IN SCORNING Mother Harvard's concern for her students, the majority demonstrates a childish disregard for the complexities underlying Epps's decision.

For example, there is only scant consideration of the enormous legal responsibility the University incurs when official Harvard groups travel abroad. Just imagine what would happen if a bomb blast killed a planeload of Harvard musicians. No doubt, a stampede of attornies (maybe even some Harvard alumni) would trample each other in a rush to file a well-publicized and lucrative class-action suit against the University.

What, then, would the parents of Harvard students or next year's potential applicants think of the administration's decision-making abilities? What if the planeload of musicians was hijacked instead of bombed? The thought of Harvard students huddled around television sets to hear the latest news about their captive classmates is chilling, albeit unlikely

THE COLLEGE'S DECISION not to risk these tragedies may seem like an overreaction or an unpleasant reminder of curfews from our childhood. But aside from their practical necessity, the travel restrictions stem from laudable intentions. Whatever the potential costs of bombings and hijackings are to the College, the human costs alone justify Epps's decision.

Most students affected by the ban, not to mention their families, should understand the need for the travel ban and welcome it for these reasons. Besides, a bit of parenting now and then never hurt anyone. In this case, it may even save some lives.