I wish to respond to your Dec. 9, 1997, "Cops in Shops" editorial.

It is inconceivable that a group of highly educated individuals at one of the most lauded educational institutions in the world could so overly simplify and obviously misrepresent this issue.

The editorial's observation that the program focuses excessively on minors (specifically underage Harvard students) is false unless, as the editorial seemed to indicate, underage Harvard students are excessively preoccupied with breaking the law. The editorial failed to tell its reading public that adults were also arrested--also as they were breaking the law.

Perhaps undercover translates in the Harvard undergrad dictionary as underhanded. In Webster's, however, it does not.

To label those individuals caught by the program as simply unlucky leaves much to be desired. To label them as unlucky law breakers would be more accurate.

What more appropriate motivation can there be for this crackdown than the recent underage drinking deaths and the constant rise of under-age alcohol consumption? To describe Scott Krueger's death as a result of unsafe party and fraternity environments rather than underage alcohol abuse suggests that the writers spend more time writing editorials than they do researching facts.

The editorial insinuated that the underage alcohol problem has not worsened recently. I propose that you consult the records of your own police department and Harvard's Office of the Dean of Students for more accurate information and a sampling of the problems surrounding this issue. In addition, you should know that a significant amount of time and energy has been focused on Cambridge proprietors and their responsibilities under the law.

I propose that you consider death from overindulging, countless crimes perpetrated and accidents that have occurred while individuals are under the influence as significant threats to public safety.

Further consider the inane action of an underage drinker who by his action threatens the livelihood of the hardworking shop owner. Consider that those great fake IDs are an equal threat to any number of clerks, cashiers, bartenders and servers who may lose work due to a license suspension or revocation.

When an underage college student makes it his part-time job to secure and drink alcohol it can indeed jeopardize public safety. It can end independent businesses. It can result in a clerk's inability to buy groceries for his family. It can and has resulted in young lives ended all too soon.

I too am angered and disappointed, though not at the Cops in Shops program. Instead, I am hopeful you will reconsider your capricious opinion. Cheryl Alavi,   Cambridge Licensee Advisory Board