Editorial Disagreements

To the Editors of the Crimson

It certainly never occurred to those of us who thought up the Harvard College Forum that anyone would object to something as innocuous as a magazine for undergraduate scholarship. But Harry M Browne (letter to the Editors April 25) has taken issue, less with the content than with the tone of our project. So to set his mind at ease, I'll respond to three of his broader concerns.

First, Harry objects to "the institutional and hieratchical instincts of these editors [who] call themselves 'the President and Fellows,' a parroting of the University's power structure which one can only wish were satitical, as my introductory statement tried to indicate. Along with the extravagantly metophoric paragraphs that introduce them, the title "President and Fellows" is meant as a gentle parody of the pretennons of most academic journals. I thought we were making out intentions clear by stating explicitly that we chose "a rousing name for an editorial board composed entirely of undergraduates and open to any undergraduate who wishes to join." But Harry, and any others who missed the understated explanation, can reassure themselves that the excesses of the Forum are entirely tongue-in-check.

Second, Harry objects to the "homogencity" of the staff. "Or eleven editors," he complains, "nine are men...and four live in Adams House." In fact, we have tried persistently to be the least homogenous undergraduate publication at Harvard. Our editorial board, we have announced repeatedly, is open to any undergraduate who wishes to join, without any comp of any kind. But like many new student organizations, the Forum started with a staff of a few close friends. And although we came to Cambridge in early September to table freshmen, and although we postered throughout the fall for introductory meetings, not a stagle undergraduate--male or female--expressed any sustained interest in lending a hand. So apathy limited the staff to our personal acquaintances. Since three of the Li are roommates, it is unsurprising to and a disproportion of Adams House men.

Third, Harry objects that the six essays established, although "well written and interesting" were chosen with a "very narrow and conservative outlook on what constitutes quality." Here his objection is a little elusive. It is difficult to see how editorial standard that call explicitly for depth can be considered narrow; we hose the six papers that seemed to us most interdisciplinary, and most relevant to the broadest questions of life. And it is difficult to see how papers about what Harry calls "Great Men...and their Great Ideas" are any more conservative than paper about the "common man." But it is easy to see how great ideas are more interesting to read about than common ones, Harry asks, "Were there no worthy hard social science or Women's Studies papers submitted to the Forum?" Unfortunately, there were very few "hard" social science papers submitted, as the introductions indicated. And there were no submissions from Women's Studies, perhaps because there are few Women's Studies paper written.

Since Harry is about to graduate, he had no alternative but to write a letter about his editorial disagreements. But were he a freshman, sophomore, or junior, he could have enjoyed two, more effective options to shake up the Forum. He could have dived for the nearest Centrex, called 498-2101, and immediately become a member of the editorial board for next year. Or he could have jogged to Lamont or Hilles, marveled at the brown plastic submission boxes, and stuffed them full of the most "adventurous" papers he has written.

All of us who have worked on the Forum are very grateful for the overwhelmingly enthusiastic reaction that most students have expressed for the project. If the enthusiasm continues, then the Forum will continue to offer to undergraduates, not a "bastion of conservatism," but a dynamic opportunity to share the academic achievements of their peers. Jeff Rosen '86