To the Editors of The Crimson:

In response to Frank Lockwood's article in the March 9 Crimson, "New Magazine Backs Rushdie Reading," the Harvard Advocate Executive Board requests the opportunity to elucidate the following.

First, for the record, the Harvard Advocate will hold a reading of banned books, including The Satanic Verses, at the Lamont Forum Room on Tuesday, March 21, at 8 p.m. Several campus organizations, presses and academic departments will co-sponsor this event to demonstrate support for universal freedom of the press.

Next, we would like to clarify the following three points:

1. The Advocate postponed voting on the initial proposal for the reading because a quorum of members were not present at the time. It was this logistical impediment, rather than the ideological conservatism which Mr. Lockwood's article suggests, that caused us to reschedule voting.

2. The Advocate in no way condones child pornography. Mr. Lockwood writes: "One student suggested that the Advocate find a reading that would offend everyone, such as child pornography. That proposal received no opposition." There was "no opposition" because there was no such proposal. In the course of the meeting, the Advocate officers had a vigorous but informal debate about including books that Western readers have deemed offensive. In the course of that debate, we discussed and categorically dismissed the idea of reading child pornography in public. Mr. Lockwood's presentation of our debate was inaccurate and his stress on child pornography gratuitous and inflammatory.

3. The Advocate will not sponsor a reading in which the safety of its participants and attendees is placed in question. The Crimson article includes a Harvard Quarterly member's statement that the Advocate is "too cautious." The "caution" which the Advocate exercises in this case entails procuring adequate security for the reading. The Advocate believes that such caution is not only beneficial, but necessary, and that denigrating this caution is irresponsible. (The Harvard police have agreed to provide security at our reading.)

Having clarified these points, the Advocate would like to further state that it found the coverage of its proposed reading incomplete. The article missed the real substance of the Advocate meeting by failing to outline the many positive proposals which were passed. These proposals included decisions to schedule the meeting in the Lamont Forum Room on the 21st, to read many banned books and not just Rushdie's and to solicit the participation of all interested publications, organizations, professors and students. The explicit intent behind these proposals was to unite the Harvard community, including The Crimson and the Quarterly, in an affirmation of universal freedom of the press.

The Crimson article not only failed to mention these proposals, but undermined their productivity. Its pitting of the Quarterly against the Advocate presents the issue as a game of one-upsmanship. This coverage fosters divisiveness directly opposed to our intent of unification.

The Advocate members have invested much time, thought and energy in the Banned Books Reading. We sincerely hope that The Crimson and all other concerned organizations will join us as active participants rather than as passive critics. The Executive Board of The Harvard Advocate