He now describes the process of "hearing out people's complaints and explaining very patiently what [The Crimson] did" as an attempt to close "unbridgeable gulfs." Fallows describes his role as acting as the "shock absorber" between the newspaper and the administration.

Despite his and other editors' feelings toward the administration, Fallows said The Crimson's coverage of the events surrounding April 10 strove to present a balanced picture of the tumultuous events.

"[Now, Crimson coverage] would seem pretty strident," he says, acknowledging that it was far from perfect.

He adds that The Crimson's liberal editorial stance was in keeping with the times.

"This was not the result of some nefarious plot. This was how a lot of The Crimson and other students felt," he says.

"I was part of that large majority that was opposed to the war, but within The Crimson, and the temperament of those times, I was seen as a little squishy because I didn't believe in blowing up buildings," Fallows says.

"I shouldn't have been as worried as I was by the hostility of the administration," he says.

His moderate stance came in part from worries about being at odds with Harvard administrators.

"I was upset to have the administration upset at us," he says.