Oily Numbers

To the editors:

I write to correct some misconceptions in James M. McElligott’s “A Case for Opening ANWR” (Opinion, April 17). He states that according to the latest estimates—and they are estimates—there are 7.7 billion barrels of technically recoverable oil in ANWR. He goes on to note that this would be the equivalent of “our entire domestic oil use for well over a year.”

However, McElligott fails to draw a distinction between technically recoverable oil (the amount of oil that is contained within the ANWR field) and economically recoverable oil (the amount that can actually be obtained, given recovery costs and oil prices).  When this distinction is taken into account, the amount of oil we can expect to recover in exchange for opening ANWR is significantly less than McElligott tells us.

In fact, opening ANWR will not significantly help our energy concerns, for our crisis is one of demand, not supply.  If we truly wanted to lower oil prices and reduce foreign dependence, a better strategy would be to increase conservation efforts; improving the fuel efficiency of our gas-guzzling SUVs would be a good start.

Adam J. Wienner ’04

April 18, 2001

Inconsistent Ad Policy

To the editors:

Following a controversial decision not to publish David Horowitz’s full-page advertisement against reparations for slavery (News, “To Print or Not To Print”, March 7), Crimson president C. Matthew MacInnis ’02 stated, “We don’t believe it is ethical to allow individuals to purchase advertisements as a means by which to circumvent the editorial process.”

Less than a month later, however, The Crimson reported that the organizers of the Veritas Forum had purchased a full-page advertisement in the April 11 issue to relate the religious experience of Tina A.A. Ayeni ’01 (News, “Harvard Christians ‘Agree With Tina,’” April 12). One wonders whether The Crimson’s “editorial process” has changed as of late.

Ayeni’s advertisement functioned as a tool of Christian proselytizing. The pages of a newspaper, whether they consist of advertisements or articles, are no place for such activities. The Crimson’s decision to publish this advertisement clearly violates the ethical standards established by the leadership of the newspaper.

In light of The Crimson’s decision to publish this advertisement, a revisiting of the Horowitz decision is certainly warranted. In no way does the Ayeni advertisement justify the printing of Horowitz’s advertisement, but it does invalidate the ethical stance used to reject it. To give meaning to any ethical standards, they must be applied consistently.

Benjamin J. Hoffman ’04

April 12, 2000

Applications Required

To the editors:

Jasmine J. Mahmoud’s commentary on the overuse of applications in student groups (“An Overabundance of Applications,” April 18) showed an unfortunate lack of understanding about how Harvard student groups operate and the resources they draw upon. Certainly Harvard students possess a number of talents that should have an outlet in their undergraduate years, but organizations that currently operate using applications cannot unconditionally expand to include all those interested.

Student groups have a “carrying capacity” for a very good reason—there are limited resources to devote to their membership. The Summer Urban Programs of the Phillips Brooks House Association (PBHA) were cited as an example of an application process that ultimately denied opportunities for public service to willing Harvard students and deserving children in Boston. Yet we draw upon a very limited network of resources to support each staff member, such as a $3000 stipend for each senior counselor, housing from Harvard and the Boston Housing Authority, classroom space and other resources including vans.

Certainly PBHA would love to expand their camps to include more children, but the resources are simply not available. Volunteer management and coordination is also a serious responsibility; Harvard extracurriculars are remarkable in their level of sophistication and often carry with them considerable liability and responsibility. The real issue we should consider is how little Harvard provides in the way of resources, particularly space and money, to its student groups.

Rather than being skeptical of the application processes used by so many student groups, I would be skeptical of those who are so thoroughly discouraged by rejection. Harvard has many lessons to teach, and though many of us were all too accustomed to “not winning” before we came here, rejection is perhaps the most important lesson of all.

Laura E. Clancy ’02

April 19, 2001

The writer is the summer program group officer of PBHA.