The Crimson staff was too quick to come to the conclusion that Kristen Clarke '97 should resign as president of the Black Students Association ("Clarke Should Retract Statements," Opinion, Nov. 4).

The issue of Clarke's tenure as president should not have even been mentioned in a staff editorial because Clarke and Victoria Kennedy, the co-authors of a letter to The Crimson ("Blacks Seek an End to Abuse", Opinion, Oct. 28), expressed their opinions as individual members of the Harvard community and not as officers of the BSA.

How can The Crimson dictate to Harvard's African-American community when there are currently no Blacks on The Crimson's executive board? Where would The Crimson get the perspective to be able to respond sensitively to the responses of Harvard's Black students towards The Bell Curve, a book they themselves have admitted is "of questionable research and logic"?

One of the most egregious statements in the editorial was that the RSA's credibility would be damaged if Clarke remained in office. The members of the BSA are the only Harvard students with the authority to decide who their leader should be. The staff of The Crimson was acting in a paternalistic manner and over-stepping its bounds when it tried to dictate to the members of the BSA who should represent them.

As for credibility, The Crimson should examine its own record on multicultural issues before making a judgment about a specific minority group. The Crimson's efforts to reach out to the Black community at Harvard have been few and far between. Staffers have visited BSA meetings and tried to cajole students into comping The Crimson. But how does The Crimson expect to get a more diverse staff if it alienates the very people it tries to recruit?

It would be much more constructive for the members of The Crimson to focus their energies on having more diverse views in the paper than to attack a member of the community who tries to bring a different perspective to The Crimson. --Mabel N.I. Brodrick-Okereke '98