To the editor:

Re "Crimson Criticized in Magazine Article" (April 2): I was disappointed by the bitter and condescending tone toward Justin C. Danilewitz '99, a Crimson editor, in response to an article written by Danilewitz in Commentary magazine concerning The Crimson's editorial page and shoot process.

The article focused on Danilewitz's unsuccessful bids for the position of editorial chair and for a column on the editorial page. As a long time reader of The Crimson's editorial page, I have respected Danilewitz's articles, even if I do not agree with everything he has written. That Danilewitz's editorials could cause a dissension of thought is a credit to The Crimson rather than a weakness. Not only is it interesting for readers to have the editorial page as a forum for all view-points; it is a necessity for free and open civic society and debate.

This is merely to say that, while a diversity of backgrounds is incredibly important to any university newspaper claiming to represent the whole population, diversity is more than outward appearance. The Crimson would do well to note that a diversity of backgrounds does not automatically mean a diversity of thought. Rather, diversity should mean, especially for an editorial page, a diversity of thought on matters that affect all members of this institution. SUSAN D. GLAZER '98   April 5, 1998