THE MAJORITY VIEWPOINT and the ad hoc committee of section leaders for Social Analysis 10, "Principles of Economics," it supports are unconvincing in their attack on the right of Professor of Economics Martin S. Feldstein '61 to control his own course, and offer an unsatisfying alternative to the current system.

There is no question that exposing students to a variety of different economic viewpoints "helps them better understand mainstream neo-classical economics." But opponents of Feldstein's decision ignore the possibility that the current system already offers sufficient breadth of opinion, particularly for an introductory course.

With one full unit of Ec 10 (almost 10 percent of class time) devoted to radical economics, optional radical lectures offered in the spring and fall, and in-depth explanations of the differences between Keynesian and monetarist economics viewpoints, the course certainly does not try to convince students that all economists agree on every issue.

No one can empirically determine whether this is enough university of education or not--it is a matter of opinion. Of course, someone must make a decision, and it is for this reason that Harvard placed Feldstein in charge of Ec 10--to decide major issues about course structure and content. When a professor is hired to lead to course, he is hired to use his expertise and experience to make important decisions about the course, to guide section leaders.

Indeed, Feldstein, as one the this country's leading economists and an experienced educator, is as fit as anyone else to resolve these issues, as complicated and unempirical a they may be.

THERE IS NO QUESTION that Feldstein should have had better communication with section leaders (that's just good public relations). But given that, the structure of Ec 10 is his concern and the concern of the Economic Department should it choose to replace to Feldstein.

The best alternative to Feldstein's "autocratic" ruling, according to the majority opinion, would force students (many of them freshmen) to choose between ideologically different sections in the first week of classes. The idea of students placing themselves in rigid ideological molds before they have the tools to make such an important decision is frightening. For even those students who have adequate knowledge to make a rational decision, is it part of Harvard liberal arts education to allow these students to surround themselves with ideologically similar people in the classroom? No.

For radical aficionados who do not see enough of non-neoclassical economics in Ec 10. Harvard's Economics Department offers more advanced courses on socialism and Marxism Based upon the sparse attendance at the optional lectures, it is questionable whether there really is that much interest. In any case, after Ec 10, students would be sufficiently educated to analyze radical economics critically and judge them for their true worth.

The alternative to Feldstein? According to the majority opinion, the establishment of a committee of faculty members to govern Ec 10 can best present future "autocratic" decisions. Unfortunately, it is not apparent how such a committee would work or, indeed, whether it could be made to work at all. Who would choose the committee? How would they vote--by majority or by unanimity? Pragmatic questions, such as these are too often ignored for the sake of a lofty ideal.

What would happen if Feldstein decided tomorrow to-reinstate radical sections without consulting section leaders? Would the decision be condemned as autocratic and inherently unfair by this same ad hoc committee? Probably not. Feldstein would be praised for his liberal-minded viewpoint.

So, to be honest, the issue of how the decision to eliminate Ec 10 radical sections was made is really secondary to the actual decision, which brings us back to the question about radical sections themselves. Since no one can give a definitive answer why not let the person paid to decide. decide?