SOME DOUBTS ABOUT "DOUBTS"

To the Editors of The Crimson:

On the whole, Crimson editorials mouse neither my mental applause nor hissing. However, being a "Cliffis" and hence four times as smart as James Muller, I was quick to spot the absurdity (oh, those sharp-tongued "Cliffies") of his editorial "Doubts About Equal Admissions" (November 7).

Mr. Muller, you don't know how hard it is to be so much smarter than you boys. Why I (and I but many other "Cliffies") discovered long before you (in your next-to last paragraph) that the obvious answer to the Equal Admissions vs. Money and Expension problem is to admit fewer undergraduate men into the University.

Did it ever occur to you that twenty-live years from now you might be pushing like hell to get your daughters into Harvard (especially if, heaven forbid, you have no sons)? And what of alunal contributions? Doesn't it seem (now "Cliffies," it's no fair for you to answer this one, just because you're four times smarter and your voices are who-knows-how-many-times louder) that there is some correlation between education, jobs, and alumni (alumaes) contributions?

The more women admitted as undergraduates to Harvard, the more women in the labor force (especially the professions and higher paying jobs, if Harvard boys offer valid comparison), the more women with money to give to Harvard--but who will want to contribute to Harvard it she has not been treated as an equal as a student?

You pit the House System, which you admit "might not be the best for all students," vs. the admission of more women. Wouldn't the "diploma mill" you dread as a result of other (non-House) accommodations be cagendered also if equal admissions caused the ranks of Harvard undergraduates to swell to 9600 because of the inconceivability of admitting fewer men on a long-run basis? And how dare you deem, based solely on your own opinion, that the House system is the most important aspect of the Harvard experience?

Mr. Muller, you seem confused. You equate equal admissions with lower educational standards ("educationally waning"), yet you tell us that "Cliffies" are four times as smart as Harvard boys. Oh, I see--if we have equal admissions, we are all equally smart. Aren't those academic standards high enough for you? Do you really want to have to scramble socially and academically to measure up to "Cliffies"? You complain and then grieve of the possible remedy of your complaints.

My real self tells me to ignore your editorial, but the burden of my quadrupled intelligence is dragging me to the typewriter. Debeach K. Greenberg '73