To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Harvard Crimson, in its issue of March 17, offered an apology to the Third World community in which, essentially, it refused to apologize. While acknowledging that one blatantly racist act was a "grave mistake," The Crimson denied any systematic racism on its part. Evidently The Crimson is confident that its members are automatically unaffected by the racism which so thoroughly infects American society simply because they desire not to be racist. The Crimson is apparently confusing opposition to the idea of racism with an immunity to racism itself.

The Crimson is wrong when it suggests that "the only way to eliminate...insensitivity is to [racially] integrate the places where it occurs." The placement of more Third World students in White-dominated institutions does little good if these students are not actively encouraged to express their points of view. Moreover, it represents an abdication of responsibility to claim that the only way for The Crimson to be more sensitive to Third World issues is for more Third World students to join The Crimson. The Crimson says, in other words, "It's your fault. You have to come to us." The assumption is clear: the responsibility for ending racism lies with Third World students. Such a statement reflects the racism which The Crimson denies perpetuating.

I contend that the responsibility lies heavily with us, the White majority. The Crimson's claim that it is "bound on occasion to act...on the basis of...'unconscious racism'''reveals a willingness to abdicate this responsibility. Third World people have been struggling for centuries to be treated as equals. If we fail to understand their message we have only ourselves to blame.

It would be foolish to deny that The Crimson has been in the forefront of many positive efforts. Its unequivocal support for divestiture of South African stocks and for the Afro-American Studies Department are two of many examples which are to be commended. Yet as consistently as The Crimson has attacked the racial insensitivity of the University administration, it has ignored the racism which is so commonplace among the student body. A newspaper must be held responsible not only for what it prints, but also for what it fails to print. Why did The Crimson refuse to cover the historic first National March on Washington for Lesbian and Gay Rights, attended by 100,000 people including approximately 50 Harvard students and alumni, even though informed of the march weeks before it took place? Why, in its coverage of the student Assembly debate on Harberger--in the very same issue as the Third World editorial--did The Crimson not mention the most salient issue of the evening: the incredibly powerful racial tensions which dominated the meeting, the accusations and counter-accusations and the valid assertion by the Raza representative that most Student Assembly representatives are White and uninformed about Third World issues? The Crimson cannot be content to attack Them (the administration) when so much bigotry occurs among Us (the student body). Nothing will change until we acknowledge our own guilt in addition to that of others.

I am sick of hearing people say that they are not racists. I am sick of hearing people say that they believe in equal rights, that they do not discriminate. Who do they think does discriminate? Discrimination is not limited to a few evil "others" who are consciously aware of a malicious intent. The fact is that most racists--and bigots in general--are well-intended, friendly, good people. They hope that Blacks/Gays/Asians/Women/Chicanos get their rights. But as long as they refrain from actively attempting to transform their attitudes toward and assumptions about various oppressed groups, they will be providing de facto support for a maintenance of the status quo.

To deny our own collective racism is to trivialize the roots of bigotry. We have all been raised in a racist society and have incorporated much of its ideals. So many White students on campus are willing to have their one or two Third World friends, and perhaps even a gay one if they are particularly open-minded, but only if this "minority" student approaches them within their context. So very few straight students at this University feel comfortable joining me at a dinner table of known male gay students. A woman who does so is immediately branded as a "fag hag," just as a White student who sits and associates with Black students is considered a "nigger lover." (Of course, we don't use that term any more--"We know better"--but the thought still persists.)

Majority group members at Harvard often complain that they feel awkward among groups of "others." How do they think these "others" feel around them? Yes, racial tension does make people feel uncomfortable. And as long as majority group members continue to allow the burden of this discomfort to fall upon the oppressed, they are perpetuating an attidinal inequity which betrays their own unconscious racism.

We all know of the existence of Black Tables and have heard the question "Why do they stick to themselves? What's wrong with them?" But what about the real segregation that exists at Harvard? What about the Wintrhop House White Table or the Lowell House Rich Table, or the Eliot House anti-Semitic Table, to name just a few? What's wrong with them? The Crimson is absolutely correct in expressing a hope that we carry on anti-racist campaigns to other campus institutions. But we, the White students at Harvard-Radcliffe, must do some individual soul-searching. We all know that racism exists. What are we going to do to change it? Benjamin H. Schatz '81   Co-Chairman of G.O.O.D.   [Gays Organized in Opposition to Discrimination]