Are such patterns consistent with the high moral ground The Crimson has staked out for itself?

I hope that, the next time you explore an issue that affects the lives of so many of your fellow undergraduates, you will make an attempt that is not so embarrassingly immature, mean, inaccurate and unprofessional. Harry R. Lewis   McKay Professor of Computer Science   Chair, Faculty Committee on Athletic Sports

Editor's Note: The editorial chairs only respond to letters to the editor when they contain inaccuracies. Lewis's letter falls in this category.

First, a few basic facts. The first part of The Crimson's four-part series on athletics detailed the unique pressures and rewards of life as a Harvard student athlete. To my knowledge, no campus publication has devoted as much space to athletes' experiences as The Crimson. We hardly attempt to "divide [athletes] from their fellow students," a wildly overstated charge.

Second, Lewis fails to address our criticism of one of the most disturbing aspects of the athletic department's budget--the fact that he and his committee, who purport to "oversee" the department, do not have access to the budget numbers. Lewis says our references to "unaccounted-for cash" are "groundless." How would he know?

Our reporter, Joe Mathews, spoke with 11 of the 15 members on the committee, and none of them (including Lewis) knew anything specific about budget numbers. Furthermore, in his letter, Lewis completely ignores the $30,000 boondoggle known as Red Top, the heavyweight crew team's Connecticut resort. What does the committee think about this unusual arrangement?

Lewis spends the bulk of his letter arguing that Harvard does not run the Department of Athletics to make money. He points to the existence of more teams than any other Division I school (which The Crimson pointed out in its series) and the high level of participation in Harvard sports.

But our point was not that participation is dwindling, or even that the sum total of Harvard's expenditures on athletics is too small. We were more concerned about the inequalities that coaches and athletes cite in the disbursement of those funds, and about the fact that the exact figures are kept secret.

Lewis says that "[w]e would all prefer to have enough money so that teams (and orchestras, etc.) did not have to do any of their own fundraising." We don't question the need for some fundraising. We simply wonder why the only teams that must fundraise are the ones that don't bring in large amounts of revenue in ticket sales or alumni donations.

And The Crimson doesn't believe that Harvard should cut the men's water polo team. We said, "If Harvard is going to have a men's water polo team, for example, it should ensure that the team doesn't have to spend too much time raising its own funds." Our broader point was that the smaller teams must be protected financially. Never did we say that some of them should be axed.

But Lewis offers no help for these teams in his letter. To the contrary, he seems pleased with the status quo and unconcerned that some teams must make extensive efforts just to guarantee the basics. What about our idea of creating a general "Friends of Harvard Sports" fund to encourage financial gifts that could ease the burden on hard-hit teams?

As for Lewis' other points, we have already corrected the errors we made in reporting. And the Evening With Champions incident seems to be a matter of disagreement, as we reported not the open-and-shut case that Lewis paints it as. And we did cite a "first-hand source" for part of our story. In fact, we cited two. Champions Co-Chair Charles K Lee '93 said Athletic Director William J. Cleary '56 had been insensitive in dealing with the show's producers, and Susie Dangel of WGBH acknowledged that relations between her and the athletics department had been tense.

As for The Crimson's diversity of staff and of coverage, we have admitted problems in these areas many times, and we have taken concrete steps to solve them. Women at The Crimson have held many high positions, including sports editor and president. Can Lewis say that of the Department of Athletics? Or of his own committee?

In the course of his letter, Lewis, a tenured professor, calls us "naive," "mean," "inaccurate," "unprofessional" and "immature." He says we engage in "falsehood" and even "absolute fantasy." Perhaps, on further reflection, he will find that these harsh charges go unsupported by the facts.   John A. Cloud '93   Editorial Chair