To the Editors of the Crimson:

An article appeared in your 29 April edition in which my remarks were interpreted so as to give an impression that could not be farther from my intent, Your reporter portrayed my comments about the University's failure to take seriously the concerns of students when considering faculty retention decisions as to-suggest that I do not believe that Professor Ethel Klein, the most recent victim of Harvard's callous and insensitive attitude, is a professor worth fighting for I regret the misunderstanding and write to clarify my remarks.

I have the greatest respect for Professor Klein as a scholar, a teacher, and as a courageous individual. She has played a critical role in my education here at Harvard and I owe her a great deal. I am heartened by reports that the Government Department may reconsider her case next year. I urge the Department to do so and I commend the Radcliffe Union of Students who have pledged to fight to retain this dedicated teacher and to continue to press for equitable treatment for the few women in professional positions at Harvard-Radcliffe.

Despite my desire to see that Professor Klein is able to stay here, it is important to understand her denied promotion in the context of a consistent pattern of decisions about tenure and promotion. Harvard is not particularly committed to finding and retaining talented teachers. Rather, their goal is to maintain the reputation--not the quality--of this institution by tenuring well-known scholars regardless of their ability to teach. In fact, those professor who have committed time and energy to teaching and to their students often found themselves behind in the race to publish and to achieve academic renown. Not only is teaching not considered seriously in tenure decisions, devotion to teaching can be a detriment to one's professional aspirations.

Each spring brings Crimson headlines and angry letters from concerned students about yet another young, bright, talented teacher who has been denied promotion or tenure. More recent examples include Theda Skocpol, Molly Nolan, and the recently returned Charles Maier, to name but a few. It is clear to me that as much as I care about any one professor, the problem is systemic and must be addressed as such.

In short, angry letters and righteous Crimson editorials are helpful but insufficient. Harvard must be persuaded to allow some form of student participation in faculty intention decisions. The College must commit itself to quality undergraduate education and not to academic one-upsmanship. Importantly, student, must not lost night of the real problem: we have no ability to defend our interests at Harvard-Radcliffe because we are excluded from the University's autocratic decision-making processes. Only with an adequate understanding of the problems we face can we begin to find solutions for them. Michael G. Colantuono '83