To the Editors of The Crimson:

A very wise man once wrote that what many people commit to paper is not truly committed to their hearts. The result is a double standard--saying one thing and doing another. Unfortunately, I have recently had the displeasure of experiencing the marked difference between proclamation and reality.

When the shantytown and the Ivory Tower were erected, I was extremely enthusiastic and supportive. I have long supported the divestment movement at Harvard and I was glad to see such a protest of University hypocrisy. This institution cannot stand blindly by its symbol of "truth" while it attempts to deceive the student body by declaring that Harvard investments in South Africa-related stocks do not buttress the repressive and racist system of apartheid. But just as the University basks in the darkness of untruthfulness, I am sorry to say that the indictment also extends to the members of the Open University. I must point out that I am myself a member of the Open University, yet I have not closed my eyes to the hypocrisies of this organization. When the shanties were built, I sought permission to purchase materials and to build a shanty in order to bring members of my dormitory into the divestment movement. Permission was granted and I was welcomed into the shantytown with a list of principles the Open University agreed to abide by. The "Principles of Community" enumerated the personal and communal rights and ethics of the Open University members. It is these principles which have created a blatant hypocrisy and disparity with reality.

The first principle of the community states "We shall treat all persons respectfully; avoiding any abusive language or behavior." If this is actually supposed to be followed, the Open University has failed terribly. I cannot speak for others, but I personally have been called a "stupid asshole," a "dumbshit," and a "pussy" for articulating my comparatively moderate views. I assure you that I am indeed able to engage in debate with intelligence, and I also assure you that I bear no resemblance to a feline of any sort.

The next principle of the community declares "We shall at all times respect the opinions, wishes and presence of other members of the community." This principle cannot be upheld by the aforementioned remarks, nor can it be sustained when people are intimidated for expressing their opinions. I distinctly recall an example of this abuse. I was accosted and denounced because of my speech in favor of a proposal which did not suit the majority.

Another hypocritical principle states that "Personal possessions shall be treated with respect unless clearly designated communal items." Truly a noble principle, it has not been enforced. I have been rudely evicted from my shanty and I have "lost" several possessions to the community--blankets, sheets, tools, and the like.

When the cause is so great, it may seem foolish to some to bring up such grievances. But I believe that silence is acceptance, and I am not prepared to silently accept the status quo at the shantytown. As things stand, it is nothing less than a farce to call the shanties an "open university" and the standards of its membership fair behavior for a community. What the Open University lacks is dedication to its stated principles and a clear view of its objectives. What it requires is a personal commitment to uphold the rights of all and to protect the sacrosanctity of the individual. As the large picture of Archbishop Desmund Tutu (on display at the shantytown) is captioned, "Remember my people." It must be remembered that the people are the key to any community, and respect for all the people is fundamental to any cause.

I hope that this letter will rock the foundations of complacency in the shantytown and cause members of the Open University to contemplate their past actions and future plans. I am quite sure that this letter will further isolate me from the Open University members. I regret this fact, and I applaud those members of the Open University who have also noted the abuses I have discussed. It is nothing more than the discharge of responsibility which prompts me to confront the very organization of which I am a member, in which a number of my associations are, and also in which my affections rest. This letter will undoubtedly lose me some friendships, but even if it lost me all of my friendships, but even if it lost me all of my friends and provided me with none, I would still feel compelled to write it. Scott A. Hunt '89