IN THE PAST, The Crimson's policy has been to accept any advertisement unless there is a compelling reason to reject it. The Crimson rejects out of hand any advertisements that are deceptive, discriminatory or libelous. The Playboy advertisement the Crimson refused to publish last week falls into none of these categories, and therefore should have been accepted.

The ad offered women an opportunity for employment as a Playboy model, in terms that were no less ambiguous than those in classified ads The Crimson runs daily without question. For this reason, the majority's decision not to publish the ad seems grounded in emotionalism and flawed reasoning.

This is not to imply that we are insensitive to the problems of sexism. In its editorial columns, the Crimson has long argued against the systematic subjugation of women in American society. We agree with that stand, and believe that our position on the Playboy ad in no way conflicts with editorial support of women's rights.

We do not disagree with the majority's judgment that Playboy's editorial treatment of women is often sexist. We did not, however, find the ad sufficiently offensive to merit an exception to our general standards of advertising acceptability. While the majority argues that the ad contributes "specifically to the exploitation of women," it is hard to see how The Crimson's refusal to publish it will combat the magazine's sexist view of women. The Crimson's suppression of the ad merely restricted the number of applicants from which Playboy's photographer could choose without making the resulting pictorials any less sexist.

Playboy does not photograph women against their will. For their modeling services, the magazine pays them a substantial fee. Had the Crimson published Playboy's ad, the women who read it would have had a clear choice--either ignore the ad or contact the magazine's photographer.

In our view, the element of choice is crucial. A woman who chooses to model for the magazine and is adequately compensated cannot legitimately be considered "exploited." For that reason, we find the majority's cries of exploitation and oppression illogical, and fear they are simply a blatant appeal to emotion.

We find the majority's decision to withhold the information in the ad disturbingly paternalistic. The refusal to publish was a form of censorship that ought not to be tolerated in a community of intelligent individuals. It would surprise us if our readers were not more insulted by The Crimson's apparent lack of confidence in their ability to make intelligent decisions than by the content of the Playboy advertisement itself.

To argue, as the majority does, that it "does not in any way want to be party to Playboy's exploitative tactics" and yet still accept other ads for the magazine, as the Crimson has done and apparently will continue to, is clearly inconsistent. By saying that ads for the magazine itself are somehow less sexist than ads seeking models is to make a distinction without a difference. By publishing future advertisements for Playboy--especially for the one that will contain the photo layout of Ivy League women--The Crimson will inevitably take an active role in supporting the magazine--a role at least as active as it would have by publishing the ad refused last week.