To the Editors of The Crimson:

While Douglas A Grant '85 hopes to defend the Pi Eta in his letter of October 25, he has instead written a splendidly ironic of the club He argues that the Pi indifferent from other, exclusive (Harvard social clubs because, the attitude of the Pi Eta prevents the accusation of [it] being exclusive. All are welcome. "He describe the Pi as capital opportunity den of pleasure, and a cost-effective one to boot. He asks rhetorically, "Is this exclusive? How can this he said to 'foster division' when it relies on a broad base of members to proper?"

It will surprise Mr. Grant to learn what is commonly known: The Pi is exclusive and diverse because it is sexist. All are not welcome. Only men are, That Mr. Grant overlooks this innocuous exception and claims that everyone is welcome to join night make one wonder about how he conceives of women. In what category of existence would he place women. so that it would he logical to make the statement "all are welcome." (Without another relevant, the word "all" must here refer to "people.") Does such thinking betray the true attitude of the Pi? And is it this attitude which explains how Mr. Grant could be so blinded to reality that he could hold up for praise this attitude of exclusion, claiming that it "prevents the accusation of [the Pi] being exclusive."

With respect to the criteria of evaluation (exclusiveness and divisiveness) which Mr. Grant has himself put forward, the Pi is no different from most of the other clubs. Mr. Grant implicitly and correctly condemns those clubs by arguing (however enormously) that the Pi is different from them. We should follow his example and use his criteria to condemn the Pi.

Mr. Grant's intended pacan to the Pi illustrates why people who share his attitudes should be given the opportunity to sing its dirge. Daniel Goldhagen '87