SATISFIED?

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Charles E. Shephard's "News in Review" article concerning CHUL which appeared on May 10, 1974, presents a misleading view of our position on Harvard's Affirmative Action plan. He suggests that we are completely satisfied with the University's effort. This is not the case.

We feel that legislation to end discrimination in hiring can accomplish only so much; the University's legislation--the Affirmative Action plan--is adequate. In addition to legislation, however, there must be on the part of those involvedin hiring a strong commitment to end discrimination. We do not believe that this commitment is present in all departments of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences. Consequently, CHUL passed a resolution terming the University's Affirmative Action plan as adequate, but urging the University to "develop and maintain that level of commitment and good faith effort which is necessary to insure a wholly non-discriminatory mechanism for hiring, recruitment and promotion."

Mr. Shephard, in stating that we "asked Harvard to maintain a commitment" to non-discriminatory practices, implies that we feel that commitment is already present. We do not, and the wording of our resolution was clear. If Mr. Shephard was confused by its intent he certainly should have discussed it with members of the committee. Margaret C. Ross, CHUL representative, Lowell House;   Steuart H. Thomsen, CHUL representative, Mather House;   James LeMoyne, CHUL representative, Quincy House;   John Martin, CHUL representative, Leverett House;   Wendy Miller, CHUL representative, Adams House.