'Seldom do I enjoy reading your Opinion section--the writing it puts on display is often so poor as to obscure the very issue at hand, and in the rare case of a well-written editorial, the opinion itself is so poorly thought out that reading more than the first few lines generally proves to be a mistake. However, I do try to keep these opinions to myself--after all, I'm sure there are those students (although which I can't imagine) who do, in fact, like your editorial section, and I suppose at least their interests are being served.

However, the April 10, 1996 Opinion was simply too much to bear. Three different articles demonstrated equal amounts of inanity--a hat trick the Crimson should no doubt be proud of.

First, the staff editorial ("Commencement Choice: Dr. Who?"). It is an insult to every scientist at Harvard to be told that the choice of Dr. Varmus is a "disappointment." As for "glamour," how many Harvard seniors from the class of 1995 had heard of Vaclav Havel prior to that Czech Republic President's selection as the Commencement Speaker for that year? No poll was conducted to my knowledge, but I'd venture a guess: not many. Seldom has such myopia been demonstrated by an entire staff (minus three) of supposedly intelligent journalists. This essay demonstrates a lack of education, not to mention a lack of tact.

Moving from right to left (at least across the page--The Crimson never moves right of left, I'm afraid), the next editorial we come to is Emily R. Carrier's "'She' Remains on the Margins." While I sympathize with Ms. Carrier's unfortunate choice of thesis advisor, I find it odd that she could write so bluntly that she does not recommend anyone read her thesis. Was it so poorly written, or so uninteresting, that she wishes it to be buried along with the other reams of unread academic research by this year's senior class? If Ms. Carrier went to the trouble of writing an entire article based on her thesis (not to mention the trouble I and many like me took to read said editorial), it would be nice if that thesis were actually a readable piece of work. Debunking one's own work tends to lessen the strength of any subsequent articles, Ms. Carrier.

Finally, on to the master of the infuriatingly dumb editorial, Mr. David W. Brown. I tried to call Mr. Brown to discuss his "Mocking the Right" personally, but, alas, his phone number has been disconnected. Either too many Harvard students share my opinion on his writing, or Brown forgot to write the check for his last phone bill. But to more important matters--the editorial. Brown's views on the Confederate flag are all too well known on this campus, as are his views on anyone who happens to disagree with those opinions--the mark of a truly open mind, I'm sure. However, it was Brown's conviction that the personal insults dispensed by Carville and Franken so thoroughly discredit the Right (or, more correctly, the Republican Party--which, Mr. Brown should be reminded, does not have a monopoly on conservative thought in this nation) that so disgusted me. It is precisely because liberal cum Democrat writers have not been able to put together a more effective response to Gingrich & Co. that the Republicans swept into Congress in 1994. However fat Rush Limbaugh may be, making fun of his obesity does not by any means cast his opinions in a darker light--unless you are a truly shallow human being. Brown's editorial displayed a lack of political astuteness that should prevent anyone from ever taking him seriously again--if anyone ever has before.

I'd cancel my subscription at this point, but, fortunately, I don't have one. Keep up the bad work--I'm sure all of the other publications at Harvard are profiting from your ineptitude. --Joshua P. Garoon '98