To the editors:

After reading about the wrongful death suit by Thao Phuong Ho against the University and three Dunster House administrators, several questions came to mind about both the targets of the suit and the justifications.

The suit cites the "failure of the defendants to have adequately monitored Tadesse's situation and progress after having knowledge that she was troubled." Yet the defendants were not the people in her life who would be most able to accomplish this. Realistically, the people who had the best ability and the best opportunities to realize the dangers posed by Sinedu Tadesse's mental state would have been her mental health counselor and Ho. Yet no suit has been brought against the counselor, a professional trained to recognize and treat such problems and therefore directly responsible for negligence. And as ugly as it sounds, Tadesse's victim bears responsibility as well for not informing the proper authorities that she feared for her personal safety. Certainly, she was somewhat aware of the danger, as she was reported to have complained to friends and family about Tadesse's disturbing behaviors.

If these two people who had the clearest window into Tadesse's psychology did not deem it important enough to take preventative action, how could others who merely had transient and brief contact with her be expected to do so?

The suit also cites the defendants'"...failure to inform [Ho] of Tadesse's troubles." But wouldn't that be a breach of rights? Should everyone who gets mental health counseling be branded with a scarlet letter "D" for "possibly disturbed"? The possibility of having your personal problems revealed to your peers would probably decrease the number of people who would seek counseling when they need it, for fear of becoming a pariah.

This suit would only have merit if it could prove the defendants had access to sufficient evidence that Tadesse posed a threat to others and then willfully chose to not take any measures to prevent possible negative consequences. What the suit alleges the defendants should have done would indicate that the defendants had both clairvoiance about Tadesse's ability to become violent, and the ability and willingness to violate personal rights to privacy of Harvard students. CHI WANG '95   Medford, Mass., Feb. 19, 1998