To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was disturbed by your editorial of April 26, "Illiberal Liberals." I am appalled when speakers are met with eggs and not allowed to speak, but as I proudly call myself a liberal, I am upset by your implication that such incidents are typical of liberals at Harvard. That is not the case as the incident of the Contra speaker shows. The disturbance was caused by a group from outside the University. COCA had nothing to do with it and should not be held responsible for it. The Crimson even printed a letter from a member of COCA which condemned those responsible for disrupting the meeting. Thus, there is no cause for blaming liberals on campus, not even the liberals who belong to specific groups like COCA, for the actions of a few.

As to the accusation that those who support divestment call those opposed "paternalistic stooges," I ask: who said that to whom? I, a supporter of divestment, have never said such a thing. I know many people who hold the same position as I do, and have heard many conversations and arguments on this issue without any name calling such as you suggested. I don't think that my experience is so unusual. I suggest that if such an incident ever did occur (it was only hypothesiszed in the editorial) it was isolated, and not representative of the pro-divestiture movement as a whole. Generalizing from this one incident would make as much sense as me making generalizations about conservatives on campus just because I was once accused of being un-American. As a supporter of divestment I was highly offended by being told what I am "liable to call" anyone.

The editors of the Crimson presume to tell SASC what they are saying with the shanties that they erected. I can't speak for those who erected the shanties (unlike the presumptuous editors of The Crimson), but to me they say "This is an important issue. We're going to do what we can to remind you of it. We want to achieve change." There is nothing intolerant in telling people this. Tolerance is not ignoring issues, being apathetic, saying nothing about an issue because somebody might disagree with you. Tolerance is addressing issues, voicing your opinions, and allowing others to do the same. The shanties in no way stop any anti-divestiture supporters from voicing their views.

The contention that liberals determine their stands by opposing the conservatives is groundless, ludicrous, unsupported by any reasoning, and insulting as well. Without a shred of evidence you accuse every liberal of not "carefully analyzing each question." This is extremely offensive, but so obviously groundless that it is not worth discussing further.

The most disturbing part of your editorial was when you pointed out that the whites in South Africa firmly believed that they were right. You used this to point out that people should always reexamine their positions and challenge their convictions. This is true. I am disturbed beause you seemed to imply that no one can ever be sure that they are right, and therefore should never act on their convictions. No one should ever silence free speech (sorry Crimson, this is one conviction of mine that I won't change, challenge as you will) but everyone who examines an issue and comes to the conclusion that something should be done has the freedom to act so as to achieve the desired change, so long as other's rights are not violated. If no one ever did anything because they might be wrong, or because others believe differently, nothing would ever get done.

Being tolerant does not mean being silent. Examining your convictions and carefully reanalyzing problems does not preclude action on your convictions. Listening to others opinions does not mean you have to agree with them. Reminding people that a problem exists does not mean you are assuming superiority. If that were true then the conservatives who remind us of suffering in Afghanistan are equally guilty. The generalizations about all liberals made by The Crimson are partly groundless, partly ludicrous, and partly based on a small minority. There are thousands of students at Harvard. The majority voted for Mondale in the campus poll taken in 1984; they would be characterized as liberal by most observers. Of these thousands, only a small fraction have been involved in such incidents as throwing eggs and preventing free speech. It is unfair and misleading for the Crimson to take these few, and accuse the rest of us of being exactly like them. Christine E. Webber '88

Editor's Note: The column "Illiberal Liberals" was a signed piece by a Crimson staff writer and not, as this letter seems to imply, a position of the entire Crimson staff.