WE AGREE WITH the majority's call for the abolition of the Commission of Inquiry (COI). However, the proposal that Harvard create an independent judiciary body to handle political complaints by all members of the University contradicts both previous Crimson editorial policy and the essential purposes of this or any other University.

The Crimson last spring called for the abolition of the CRR, calling it an illegitimate body used to quell political protest. Today's view, however, claims that illegitimate bodies are acceptable, as long as they handle complaints by both students and faculty.

Moreover, such a body would be inconsistent with the purposes of a University. Undergraduate membership at Harvard is a privilege, not a right, which the University can take away or violate. Faculty and adminstrators, however, are hired members of the University, responsible only to their employers: Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences A. Michael Spence or President Derek C. Bok. All Harvard members, however, retain both their constitutional rights and the legal means to protect them.

We feel that the COI is a lightning rod, channeling complaints for students often to irrelevant or impartial bodies. (In the current COI case, complaints against Vice President and General Counsel Daniel Steiner '54 were referred to Steiner himself.) Moreover, we feel that the majority's proposal for a new committee reduces the legitimacy of charges that the COI is useless. The abolition of the COI would be a positive step for the rights of all members of this community. The establishment of a body as "illegitimate" as the CRR would not be.