responsibility to present all points of view in its news stories, on its opinion page and in its selection of letters to the editor. (The Crimson fulfilled this responsibility in this case by printing a story about Mr. Chan's arrival on campus.) But because of its inherent bias, unrestricted advertising is antithetical to this responsibility. To completely avoid the possibility of such bias, a newspaper might ideally eliminate all advertising. This, of course, it cannot do, since advertising income is necessary for its publication, and because there are legitimate informational functions of advertising. However, a newspaper does have the right to restrict advertising--a right which does not threaten legitimate free speech--and to restrict it in not just the exceptional cases.

It may be difficult to feel comfortable with newspapers' exercising this broad prerogative to restrict advertising on the basis of their political views, but surely this is far better than letting the content of advertising be decided entirely by those with the money to pay for it. Since most newspapers must accept most ads they receive for financial reasons, there is little grounds for concern that such policies will tip the balance against the interests of the wealthy.

Thus, the Crimson was on firm ground when it rejected Mr. Chan's ad, which would have helped perpetuate a grave social evil--sexism. The Crimson would be on equally firm ground in rejecting Playboy subscription ads and sexist political ads which would perpetuate sexism to an equal or greater extent.

The majority perceives a distinction between dirtying the Crimson's hands by "actively" helping Playboy solicit models and simply helping Playboy to sell its magazine or its sexist point of view in promotional or political ads. This distinction, together with the majority's concern for the preservation of "free" advertising compelled them to support a policy of publishing any political ads--including those from Playboy. But the distinction is irrelevant and the concern misplaced; if the Crimson really wants to keep its hands clean it should--to the extent that financial exigencies allow--refrain from the publication of all ads which promote sexism and other social evils.