Race relations do indeed present an insurmountable problem. Difficulties will surface as long as eggheads exist (which is basically forever). Removing uppity eggheads may fix matters in the short run, but there are many more out there to take their places.

What really needs to be addressed is the institutional structure that encourages eggheads to act up. For example, the AAA letter was remarkably eggheaded--we could editorialize for weeks about this (and have). But the more interesting issue is what inspired the AAA presidents to voice their eggheaded thoughts.

The real source of Harvard's race relations problem is the administration. By wasting money on race relations offices and their staffs, the University provides a lightning rod for eggheads to latch onto, Then, instead of acting as genuine representatives, the egghead divert their ostensibly cultural organizations from their real purposes.

The problem is compounded by the intolerant ideological bent of the race relations officers. But even if the current officers were competent, they would still be useless. Has it ever occurred to the University that this may be one of those situations in which doing nothing is better than doing something?

I do not mean to advocate sweeping racial problems under the rug, but rather to raise the following questions: How much of the controversy surrounding race relations is generated by the response to relatively minor incidents, and how much by the incidents themselves? Do students respond positively or negatively to race retreats and other condescensions? Why can't we deal with racial problems via ordinary University mechanisms instead of creating a self-sustaining bureaucracy? And is the situation really all that bad to begin with?

If the staff won't say it, I will: All these race relations people ought to be turned out to pasture and their offices dissolved. Then we won't have to waste time dealing with the eggheads among us.