To the editors:

All members of the Harvard community are impacted by the important issues raised by The Crimson and other campus media regarding alcohol use and drinking at Harvard (Editorial, “Clarify Alcohol Policy,” Feb. 21). Amidst opinion, rumors and anecdotes, one thing that actually becomes clear is that students do not fully understand, or at best mistrust, the policies and standard procedures at Harvard. Given the potential consequences, this is of grave concern.

University Health Services (UHS) and the College’s primary concern when a student has been drinking is for the individual’s health and safety. With this at the foundation of this discussion, it follows that by policy, students will not undergo disciplinary action for seeking medical assistance for intoxication or if medical attention is sought on their behalf. If, and only if, it is determined that the student needs to stay the evening at UHS, the College (typically the Senior Tutor or Assistant Dean of Freshmen) will be told that the student is at UHS for the night. That’s it. This would be the same conversation if the student were admitted to UHS for mumps, for the flu or for emotional health reasons. This is the policy. UHS does not and will not release additional information and takes breaches of confidentiality very seriously.

So where does the confusion come in?

When someone has reached intoxication to the point of needing medical attention, often there are other circumstances and occurrences leading up to the eventual visit to UHS. This can range from a common altercation or stumbling about to a more destructive or outrageous event. Whatever the case, it often doesn’t take long for details of the events to be communicated within the community in which we live. Yes, this may, and often does, lead to a possible conversation between administration and students. Conversation doesn’t mean probation, official warning or disciplinary action. In fact, it reflects genuine concern for well-being. At a time when we are moving toward a truly caring Harvard community, it seems to be a legitimate procedure for an administrator to follow up with a student after hearing of an overnight stay in UHS.

The truth is that the policies and procedures are in place to protect students. This includes open, barrier-free access to medical services.

We have much to learn about how and why students choose or choose not to drink excessive amounts of alcohol. Surveys can help us to understand trends, patterns and shifts in behavior. However, it is human interaction and honest conversation that build a community.

Harry R. Lewis ’68

David S. Rosenthal ’59

March 15, 2001

Harry R. Lewis ’68 is Dean of the College. David S. Rosenthal ’59 is director of University Health Services.

To the editors:

Justin G. Fong’s endpaper (Magazine, “The Invasian,” March 15) has caused quite a stir. Though I happened to find it amusing, I understand why others would not; it treated a sensitive subject indelicately. Hopefully the uproar it provoked will prove constructive for the Harvard community. My problem is not with this uproar. Fong had a right to discuss chosen issues and others have the right to disagree with his opinion on them. But if Fong had a right to voice his opinion in print, as the First Amendment states and as I believe, why was the organization that allowed his piece to be printed so quick to withdraw its support? I find the statements of March 19 (Opinion, “On ‘The Invasian’”) and March 20 (“To Our Readers”) disappointing because they imply an unwillingness to take responsibility for the end result of the editorial process. If the Fifteen Minutes editors allowed “The Invasion” to be printed, I especially wonder why it should be C. Matthew MacInnis ’02, The Crimson’s president, who would slip in a second official apology.

MacInnis should be ashamed that he did not stick up for his fellow editors in the face of protest. Opinion pieces are frequently inflammatory, and a journalist should accept these risks without hoping to please everyone.

If Fong’s article “did not adhere to the standards” of The Crimson, then it never should have been printed. But since it was, the editors of The Crimson should support it.

Susana E. Canseco ’01

March 21, 2001

•

Ending Generalizations?

To the editors:

On behalf of scientists and smart people everywhere, I congratulate you on your newly clarified policy of not publishing opinion pieces containing “unsupported generalizations” (“To Our Readers”, March 20). This will surely raise the intellectual tenor of the op-ed page, and probably save a lot of paper too. Rest assured, someone in the Harvard community is bound to conduct an “unsupported generalization” watch to help you in your quest. Thank goodness we have protesters to spur these much-needed editorial advances.

Critics might say this policy just begs all sorts of questions about not only “unsupported particulars” but also, for that matter, “supported generalizations.” After all, evidence really satisfies no one, especially when it’s offensive. But we say to them, hey, Rome wasn’t built in a day.

Jason S. Maloy

Cambridge, Mass.

March 22, 2001

The writer is a student at the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences.

Pryor’s Comments Ignore Legitimate Issue

To the editors:

The recent article about the Clinton Presidential Library (News, “Rocky Start for Clinton Presidential Library”, March 23) included details of my resistance to the city of Little Rock taking my land by condemnation. I am opposed to the top-down, secretive and non-participatory manner in which the city of Little Rock made the decision and chose its method of financing.

Sen. David Pryor’s statement about me, “I don’t know if he’s mad at President Clinton, or just mad,” is truly incredible for the director of the Institute of Politics (IOP). It was a cute and printable quote displaying the Senator’s knowledge that “mad” has several meanings, but did he attain his position by assuming that all in opposition to him were either angry or insane (or rabid)? Students at the IOP would do well to learn that often there are legitimate differences based upon principle, and being dismissive of an adversary seldom resolves disputes.

Eugene M. Pfeiffer III

Little Rock, Ark.

April 4, 2001

Don’t Forget Clergy

To the editors:

With much dismay, I read Claudia Gregoire’s opinion piece in support of a monument for Americans who fought on the side of the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War (Opinion, “The Last Battle,” March 22). What the article failed to mention is that the electoral system in Spain was terribly corrupt when the Republicans came to power and that the assassination of a Republican leader is what caused the war to begin. Moreover, the article neglected to mention an important fact about the war, that the Republican government was brutally anti-clerical. Republican forces murdered more than 10,000 priests and nuns in Spain and 12 bishops during the war. While Franco was no saint from our narrow American perspective, why do we think it would be a good idea to immortalize his enemies, whose lust for the blood of Catholic clergy was rabid?

Christopher G. Roberts ’01

March 22, 2001

Don’t Trumpet Rejections

To the editors:

In the article “Acceptance Rates For Class of 2005 Hits All-Time Low” (News, April 4), I was amused to notice that The Crimson has continued its long-standing love affair with Harvard’s selective admissions record. I’ve read countless Crimson articles during my three years here smugly alluding Harvard’s “elite” status and its place as the “top university” in the nation, whatever that means. And now an article about admissions, focusing on rejection letters and containing the internal headline “Harvard Rejects More Applicants Than Ever Before.” Give me a break. Everyone here knows Harvard is an excellent and selective university; there is no need to trumpet the number of rejections while implicitly patting ourselves on the back. I would have thought The Crimson could have jettisoned its usual smug tone in the name of a slight touch of classiness. Not, I suppose, while there’s an opportunity for gratuitous self-congratulation.

Benjamin P. Davis ’02

April 5, 2001