To the editors:

The issue of "diversification" of The Crimson's editorial board begs a concrete answer to the question of how The Crimson can ensure diversity of ideas without either adding insult to injury or stepping on other groups' toes in the future. My suggestion is that future columnists be selected solely with an eye toward ensuring a range of ideological and political perspectives broad enough to attract a culturally-diverse group of columnists.

Adam J. Levitin '98 argues somewhat reasonably that there has been no clear cause and effect relationship between ethnicity, expressed viewpoints and reported topics on The Crimson's editorial pages (Opinion, April 6). One has to admit that The Crimson rarely tips very far to either the right or left of the American cultural and political spectrum, and the range of the American spectrum encompasses, at most, one-25th of the international spectrum. For instance, in most parts of Europe, the left wing of the American Left falls just shy of a very boring center.

In short, The Crimson needs nihilists, libertarians, monarchists, rabid capitalists, socialists, Darwinists, communists, snobs (individuals who are so brazen about the joys and benefits of wealth and privilege that anyone whose family earnings fall below $500,000 would blush), situationists, anti-intellectuals, religious "fundamentalists" and absolute ironists (those whose ideological positions no one can clearly pin down).

While the number of students who positively identify with these ideological currents is few and far-between, they do exist here.

If The Crimson is seriously interested in promoting diversity of opinion, its leaders should recognize the narrowness of its current range of ideological representation and ask themselves whether or not this range best serves an international Harvard community. FRANKLIN M. ZAROMB '98   April 6, 1998