To the Editors of The Crimson:

I write to associate myself publicly and unequivocally with the good work of Dr. S. Allen Counter Jr. and the Harvard Foundation; and to record as well my distress at the ill-focussed recent attention cast on Dr. Counter and his work. No individual or program at Harvard is immune to criticism and that is as it must be in as critical and contentious a community as this. Harvard people are never without an opinion even if they are not fully informed on those matters in which they hold such strong opinions. We all know and understand this.

But the heated and hyper response to Dr. Counter's ventilation of his concerns and particularly those concerns of students of color, extends to a dangerous edge the limits of public discourse. Calls for Dr. Counter's resignation for daring to address problems and perception in the areas of race and cultural concerns, areas for which he bears responsibility and in which he has achieved an enviable record of accomplishment for over half a decade, are singularly inappropriate. The energy generated by these punitive demands would be better addressed to the problem of perception to which Dr. Counter's can did analysis points.

Neither he nor the Foundation, and not even The Crimson, are "the problem" here, but by spinning this unpleasant discussion into a referendum on Dr. Counter with the Red Queen's cry of "off with his head," the problem of acute distemper to which his letter addressed itself is once again evaded. Shame on those who would have it so.

I was chairman of the Committee appointed by former President Bok out of which the Foundation came in 1980-81, and from which its mandate "to enhance the quality of our common life" was derived. I served as chairman of the Foundation's Governing Board until 1985, and I know that the best thing we did was to secure the energetic, imaginative services of Dr. Counter. Few could have translated our hopes into the achievements of the last decade better then he. And while much remains to be done and new directions explored and old priorities re-examined, nothing should be said or done to compromise our public acknowledgement of his achievement and that of the Foundation.

Indeed, because of that experience and achievement we should be all the more mindful of those areas of criticism, however painful to which he calls the attention of this community. Indignation is an understandable but volatile first response to charges that things may not be as we think they are or ought to be. But indignation, however righteous, in a community of reasoned discourse and reasonable people must never be used to intimidate, ridicule or silence those who offer "heresies" contrary to the conventional wisdom.

Few know better than I the dangers of silent support in the face of vocal and well-orchestrated criticism. I wish to be among those who are recorded in appreciative support of Dr. Counter and the Foundation. I hope our attention can be directed to the substance of the concerns he now forces us to consider.

We cannot continue to tolerate the silencing of those messengers who bring us message we would rather not her. The strength of a fragile community such as ours depends upon our willingness to listen more and protest less. Ironically, this is the very lesson Dr. Counter and the Foundation have spent the last decade trying to teach us: clearly, their work is not yet done. Peter J. Gomes   Plummer Professor of Christian Morals.