In case you haven't realized, your section on "Harvard's Cultural Elites in the 15 Minutes weekly magazine is pretty offensive. If your goal was to alienate virtually every political and social branch of the college; you have certainly succeeded.

But this shoddy and anything-but-humorous piece of journalism really causes one to pause and question the general ethics of The Crimson staff and editors.

One of the primary reasons why I take offense is that I actually know some of them personally. While there is nothing wrong in printing newsworthy, accurate articles about students, there is absolutely no journalistic justification for printing bios that are both private business (i.e., completely unrelated to any legitimate concern of your paper) and inaccurate.

Why does it matter that Jordan Ellenberg is tall? Why does it matter that Lauren Gwin wears black? Taken in the wrong context, many of your personal descriptions could be taken as racist, sexist and generally intolerant trash. If you had any reasons for printing this stuff, you should have explained yourselves.

But the personal bites are not simply irrelevant and private matters. They are also exaggerated and in some cases either blatantly false or entirely inappropriate.

You make it seem like there is just one person in Adams House who has contributed to the "stereotype" and wears black.

You make is seem like there is just one president of the Porcellian. If you're going to attack these groups, attack these groups, not individuals.

Moreover, it is completely unfair to make slanderous inferences that do not tell us the whole story. Why is Talal Debs a bad person simply because he is the president of the Porcellian? I happen to know him, and while he is not my closest friend, I wouldn't call him a bad or evil person. Based upon the level of journalism displayed in this piece, one wonders why the authors did not step forward as the idiots that they obviously are.

Another example: Why is David Kennedy a bad person just because he's a member of the Perspective and the Lampoon? While you do not say that he's "bad," your personal description is clearly not intended to praise him.

How many of your authors know David Kennedy? I do, and he has done a lot more for the causes he believes in than most Harvard students. I have infinitely more respect for him than for Julian Barnes and the rest of the Crimson staff.

Finally, I would almost understand the point of the "Cultural Elites" list if it were funny.

There is something humorous about this notion that our illustrious Vice President has emphasized. But your presentations are anything but humorous. Reading that Jordan Ellenberg is tall and somewhat goofy does not exactly make me break out into uncontrolled laughter. Reading that Malcolm Heineske dresses like a candidate is not on the par of Billy Crystal's or Robin Williams' material.

The only thing funny about the 15 Minutes' "Cultural Elite" list is the fact that some idiots on your paper actually thought it was a good idea. I am not the only one offended by your "article," if it can be called that, and I am surprised by the poor quality of journalism that you have displayed.