On Friday, March 5, you printed an editorial by a Crimson editor, Hillary Anger, that was highly critical of the newly-formed Undergraduate Council Reevaluation Committee. Throwing any pretensions of subtlety aside, Ms. Anger stressed that her disappointment was caused by the Committee's membership, specifically referring to the members as a product of "poor judgment." Speaking as a member of the Reevaluation team, I would like to take this opportunity to respond to Ms. Anger's personal attack on the Committee members. First, I will try to expose Ms. Anger's attack for what it is--the bitter prattling of someone who was passed over for a spot on the Reevaluation Committee. Second, I will defend and establish the credentials of some members who were selected. Finally, I will make a statement for the record--Hillary, I'm a big fan of yours, too.

While reading her letter, I was struck by its bitter theme and almost surprised when she did not carry her argument to its logical zenith--"But MOM, I wanted to be on the Committee!" Her fourth paragraph was particularly telling when she wrote, "I applied to be on the reevaluation committee. I was not accepted." At that point, she could have chosen to proclaim her own virtues and attempted to explain why she was a strong applicant; instead, she childishly degenerated into implying that somehow ALL of the committee members are underqualified, "entrenched" pals of Mike Beys.

Hillary, I am nobody's lapdog and certainly not Mike Beys'. While we are friends, we also have strong fundamental disagreements about the future and purpose of the council. Mike and I do not see eye to eye on a variety of issues such as term bill costs, council structure, and the advisability of offering matching fund incentives to the Houses. While we both share a disdain for those members who constantly seem to nitpick and argue minute details instead of grappling with larger issues on Sunday nights, this shared larger vision does not qualify me as "entrenched."

My strongest objection to your better, however, centers around the area of competence and your assertion that somehow I do not possess "much experience." I have spent nearly two of my three years here on the council, during which time I have served on the finance committee and chaired the social committee through one of its most successful semesters ever. I ran for chair this fall and received more votes than it takes for the average Dudley representative to get on the council in the first place. It was during that run for chair that I pushed election reform long before it became a hot issue. During the scandal this fall, I held an officer accountable for her abuse of power despite our personal friendship and despite knowing that I would be vilified until my accusations were proven correct.

Hillary, I regret that you decided to make your attack so personal and so public when a private phone call to our chair or a visit to Room 13 would have sufficed. You have greatly offended some of the hardest-working people on the council by your rash comments, and even more importantly, colored the vision of outside students about what WILL be the most important and accessible committee this semester. In light of my goals, I wish to conclude by proclaiming my personal sincerity and willingness to listen to ALL STUDENTS (even you, Hillary) who have suggestions about how to amend, improve, or recreate student government at Harvard. Marc McKay   Reevaluation Committee member