To the Editors of The Crimson:

Saturday's Crimson (March 1, 1986) carried a rather curious editorial, "Crisis After Cruse," by one David J. Barron. I found it curious for a few reasons which I will go into in a moment and offensive as well.

To take one point: I wonder whether it is strictly in the sense of fair play to fault both Professors [Cornel] West and [Harold] Cruse for not responding to a charge of anti-Semitism, or pro-Farrakhan-ism, as it were. Is this not a straw man argument, used for the purpose of arousing antagonistic sentiment toward Cruse, West, and "Black intellectuals" (and therefore the Du Bois Graduate Colloquium, which Mr. Barron takes as an example of the latter)? As the risk of sounding naive, which I don't think I am overly, the issue of the Nation of Islam's Minister Farrakhan was not a topic of discussion on any of the panels, or one raised (except tangentially) by any of the guest speakers. I agree most wholeheartedly with the condemnation of Farrakhan as "anti-Semitic, xenophobic"--but can a conference that addresses issues of concern to the Black intellectual community address every issue of concern to said community? We could, any one of us who presented papers, have selected Farrakhan as a topic but we did not, for whatever reasons; we also did not address other equally critical problems (such as the alarming rise of teenage mothers, with the attendant strain on the Black community and long-range disastrous effects for the parties involved). There are many, many crucial issues facing the Black community today, and I quite frankly think it unreasonable to expect a one-day conference to cover, in whole or in part, any great number of them. I also find it unreasonable on the part of Mr. Barron to attempt to dictate what these issues would be. Perhaps, if he is a student at the university, he would like to submit a paper for next year's colloquium.

To address another point: This is, again, another cavil of Mr. Barron's that I feel can be best put into the straw man category: "no Jewish opinion is a good one" (according to Black intellectuals). Is Mr. Barron deliberately attempting to foment further dissension between Black and Jewish intellectuals? Increased tension between these two groups, especially in light of their past political alliance, is of grave concern to me and other academics. However, Mr. Barron's remarks seem calculated to aggravate differences, rather than reconcile them. How else am I to make sense of his nothing that "to loud applause, West simply noted that he [Farrakhan] was anti-Semitic, xenophobic, and decidely anti-intellectual. It is safe to conclude that little of West's qualification was heard, never mind accepted." It is infuriating to read yellow-dog journalism such as this in The Crimson. I congratualate M. Barron on being able to to read the minds of the hundreds of listeners there, white and Black, and decide that "little of West's qualification was heard." Additionally, Barron's prose intimates that West is little better than an anti-semite, which is emphatically not the case. Mr. Barron seems to be perturbed that "Black intellectuals stop worrying about what Jews think," although it seems to this reader that Mr. Barron's objections are precisely the opposite: that Black intellectuals do not care sufficiently about what Jews think. Neither group, I should imagine, is at the point where their respective intellectual discourses should be shaped by a what-does-the-other-side-think reactionism. To indicate that it should appears wrong-headed and intellectually dishonest. Yes, Black intellectual thought should take into account Jewish opinion where appropriate--just as Jewish intellectuals should take into account Black opinion where appropriate. But no group can or should attempt to answer every possible objection every time a discussion is opened.

A note on matters of record: Surely Mr. Barron should be expected, if he is to lambast Professor West, to get his name correct: Professor Cornel West is an assistant professor at the Yale Divinity School, not Conrad West. And I would add that Professor Cruse's remarks at the fall meeting/lecture of the Seymour Society, an undergraduate Christian organization, may have little in acutality to do with his remarks at the Du Bois Graduate Colloquium (which were a "reminiscence" of Professor Du Bois, with comments linking Professor Du Bois's career with that of young scholars today). As I was not present at the Seymour Society talks, I can not respond to them. I do think it is important, under the circumstances, not to confuse two organizations which may have different critical agendas.

Finally I would like to add a personal comment. As an officer of the W.E.B. Du Bois Society, I have to say that I find this organization as free of anti-Semitism as any organization I have been a member of. I say this not only because I am a Black officer of the Du Bois Society, but also its only Jewish officer. I was born and raised Jewish, just as I was born and raised Black. For the past two decades of my life I have unhappily watched the erosion of the long-time alliance between Blacks and Jews (an erosion I do not have the time or space to get into here). I have been the target of intolerant behavior from both groups, and find distasteful in the extreme any measure of intolerance from a member of an oppressed group; needless to say, I have many days when I despair of social harmony. Still, it is precisely because I am at bedrock an optimist that I am writing this letter, and because it is in my best vested interest that a rapport between Jews and Blacks once again flourish. Editorials such as Mr. Barron's do nothing toward fostering a dialogue that will bring that rapport to pass. Rafia Zafar   Assistant Secretary W.E.B. Du Bois Graduate Society