The Right Lesson to Learn from Littleton

To the editors:

I was amused by the ill-applied terminology in "Learning the Wrong Lesson" (Opinion, Oct. 14). Who exactly is the Christian right? Anyone who supports morality? Meredith B. Osborn attacks Republicans on the Kansas Board of Education. Maybe they weren't all Christian Republicans. Maybe they just saw the inherent folly of allowing only one particular point of view to have a voice, a view we certainly don't embrace at Harvard.

The harsh reality is that today's society advocates promiscuity by removing responsibility for the consequences, and creates a double-standard for scientific knowledge by promoting one theory over another. Everyone likes to complain about the ills of society without offering any answers, but when religious groups offer their answer, it's automatically the wrong one.

Catherine Phillips '03

Oct. 14, 1999

•

Bernall was a Martyr

To the editors:

In "Learning the Wrong Lesson" (Opinion, Oct. 14) Osborn argued that the Columbine killings have led to a great misunderstanding. She specifically refers to the death of a person of faith named Cassie Bernall whose death and life have subsequently become a source of attention and pride to the American religious community.

This deeply disturbed Osborn and she writes that we have been, "reduced to debating the benefits of bestowing the title of martyr upon Littleton victim Cassie Bernall." She calls this, "emblematic of the problems with the current debate surrounding religion in public schools."

How could one trivialize the death of a 17-year old girl just to have the opportunity to take potshots at the religious right? Needless to say, we are not talking about the religious right, we are talking about Cassie Bernall. Her death was significant. Her published diaries and journals reflect that she was a young woman of incredible conviction and deep belief. The evidence I have read is overwhelming, this girl was identified because she was a person of faith, and she died for those beliefs.

T. Christopher King '01

Oct. 14, 1999

Title IX Does Not Dictate Standard

To the editors:

In response to "Complying with Title IX: How Harvard Interprets the Law" (News, Oct. 18), I would like to clarify Harvard's position on the role Title IX plays in determining College policy.

While the story quotes directly from a variety of sources inside and outside Harvard on the interpretation of Title IX, there is not a single quotation or personal citation of any Harvard authority in support of the notion that Harvard's policy towards opening undergraduate programs is driven mainly by Title IX considerations. Indeed, the following excerpts from the e-mail I sent The Crimson during reporting of the story assert exactly the opposite: "[Harvard] might do many things that are not understood to be mandated under Title IX. It has never been Harvard's objective to do the minimum that Title IX requires in terms of gender equity." In fact, I specifically stated that the College does not fall back on Title IX as its rationale for opening previously single-sex programs to men and women.

To repeat the basic point: Harvard will not do anything it believes to be illegal under Title IX, but it does not regard Title IX as prescribing the maximum it should do in order to create equal opportunities for women (and men) in Harvard College. Harvard's stance towards opening all its programs (except individual athletic teams and choral singing groups) to men and women is not driven by an interpretation that Title IX made us do it.

Harry R. Lewis '68

Oct. 19, 1999

The author is the Dean of Harvard College.