To the Editors of the Crimson:

The Crimson editorial of May 3 (dealing with Dean Fox's treatment of race relations in his annual report) reflects a viewpoint and level of understanding for rather incomplete understanding) which plagues student efforts toward improving race relations at Harvard Many student council members and minority "leaders" who have recently been in the foreground of debate over how to improve race relations seemingly are not approaching that it deserves. It is uncanny how The Crimson editorial carries on in this tradition.

It is inarguable that the editorial was written with good intent, however, intent does not justify the editorial's oversimplifications and misperceptions. The Crimson editorial of May 3 begins. "Race Relations has not been among the College's biggest successes over the past decade or so." The editorial staff seems to conveniently overlook the fact that Harvard is praised for its relatively good race relations. Minorities flock to Harvard because of its open environment which gives minorities an opportunity to fully participate in college life. We should commend the College for its diligent work of the past twenty years towards this goal.

The editorial later continues. "The doctrine articulated in the report (Dean Fox's annual report) also carries a note of naivete, for it fails to address the problem that the College and minority students have consistently interpreted events differently, and will probably continue to do so." It is disturbing that The Crimson seems to believe that outspoken leaders of certain minority groups speak for all minorities (most of whom have never had contact with these minority groups). This statement is also indicative of the gross characterizations of minorities which is responsible for much confusion. Certainly there are commonalities that bind all minorities together, but we must realize that differences do exist.

A few years ago a Committee of Race Relations was formed to look into race relations at Harvard. The committee prepared a 140 page report for the Dean of Students based largely on a 251 question survey filled out by some 1300 undergraduates. If one studies the report, it becomes evident that different minorities have different perceptions, different problems, and different "strategies" for dealing with perceived problems.

Possibly even more overlooked is the fact that groups within minorities attempt to work with the system--working toward progress from within. Other minorities resent the fact that assimilation and even integration mean some loss of cultural identity and tradition. What is clear is that any solution which attempts to address problems related to race relations must have a clear understanding of what problem is being alleviated. The solution must also fully understand how it may affect differently the various minority groups as well as the various groups within those minorities.

I do not wish to emphasize the distinctions among the minority groups. It must sometimes seem that minority factions are competing for the same piece of the pie. But that attitude is in its very essence a divisive one. A better perspective of progress continues a search for greater equality of opportunity without regard to race, sex, religion, and many other characteristics that contribute to our individuality.

This might seem somewhat optimistic, but consider this point. There are even benefits to assuming that discrimination does not exist. Minorities should not be constantly sensitive of their particular distinctiveness because that sensitivity will hinder their ability to approach situations relations with a positive attitude. If we expect to face discrimination, we will surely meet up with it.

Certainly improvements in race relations can be made, but let's approach the situation with greater understanding and respect for the complexity of the problem. We should also realize the progress that has been made and enter the process with a positive attitude. The Crimson editorial concludes with a pitch or greater student voice in administrative decisions. But if we want the administration to listen to our viewpoints, we must have well-researched, well-thought-out points to make.

Those of us who are seldom vocal about our position on this issue, would at least silently applaud students who speak out constructively and push for progress. Presently, "we" are somewhat dissappointed in the emotional political response which supports the negative view of "minority activists" as radical, ill-informed, and not well-thought-out. It is my hope that student leaders and the Crimson editorial staff do not continue to contribute to this viewpoint. Paul S. Kang '84