LIBERAL INCONSISTENCY

To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was very impressed by your editorial in the May 30 issue concerning the conspicuous deficiencies in the CHUL's housing policies. I was equally struck by the remarkable similarity between the objections you raised -- among them the neglect of individual freedom and preference, the unpopularity of said policies among the persons affected, the mindless arbitrariness of the quota system, Aand the futility and general undesirability of the "ineffective social engineering" perpetrated by "bureaucratic manipulators" -- and the arguments advanced by those of us who are opposed to forced busing of students to achieve racial "balance" in primary and secondary public schools in the United States, which have hardly had the enthusiastic support of The Crimson in the past. I suppose it is always easier to advocate manipulation of the lives of other people than to accept the manipulation of one's own life by bureaucrats, but that does not make it any less hypocritical. Of course, if your editorial is not an example of liberal inconsistency but instead a signal of a basic change in your philosophy, we are always prepared to welcome new converts, and I am hopeful that in the future you will apply your ideas with the same perception in the latter case as in the former. Steve Chapman '76