To the Editors of The Crimson:

You've done it again--another editorial turnaround that distorts the facts. The Crimson's editorial of 17 February asks students what they've gotten in exchange for their ten-dollar term-bill fees. After recognizing a long litany of Council successes last term, including the installation of $30,000 worth of new word processors for students in the Science Center, the extension of the dinner hour by 15 minutes, a successful Yale weekend, and eight well-attended milk-and-cookie breaks (the Ad Board reforms, the several pamphlets, and a number of other measures were not mentioned) the editorial slips into what seems a shocking paroxysm of short-term memory loss. Please allow me to remind you that in the past, on at least ten separate occasions, The Crimson has deemed that the council's most worthwhile endeavor has been the redistribution of at least two-thirds (actually over 70 percent in the last two years) of its budget back to student group in the form of grants. Now that The Crimson has finally recognized some of our other accomplishments, how is it possible that the entire editorial staff has "forgotten" what it has repeatedly called our most important (and, of course) our most costly function, in an editorial that explicitly discusses the Council's use of its income? This appears to me, at best, a contradiction of The Crimson's earlier editorial judgment, or, at worst, a flagrant disregard for journalistic integrity.

As for your discussion of some of the Council's "more substantial" concerns, here too the editorial errs. The Council has not "dropped" its call for increased dialogue with the Corporation. In fact, it has pursued this initiative and has won a guarantee that the Corporation will meet with student leaders by the end of the term; moreover, President Bok has tentatively agreed to appear before the Council in April to discuss student concerns.

Similarly, the Council has not, as you insist, "backed down" on the tenure issue. If anything the Council has moved forward on this question. While the Council will continue to work through the Committee on Undergraduate Education, members of the Academics Committee have also arranged to meet directly with the Dean of the Faculty, Michael Spence, to discuss student ideas on tenure. Furthermore, a second proposal on tenure, which will appear before the Council shortly, reiterates in stronger terms our call for student participation in the tenure process. It also recommends that the University reintroduce associate tenure so as to allow younger Harvard professors a chance for tenure even if they haven't completed the increasingly stringent research requirements of senior tenure.

While I might conceivably write several dozen more lines correcting your editorial of 17 February, I hope that the point here has been made. In the interest of fairness, editorials must be written not on the basis of distorted perceptions of fact, but on the basis of the facts themselves. If the editorial staff must have its fits of forgetfulness for the sake of argument, it is crucial to remember one thing: there is a distinction between constructive criticism and pointless platitudes. Anyone can blurt out ill-informed aspersions about Council proposals. But designing well-thought-out alternative measures if another thing indeed. The Council needs and welcomes constructive criticism. The Crimson has yet to demonstrate that it can give it.

Chairman, Undergraduate Council