Many students told us that they see the Foundation as a "feel good" club that does little to ease tensions on a diverse campus. (Counter and Reid themselves wrote that their "efforts are successful" if they "make our students of all races 'feel good' about race relations at Harvard.")

The response to these criticisms should not be denial and accusation. It should be reform.

And what about this "Crimson group" business? This phrase is used repeatedly to refer to The Crimson, its reporters and its editors. It seems to suggest a sort of conspiracy, a cabal--some "group" that has taken over The Crimson.

Near the end of the letter, Counter and Reid say that "Crimson writers active in Hillel" have complained about the "Foundation's support of some of the BSA's programs," Could Counter and Reid's "Crimson group" be a bunch of Jews?

In point of fact, the only opposition that The Crimson ever voiced about a BSA event came in a single staff editorial about BSA's invitation to Leonard Jeffries to speak at Sandes Theatre. The Harvard Foundation was not mentioned, and we actually praised the BSA "for inviting a diverse and important range of speakers" to campus.

We have objected to none of the BSA's programs--except its co-sponsorship of the Jeffries speech. And our staff editorial on Jeffries was voted on by all Crimson editors at the meeting, not just the one "active in Hillel."

"Some students who work closely with the Foundation have expressed the view that The Crimson's editorial and articles were not designed to enlighten but rather to discredit the Harvard Foundation for its lack of involvement in The Crimson's racial agenda. For example, students cite the Harvard Foundation's for its lack of involvement in The Crimson group's recent hostilities with a Black City University of New York [CUNY] professor over his political beliefs."

What on earth do they think "The Crimson's racial agenda" is? Traditionally, The Crimson has voiced strong support for minority hiring and affirmative action. We called for and praised the Afro-American Studies faculty appointments and, more recently, we have supported protests for minority hiring at the Law school.

In our staff editorial of December 10, which followed the diversity series, we made one general point about race relations on campus: that unfortunately, many students often say their friends are drawn from one racial or ethnic group, and that this affects their interaction with others on campus.

We did not single out the Foundation for criticism but said that the University as a whole has been ineffective in dealing with this problem or even in informing students about the official methods of dealing with harassment.

We did not say the Foundation itself should close its doors or fire Counter. In fact, we said the Foundation does a good job within its important mandate--to sponsor cultural activities that certainly help students "feel good' about race relations at Harvard."

We did say, however, that the Foundation and Assistant Dean Hilda Hernadez-Gravelle's Office of Race relations and Minority Affairs have failed to coordinate their activities to address the tensions of a diverse community that need more attention than displays of cultural pride.

Both offices have tried to deal with the larger problems, and the result has been a sort of competition for University resources and prestige. "They need to straighten up the whole issue of who deals with what," Reid told us last fall. Exactly.

We suggested that merging the two offices would end the silly administrative infighting and allow for more coordination, especially in the crucial area of student outreach. One office with a charismatic leader, we proposed, could better address the problems of students who feel uncomfortable on a diverse campus.

That's our "racial agenda." Period.