To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am writing in response to the staff editorial on legacy admissions ["No More Aristocracy," Feb. 6].

The ancient Greeks used the term "aristocracy" to describe a state governed by those whom the people considered the best and most able individuals in the state. The Harvard admissions office, much as the people of a Greek polis chose their leaders, endeavors to admit the best and most able applicants. Legacies represent a significant portion of such applicants. I was thus shocked that the Crimson editorial board wishes to end, rather then perpetuate, the aristocracy which is Harvard College.

Your editorial made an egregious error in concluding from admission statistics "that being the child of a graduate--a biological accident--improves one's chances of getting into Harvard by almost three times." The Crimson apparently thinks that the children of Harvard graduates are endowed with some mystical quality which makes their admission to Harvard a foregone conclusion.

Any causal relationship between birth to a Harvard graduate and increased odds of admission to Harvard is tenuous at best. You are correct in referring to children of Harvard alumni as "the fortuitously-born." Such children were truly fortunate to be born to parents who, as indicated by their attendance to Harvard, value education and intellectual pursuits.

It seems reasonable to assume that these parents attempted to instill in their children a similar sense of the value of education and to provide their children with the finest possible education. I argue that it is the intellectual climate in which the children of alumni are raised, not their legacy status, which increases their chances of Harvard admission and results in the high rate of legacy admission.

Every Harvard student is, in a similar sense, "fortuitously-born" and the result of "a biological accident." Each of us was born with a high degree of intelligence. Most of us were born into families which, like those of many Harvard graduates, encouraged and stimulated the intellectual development of their children.

In criticizing the legacy admissions policy you thus denounce the "biological accident" which made the possibility of a Harvard education reality for every one of us. Consequently, I find your denunciation of the high rate of legacy admissions utterly reprehensible.

The Crimson correctly states that "When white legacies occupy a disproportionate share of spaces in the first-year class, fewer spaces can be allotted to Blacks, Asian-Americans and Hispanics." The Harvard legacy admissions policy would truly be unjust if the disproportionate admission of legacies was due solely to the applicants' legacy status. It would be equally unjust if Blacks, Asian-Americans and Hispanics occupied a proportional share of the Class of 1993 solely on the basis of their minority status.

I would wager, at the risk of becoming Crimson cannon-fodder, that average legacy applicant is more qualified for admission to Harvard than the average minority applicant. The Crimson would surely not like to acknowledge that this might be true.

If the Crimson staff would like to use the Harvard admissions office as a means by which to correct the wrongs of society--discrimination against minority groups and socio-economic disparities--then perhaps Harvard should adopt a more comprehensive policy of affirmative action admissions.

The College could seek to proportionately represent those afflicted with mental handicaps, non-existent work ethics and intellectual apathy. Until the admissions office decides to adopt such a policy, I hope, as should the Crimson, that the Harvard student body remains an aristocracy which represents the best and most able applicants.

I am not at all surprised that a significant proportion of such applicants are legacies. Harvard should not follow The Crimson counsel to discriminate against legacies because of their racial and socio-economic backgrounds.

Just for the record, I am not a legacy. TODD BOURELL '92

Editor's note: The Crimson used the word "aristocracy" in the sense of "a privileged minority or upper class, usually of inherited wealth and social position," [Webster's New World Dictionary]. The Office of Admissions openly acknowledges that legacy status entitles applicants to preferential consideration.