IN ITS MAD drive for protection of free expression, the staff ignores what really is at issue in the debate over Noel Ignatiev, the Liems and the kosher toaster.

Ignatiev seems to have voiced objections to house policy, but specifically ,his objections had to do with the use of University funds for the fostering of religious observance.

As many Dunster students (myself included) can attest, Ignatiev has been a valuable member of the house community. But the staff's overriding secularism and Ignatiev's protests against the merging of church and dining hall aside, religion of whatever (non-violent) type deserves the support of the University.

We are a pluralistic university; Harvard therefore cannot favor one sect over another. Religion, however, reminds Harvard students and faculty of the essential futility of the human pursuit of perfection and knowledge. If we are to focus on more than our own human arrogance, religion is a valuable force for good in society.

When the staff calls for the protection of Ignatiev's free speech rights, therefore, it ignores the importance of the free experience of religion.

Ignatiev's inexplicable hostility towards Jewish students' religious observance certainly does not make for a willfull ignorance of the facts notwithstanding. It is this apparent hostility towards student beliefs, not a disagreement with house policy, which should (unfortunately) disqualify Ignatiev from acting as a tutor.

I should note, moreover, that even when fired, Ignatiev will still be able to exercise his right to "publicize opinion by print, sign and voice."

Finally, it is important to realize that the purchase of the kosher toaster was legitimate even on secular, egalitarian grounds. Jewish students pay the same amount for their food as everyone else; one toaster oven and a little bit of kosher food will not even begin to compensate them for the amount of money they waste each year eating tuna fish in the dining hall.