To the Editors of The Crimson:

I would like to take issue with J. Wyatt Emmerich's editorial "Harvard: Behind Closed Doors," published in your February 13, 1978 edition. First, a clarification should be made: the blanket on the Report on the Core Curriculum is temporary; as I understand it, the Core report will be made public as soon as it is formally introduced to the Faculty. The justification for the confidentiality was delivered to myself and other members of the Educational Resource Group (ERG) by Associate Dean Glen W. Bowersock; he explained that a breach of protocol might irritate Faculty members to such a degree that the Core Proposal could be jeopardized. Since students will shortly learn the contents of the report, and since actual decisions are not expected in the near future, there seems to be little need to endanger the proposal by releasing the material prematurely.

To move to the larger issue, I disagree with Mr. Emmerich's assessment that CUE meetings are "secret." Although interpretations may differ, I believe (as does Webster's) that "secret" means keeping information from general knowledge. From this understanding, an important fact emerges: the CUE does not "conduct its meeting in secret" because--save for the 'Core Curriculum' meeting of February 6--minutes are available for every CUE meeting as well as reports from any CUE member, including its chairperson Dean Bowersock.

Nevertheless, Mr. Emmerich believes that "CUE meetings should not be closed to reporters on campus newspapers." While agreeing with him in principle. I think it is necessary to point out the reason for the closed meetings. In the past, the five faculty CUE members have opposed the presence of reporters because they believed that free and open discussion could be best maintained when one is not held accountable for his/her every word. Although the five student members at the time preferred to invite the press, they did not belabor this procedural issue since the events of the meetings were ordinarily accessible to the press and public. If Mr. Emmerich still contends that the actual presence of reporters at CUE meetings is necessary and that these second-hand stories are inadequate, I only ask: "Why, then, do Crimson reporters rely so heavily on recapitulations from athletic coaches and managers for many sports articles?"

I would next like to correct a certain statement in the editorial. Mr. Emmerich wrote that "The lack of (student) opinions can be largely attributed to the fact that campus reporters are barred from the CUE and ERG meetings..." In the thirteen months since I was first elected to ERG, there has been only one meeting closed to the public, the meeting of February 11, 1978 during which the Core Curriculum report was discussed. ERG meetings are not closed to the press; in fact, explicit invitations to these meetings have been extended to both The Crimson and The Independent on numerous occasions, but no Crimson reporter has ever made an appearance. I strongly believe that campus publications can help muster student opinion, and I only wish campus reporters had attended our discussions about tutorial reform, or the Prize for Excellence in Teaching, or the research opportunity clearinghouse because student opinion and support could surely have been used. I am quite puzzled why the Crimson has been so selective in issuing reporters to ERG meetings.

Finally, Mr. Emmerich's editorial contains the pretense that The Crimson is the sustaining font of information for Harvard students. While honoring your editorial privilege, I wonder whether your waters are polluted with a bias that excludes many significant issues while distoring students perceptions and understandings of events. Victor Fillippini '80   CUE Representative [Spring 1978]   ERG Representative, South House[1978]   ERG Representative, Yard/Union Dorms[1977]