To the editors:

In its editorial “Fight The Air Force,” (Sept. 9) the Crimson Staff describes Dean Robert C. Clark’s decision to allow military recruiting as a “necessary but unfortunate resolution to a situation that could have severely diminished the University’s ability to carry out its mission.”

I bet The Crimson would view the situation differently if another category, perhaps race or religion, were the object of the military’s discrimination. I doubt they would still argue that the possible loss of federal funding would outweigh the prospect of a racist or anti-Semitic employer.

The Crimson’s assessment is shortsighted at yet another level: succumbing to threat of financial loss is, in fact, a defeat of the school’s mission (however loosely The Crimson has defined it). As far as I know, Harvard’s mission includes the idea of respect for all its students. To say that Clark’s decision was made in order to pursue Harvard’s mission is to aggrandize inappropriately; Harvard’s mission of fostering an atmosphere of respect has been trumped by Harvard’s goals as a business.

I am not opposed to Clark’s action but I object to the Crimson’s characterization of it. Harvard’s mission has been degraded by his decision and I resent The Crimson’s attempts to justify it through a superficial cost-benefit analysis. I think that were we discussing a racist, sexist or religiously bigoted employer being allowed on campus, The Crimson would calculate differently.

Clifford S. Davidson ’02

Arlington, Va.

Sept. 11, 2002