Apology Was Inadequate

To the Editors of The Crimson:

Both the public apology to Professor Orlando Patterson on the front page of the September 12 Crimson and your joint letter of explanation on page A-2 of the same issue are so pitifully inadequate to the situation that they cannot be allowed to pass without comment.

The so-called "review" of Patterson's course was not just racially "insensitive." It was blatantly and grossly racist. To consider it potentially humorous to make a mockery of ethnic characteristics is not mere insensitivity; it is a familiar and disgusting element of real racism. Patterson and the rest of the Harvard community deserve something better than the weak and weasel-worded offerings that you have provided.

The letter of explanation, rather ludicrously, makes matters worse rather than better. What is meant by the statement that the review was "adapted" from a review published in 1987? Could it be that the review was not based on the most recent offering of the course, and that the Confidential Guide is publishing out-of-date reviews without letting the customers know it? How many other reviews in the 1990 issue date back from earlier years? Surely the readers should be told the original date and source of each review.

Your apology to Patterson for falsely describing him as a Marxist is, of course, a red (!) herring. It is the racism of the review that is offensive, and it is that aspect that needs to be addressed in a more forthcoming manner. So how about a franker apology, not only in print to us all, but to Professor Patterson in person. Henderson Professor of the Psychology of Personality   Brendan A. Maher

Editor's Note: The president of The Crimson has already apologized in person to Professor Patterson.