THE VENERABLE and unwritten customs that determine the style and continuity of this paper would strongly advise me not to write an article in the first person. For purposes of this discussion, I will disregard the suggestion. Some observers might call the infraction self-indulgent at the very least, but those who understand the purpose of healthy dissent will accept it for the possibility it offers of doing some good.

Disagreement in The Crimson carries over from this example to all areas of the paper. Not a day goes by in which there is perfect harmony as regards the philosophy, content, layout, production or business aspects of this, or any, newspaper. This tension, in fact, accounts for much of a paper's growth and constant striving for improvement. It is in this spirit that I disagree with Crimson editors on a number of subjects, often take issue with Crimson editorial or news policies, and join other Third World students in recognizing and criticizing the racist implications of many items which have appeared in The Crimson. Those whose lack of sensitivity and forethought causes offense are, I think, responsible for educating themselves to understand better the often unintentional nature of oppression and its effect upon other human beings.

There is however, a difference between this sort of constructive anger and attacks upon the people who make mistakes that offend. While unfeeling treatment of oppressed people through stereotypes, jokes, omission, and violence angers me immensely, I find myself equally upset at the hatred the oppressed often turn back upon potential allies among the groups which have traditionally held power in this society. I see as counterproductive and hurtful the anti-Semitism inherent in much Third World criticism of people involved in the press and academia, the oft- repeated charge that white women are "walking all over" minorities in the job market, and the polemics about the "incorrectness" of interracial relationship (among Blacks) or heterosexuality (among gays). This sort of reverse discrimination is very different from that which Allan Bakke had in mind, and is potentially even more destructive. It also lurks menacingly beneath the surface of much otherwise legitimate protest against oppression of all kinds; when observers recognize it, it can divert their attention from the common goals of equality and understanding which both oppressed and sympathizers desire.

I, for one, learned very early in life that white people as a group are not the enemy, and old lessons die hard. While my trust of white people has been betrayed many times to manipulate my behavior, to blind me to the harsh realities of living Black in this society, and to rob me of a heritage it will take years to reclaim, there is also enough proof in my experience to keep me from writing off the lesson as a total lie.

An excruciating tension arises from the knowledge of that truth. While I sometimes wish I could blithely insist that I am before all else a colorless and genderless "person,"--as I did in my lily-white, predominantly-male high school activities: I am ever conscious of the ways racism asserts itself in even the friendliest relations between white and Black people. I therefore find myself caught too often between two sides of a dispute, seeing the logic and the idiocy of both points of view, knowing that in the world of people and ideas, there are no absolutes, no "black" and white." And inevitably my perspective will be either criticized because it lacks a sense of struggle, or ridiculed because it is too idealistic.

But I find it necessary to live and think this way, striving to find a way among people that makes sense and loving them through it all. For, as an unusually clear-thinking South End politician said recently, "We have to deal with the things that divide us before we can deal with the things we're united on." It is crucial to me that as many people as possible emerge unified and unhurt.