Allow me to thank The Crimson for its article, "Feds Investigate Scholar's Charges Against Harvard" (Crimson, August 6). Although the allegations in my complaint are currently under investigation by EEOC, I find it important to respond to comments attributed in your article to Mr. James Hoyte, assistant to the president for affirmative action.

Hoyte asserts that my discrimination complaint "is without merit," and he attempts to pass on the responsibility of any wrongdoing to the University's individual departments and schools that serve as benefactors of the Administrative Fellowship Program.

In my charge I recognize that the purpose of the program to attract qualified minority talent to Harvard University by providing a year of training through this fellowship is a laudable endeavor, deserving of the community's support. However, the fact that almost all the fellows admitted to the program during the last five years are Afro-American individuals, strongly suggests the program has systematically excluded qualified candidates from other minority groups.

It should be a cause for serious concern, if not suspicion, that a program designed to bring and promote diversity within Harvard University is one of the less diversified programs in Harvard. In addition, the primary responsibility for the program's equity lies with Harvard's Office of the Assistant to the President for Affirmative Action and Equal Opportunity. Any violation of federal equal employment opportunity guidelines, ethical canons and the spirit of the fellowship program are also the responsibility of the office in charge.

The fact that most of the fellowships have been granted to one racial/ethnic group cannot have escaped the scrutiny of the racially conscious staff in Hoyte's office, which by definition oversees the mandate of affirmative action and equal opportunity within the institution.

Instead of looking at incontrovertible facts that rise moral, ethical, and legal questions, Hoyte opted to discredit my complaint using, ironically, the same traditional arguments wielded by those historically opposed to our society's racial integration and diversification. Andres Paniagua