To the Editors of The Crimson:

Ms. Laura Gomez has objected, as have several others, to my refusal to allow some students to enter the classroom sometime after my lecture had begun on the ground that I was disregarding "a long-established" principle of a shopping period, "for selfish reasons."

It strikes me that this is a self-centered view. I respect a shopping period, but there should be intelligent shopping. One cannot dash about for 10 or 15 minutes a time and assume one has learned enough about a course to decide whether to take it or not. Shopping is not just one period; a student has three or four sessions in which to circulate and audit different presentations and make a decision.

But I find most curious the assertion that my attitude was "selfish." At the beginning of the class, I stated that I would speak for only 25 to 30 minutes, and I asked those in the room. as a matter of courtesy, to stay for the entire period. The courtesy was not only to me but to others in the room, whose attention was disrupted when others stood up to pass them, go out, etc. I said, jokingly, that one could consider this authoritarian, if one was radical; a matter of civility, if one was conservative; and a social contract, if one was utilitarian.

Fifteen minutes after I began to speak, some students began to enter the room. They came in one at a time, and made their way to seats. I did not feel they would get enough information about the course by arriving late. And, yes, it seemed intrusive to me--and therefore to others in the room as well. I said, jokingly, that when I lecture it is like a semi-trance. I explained this by saying that I do not have a prepared text, but some notes of major points I wish to make, and that I rely on free-association for examples and illustrations that come to mind, as I speak, to flesh out these points. The repeated entry of students, coming in late, coming directly into my vision--given the layout of William James 1--disrupted my thoughts, and therefore the presentation I was seeking to make.

And that comes to the crux of the issue. Ms. Gomez seems to assume that one right is at stake, the right of the student who comes late in the shopping process and moves in and out of the room at will. I said at the start of class, and I repeat it, that other rights are also involved: the right of an instructor, trying to address some 80 auditors, to make a coherent presentation; the right of other students in the classroom not to be disturbed by the constant movement. Further, for the shopper: intellectual judgement is not a casual process, and if you want to find out about a course, come and listen. About 80 students did come on time; about seven began wandering in at various moments 15 minutes past the hour. What is the balance of rights?

Since I do believe that a situation as small as this poses all the problems about the nature of a community, I have invited those in the class to come on Friday, at 10 a.m., to William James 1 to discuss the situation. I trust that Ms. Gomez will come as well. Daniel Bell   Henry Ford II Professor of Social Sciences