To the Editor of The Crimson:

I would like to reply to Steve Lichtman's article concerning the Oxfam fast. In the article he states that there are three reasons that students should skip the fast, all of which I would like to refute. Reason number one is that the dining hall only gives $1.30 to Oxfam out of the $6 we are paying for dinner. Lichtman argues that since most students go out for dinner and spend $5-6, we should merely donate $5 to Oxfam. I agree that would be better, but the fact is that if it were not for the fast, almost nobody would just arbitrarily donate the money. Charity in our society needs a gimmick such as the Dance Marathon or the Ride for Life to induce people to give.

Lichtman's second objection to the fast is that it is a conscience soother for pampered students who can go out for a meal and rejoice in their generosity. One counter to this point is that some of us actually do fast or even attend hunger banquets; the other being the pragmatic view that the approximately $4000 raised for Oxfam is $4000 more that is going to aid deprived people that would not be sent if Harvard did not hold the fast.

The last argument states that since the dining hall people "rip us off year after year" by charging us for meals we never eat, why miss this one? As one of the coordinators of the Harvard Food Salvage Project, I have had a unique opportunity to see all levels of the Food Services at work. While I would not say the dining services at Harvard are perfect, I feel that for the most part both the administrators and workers of the Food Services are trying hard to be efficient and effective. True, students miss many meals, but we are only charged for 14 meals a week and the alternative would be to have a variable meal program like that found at other schools that would require careful monitoring of how many meals each student has eaten. Such a system would destroy interhouse meals as well as add a concentration camp type security force to the dining halls that would make eating quite unpleasant.

In short, unless Lichtman in his superior moral state actually sent his $5 to Oxfam, he has no valid reason for skipping the fast. Nick Salafsky '87