To the Editors of The Crimson:

Much of the Black community at Harvard followed the events regarding the Currier House incident. The four students who shattered the glass window were required to withdraw for one year, as was the student who made the first phone call containing a racial slur, while his roommate received disciplinary probation "vice severe" for placing the second call. The punishments meted out to the students who confessed to the three aspects of the incident were deemed fair enough.

Although the last student, Greg Williams, originally received the most severe level of disciplinary probation, he has since been granted the freedom to play varsity football, which serves to virtually annul the essential impact of the Ad Board's decision. The obvious question is what exactly is the meaning of disciplinary probation "vice severe" after this recent development?

The University has issued a dangerous invitation to its students to commit acts of racial harrassment with ever greater intensity until they find the limits of impunity. If, as North House Senior Tutor Robert L. Franklin stated to The Crimson, the Ad Board's change in decision rests on "the nature of the offense as well as the person's personal characteristics and how the person has responded to probation," we still fail to see how Williams may play football.

The implicit message to the student is that iresponsibility and immaturity can go virtually unpunished as far as Harvard is concerned. First, it is ludicrous to think that after the attack on the building and the threatening phone call, the individual victim would find an additional phone call a "light-hearted joke." Such poor judgement is not, as the Ad Board requires, like those "personal characteristics" which warrant the suspension of the original punishment. Secondly, the time between the punishment and the recent decision has not allowed sufficient time for Williams to effectively respond to the probation.

Finally, the greater consequence of the Ad Board's recent decision is to ignore the threatening racial nature of the Currier House incident. Williams shared a room with Jack Patterson, the student who placed the first call, stating, "Negro hit squad strikes again," and who subsequently had to withdraw for one year. Even though Williams did not specifically use the term "Negro" in his phone call, the two calls had the similar effect of inciting fear in the individual victim. We fail to see justification for the Ad Board's division of the three actions in terms of the racial implications involved. For the Ad Board to deemphasize even one part of the whole act of racial harassment is to make a mockery of its commitment to protecting the interests of a vulnerable minority.

The message to Black students says that their safety is of lesser importance than the politics of football. For many Black students at Harvard, every day involves a test of one's tolerance of racial harassment, from the Black male student who must constantly produce his bursar's card for HUPD, to the Black female student who must suffer the repeated abuses of racial slurs and sexual innuendo. The recent developments in the Currier House incident merely serve to confirm Black students' suspicions that the University would not issue serious punishments to curb such incorrigible behavior.

In light of controversies concerning the Citadel, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the University of Michigan, et. al., we are appalled by Harvard's lax attitude towards addressing racial tensions, no matter how serious. We call upon the administration to issue a reasonable explanation as to why Williams does not have to endure the full weight of his original punishment. Furthermore, we believe the University must stand behind the force of its decisions. Kyra C. Armstrong '89,   Co-Chair, Black Students' Association   Political Action Committee   Shannah V. Braxton '88,   Former Co-President, BSA