To the Editors of The Crimson:

The recent debate prompted by the 56-page edition of the conservative magazine Peninsula has focused primarily on the issue's effect on the Bisexual, Lesbian and Gay community here at Harvard-Radcliffe, as well as it should. I believe, however, that the impact of the publication on the entire University bears discussion. Not discussion of free speech, or of sexual orientation--those have been debated at length in the past week--but, rather, discussion of the importance of privacy and intimacy to the sexual life of every individual here.

I do not believe the tone of Peninsula's edition nor the tone of Roger J. Landry's remarks in "A House Divided" (November 22) to be particularly indicative of a healthy, intellectual discourse on the variety of human sexuality. The tone of the magazine and Landry's comments seems to me much more indicative of, in addition to their obvious ignorance, a false sense of moral superiority.

Not one student came here to have his or her sexual practices the subject of any expose. I would like to know what has led Landry and other editors of Peninsula to believe they are suddenly the moral guides and leaders of this University, after having undertaken to "shatter myths" and preserve "the pursuit of Truth at Harvard and abroad."

Claiming their writings are intended to help homosexuals get "the help they need" is not to me demonstrative of the "mutual understanding" President Neil L. Rudenstine calls for in his letter. It is, rather, a self-indulgent justification of an entirely unnecessary and unsolicited probe into the most intimate aspect of a specific group of individuals' lives. Who appointed Landry and his fellow council members the University's sex therapists? Who is next in line for Peninsula's unsolicited "help"?

Surely, in the eyes of the Peninsula staff, as Harvard's self-proclaimed harbingers of Truth, the sexual practices of many heterosexuals are not beyond reproach. If 10 percent of the Harvard-Radcliffe community is in dire need of 56 pages of conservative sexual enlightenment concerning same-sex attraction, then certainly a "special triple issue," say 80 pages or more, dedicated to pointing out the "truth" to the 90 percent of Peninsula's heterosexual "patients" who practice premarital sex would not be too much.

Indeed, I should think Landry would agree that this is well overdue. Or I'm sure Robert K. Wasinger would delight in giving his depraved readers more vivid swimming sperm imagery to expose the evils of such unorthodox practices as oral sex, between (gasp) heterosexuals.

My point is this: It is not Peninsula's or anyone's place to judge what goes on in the personal sexual lives of individuals. This type of moral didacticism is not a productive form of the debate or discussion Rudenstine indicated "actually advances the cause of learning, of knowledge, and of understanding." Nor is it "based on a respect for individuals as well as a desire to learn from others" which the president cites as essential to our community.

If Peninsula wants to talk about sex they should consider devoting as much time and energy to discourse on the Thomas hearings or the William Kennedy Smith case or sexual discrimination in the workplace as they did to their attack--and it was an attack--on homosexuality. To me these issues seem much worse "for society" and more harmful "even to those who might not otherwise seem affected" by them than the sexual activity of any individual or group of individuals.

And, to Landry and his colleagues at Peninsula: "Let he who has no sin cast the first stone." Stephanie Jordan '95