To the editors:

The editorial staff of The Crimson aims to inform the student body through their election editorials, but today defeated their purpose by defaming and misrepresenting candidates. In stating that Chris King and Fentrice Driskell's "ties to religious groups have raised concerns among many students," the authors either reveal their ignorance of election details printed the day before or blatantly advance religious discrimination.

On Sunday, Dec. 6, and as reported in The Crimson on Monday, Dec. 7, anonymous flyers appeared in freshman dormitories stating, "Chris King wants Global Youth Connect to come organize student life at Harvard. Is this what you want?" The flyers then proceeded with quotes from a Christian organization that aims to "reach non-believing students."

Global Youth Connect, with which Chris King has been in contact for months, is an entirely secular organization unaffiliated with any faith.

King and Driskell eventually found these quotes on a Web site of an organization called "Connect," entirely unassociated with Global Youth Connect. The posters were an obvious attempt to slander the King-Driskell campaign by proposing that they are running it on a religious platform and blatantly misrepresented the Global Youth Connect organization.

In fact, what was suggested by the posters is exactly the opposite of what the King-Driskell team hopes to do. They wish to plan and enact initiatives that would draw together Harvard students of all faiths, years, concentrations and interests to make Harvard feel more inclusive rather than exclusive. These aims are reflected in the diversity of people their campaign has attracted. Religion has never been mentioned as part of the King-Driskell campaign, nor are either King or Driskell members of the specific Christian organization, Christian Fellowship, to which an e-mail including a prayer request for the team was recently sent.

Since religion or connection with Christian organizations is in no way part of the King-Driskell platform, the intimation made in today's editorial must refer not to platform but to private faith. To imply that having religious beliefs as a candidate should "raise concern" among students is to characterize private faith as dangerous and unwanted. To call "values-driven leadership"--something one would hope all candidates would strive to embody--"troubling" due to private faith, which has been completely unmentioned by the candidates themselves, is to stigmatize those who hold to religious beliefs and to prejudge and misrepresent their statements.

The Crimson editors, in implying a Christian bent on the King-Driskell campaign, reveal their failure to examine the platform for its specific, nonpartisan and progressive goals. They have fallen prey to the very slander that was an attempt to divert the message of the campaign-making it that much clearer that Harvard lacks the attributes of the true community King and Driskell wish to build. SARA NAYEEM '99   Dec. 8, 1998