To the Editors of The Crimson:

I found Douglas Grant's letter defending the Pi Eta Speaker's Club amusing, to say the least. His justification of the Club's actions, and his statement that Pi Eta can't be compared to other finals clubs can't be taken any other way.

"Maximization of pleasure" by sending 10 people to UHS, as novel an idea as it may seem, is still dangerous and seriously irresponsible. This isn't the only way his pscudoeconomics breaks down. A student body which increases over time (as Harvard's has done since the club's founding in 1866) breaks the argument that a "more the merrier" policy must mean non exclusivity Instead of saying "all are welcome" why doesn't Mr. Grant prove it? Why doesn't he (or, for that matter, any member of the Pi) provide basic statistics on membership? And since women aren't included in that "all" (as though they're of a different species), why doesn't he come up with a good reason for branding every woman who walks through the door "pig"?

Even the example of a Pi Eta Mr. Grant offers is questionable. Was Ted Kennedy "maximizing his pleasure" at Chappaquiddick?

The Pi Eta initiation blatantly shows the need for a review of the finals clubs system. If Mr. Grant, as a member of the club, reflects the common beliefs of that club, I wonder what would've happened if someone had died. "Sorry, we were just having a good time" is not a sufficient answer. Danielle Gordon '85