BLOOD ON THE CAISSON

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

As a student in the Army ROTC I should like to take, issue with, what I consider, and what I feel most of my follow ROTC students consider, to be an unjust and unfair attack on the ROTC here at Harvard.

It seems you object to the ROTC "bribing" students to support the blood drive in order to promote "the greater glory of ROTC." May I point out that the student Chairman of the Harvard Blood Drive contacted the ROTC and asked for help. It was at his suggestion that merits were to be given for blood donating.

Also, may I call to your attention the fact that there were no subtle pressures to give blood. I have checked with all units and can say in all honesty that no unusual pressure was brought to bear on any student. No record is to be kept of who gave blood and who does not. Any ROTC student is free to give blood through his House or any other organization.

Certainly no directives were issued by ROTC "strongly suggesting that cadets wear uniforms when they gave blood." The Navy merely authorized any student to wear his uniform if he desired, and furthermore it was made abundantly clear that no account would be kept of those who wore uniforms and those who did not. In fact, the names of those who donated blood were to be kept by the organizers of the drive in PBH who had originally asked the ROTC to aid the drive. The PBH organizers merely felt that here was a group of students who would immediately recognize the enormous importance of the drive. I am certain that the members of all ROTC units here at Harvard would be insulted by any suggestion that it was necessary to bribe them to give blood for "the greater glory" of any group. Bruce E. Balding '53

We agree the blood drive is a praiseworthy cause, and that the ROTC should cooperate in it. But there is, in any enterprise, a place where cooperation ends and bribery and velled coercion begin. As Mr. Balding says, ROTC students do not need bribery to donate blood. But offering extra merits for giving blood IS bribery, and informing students they will be marched to the donating station in a unit IS the coercion of conformity. Perhaps, as Mr. Balding contends, this is not "unusual pressure." But it is pressure nevertheless, and a kind of pressure neither the ROTC nor any other department of the University has a right to exert.

We made it clear in yesterday's editorial that not all instances of pressure occurred in any one unit of the ROTC, or even uniformly in all sections of a unit. Perhaps a share of the ROTC's blame should be transferred to the directors of the PBH blood drive. For if they suggested the bonus credit scheme, it seems that in their enthusiasm over this worthy project they have forgotten the limits of the ROTC position at the University. Nevertheless, the ROTC units could have turned down the merit bonus suggestion, just as they did a PBH proposal that the units stage an intra-ROTC competition to see which unit could give the most blood. The ROTC officials could have agreed to publicize the worthiness of the Blood Drive without offering inducements. This would have fulfilled the ROTC duty to cooperate that Captain Gladding rightly points out, but without infringing upon the student's right of choice in personal matters.--Ed.