To the Editors of The Crimson:

Articles in recent issues of The Crimson have implicitly denounced Richard Eisert's membership in the Owl Club as conflicting with his duties as chair of the Undergraduate Council. This charge has all the earmarks of a fine witch hunt, but in no way can be considered responsible journalism.

What elected officials choose to do in their own free time is their own personal business, unless an activity can be shown to have direct negative bearing upon their ability to perform their duties. No such caveat applies in this case. Very few council members belong to no other organizations. No one has the right to pass judgement upon the merit of their membership in these organizations. The fact that at the present time it is considered both fun and politically correct to bash the final clubs is no excuse. The political and social climate here is not static, and what is popular today may be unpopular tomorrow. What is to prevent judgements based upon other controversial issues, such as religious beliefs or sexual orientation?

This is no way to imply approval of the final clubs. They were rightly dissociated from Harvard because of sexist and discriminatory policies. The undergraduate community would be a better place without the clubs. Their very existence is a sad commentary upon Harvard-Radcliffe student life. I deplore the decision by Richard Eisert (or anyone else, for that matter) to join a final club. But that does not provide a basis to judge his ability as chair of the council. Gina Cattalini '87   President, Radcliffe Union of Students