To the Editors of the Crimson:

If those of you who write editorials on page two would take the time to read the news reported on page one of your own paper. The Crimson might avoid embarrassing itself and upsetting its readers. In "On-Core" (March 18), you criticize the Undergraduate Council for failing "to assemble a comprehensive report of the most common objections (to the Core), whether they be a desire for more survey courses or complaints about undue constriction," and to present the report to the faculty. In fact, as all are aware who read "Full Faculty Kicks Off Core Debate" (March 9), the Academics Committee of the Undergraduate Council already has reported to the Faculty about student desire for survey courses and student complaints about undue restriction, highlighting, in addition, weaknesses in specific sub-areas, and proposing two specific solutions to the problems.

To be sure, the March 8 report was based on student opinions expressed in the Open Hearing on the Core, termed by Dean Rosovsky "as good a discussion" as he had heard, yet criticized by The Crimson because only 40 students attended Lack of student interest is not the Undergraduate Council's fault; we tried as hard to publicize as we could, leafletting every freshman room, posturing each house, placing ads in both The Crimson and The Independent.

But the Academics Committee never pretended that the five-minute March 8 report was "broad-based". The report concluded. "These are our recommendations, in brief, based upon initial student input. The Academics committee will prepare a more detailed report this spring, with greater student input and more detailed suggestions." Isn't this the "well-reasoned and well-researched proposal for Core reform" which you so indignantly demand? Michael Abramowitz was given a transcript of the March 8 report, but chose not to include its conclusion in his March 9 article.

Already, research for the comprehensive spring report has begun. The Crimson, unlike The Independent, did not consider it important to send a reporter to the March 16 meeting of the Academics Committee, at which Professor John Dowling, Chairman of the Core Sub-Committee on Science, discussed student proposals to correct weaknesses in the Core Science offerings and endorsed a survey, written by three members of the Academics Committee, about student opinions of the Science offerings, to be distributed to at least 1000 students.

But there is a more fundamental weakness of the editorial than its call for reforms that are already in the process of being implemented. The Crimson misunderstands the nature of the Faculty's review of the Core. What is said at the March 8 and April 15 Faculty meetings really doesn't matter, all the full Faculty can do is vote to continue or to discontinue the Core program for five years. The Academics Committee concluded, and The Crimson would probably agree, that it would be foolish and misrepresentative of student opinion to recommend that the program be scrapped entirely So the Faculty debates are just a formality. Real reform will come in the Core sub-committees, and, most important, in the Core Standing Committee. Academics committee representatives to all of the Core Committees are already lobbying for the recommendations of the March 8 report and will lobby for the more substantial report in the Spring. So there is no time pressure. Change occurs slowly at Harvard.

The Crimson editorial concludes; "For now, one successful research push would help replace a tradition of ineffectiveness with the indelible mark of hard work." Our research push began at the beginning of the second semester, a month before cynical Crimson editors thought to commission it. We offer hard work to the tune of five hours, on average, of meetings a week and hours more of writing. However, like the excellent Storage report, ours will require at least a semester to produce.

Like many undergraduates, I was frustrated by the lack of substantive discussion during the Undergraduate Council's first semester. New, however, the birth pains are over, and everyone is trying hard, with results, I think, of which the College can be proud. The Crimson should act be so quick to assume bad faith when it won't like the time to learns what is going in. Jeff Recon '86   Co-Chair, Academic Committee   Undergraduate Council