Inaccurate and Offensive

Editor's Note: The Crimson does not usually respond to letters to the editors. However, yesterday's letter from S. Allen Counter and Natosha O. Reid '93 contained what we felt were extraordinary charges against this paper that demanded a response.

RACE RELATIONS AT HARVARD must be in a sorry state indeed. Or perhaps the Harvard Foundation is woefully understaffed.

Whatever the case, there must be some explanation for the four months the Foundation took to respond to The Crimson's four-part series on diversity ("Dealing With Difference," December 2-5) from last fall. We hope the Foundation used the time to respond to racial intolerance more swiftly than it responded to The Crimson. They certainly didn't spend the four months checking the facts.

Yesterday S. Allen Counter, director of the Harvard Foundation for Inter-Cultural and Race Relations, and Natosha O. Reid '93, co-chair of the Foundation's Student Advisory Committee, said in a gargantuan letter to The Crimson that our diversity series and the subsequent editorials regarding the Harvard Foundation (actually, there was only one staff editorial) purveyed "misinformation" to our readers about Harvard's diversity and the Foundation. (Muneer I. Ahmad '93, the other co-chair of the Foundation's student board, did not sign the letter.)

Counter and Reid attempted to "set the record straight" by defending the Foundation and even offered an explanation for why the series and the editorial "fell short in the areas of accuracy, objectivity and fairness."

The errors in Counter and Reid's letter range from the careless to the embarrassing to the downright scary. We'll take them one at a time.

"THE HARVARD FOUNDATIONS' 10 year record of improving racial understanding at Harvard and the inclusion of minorities in the life of the University speaks for itself..."

No, it does not. One reason The Crimson undertook the diversity series was that many students on campus, including Asians, Blacks, gays, Hispanics, Jews, whites and others, complained that the institutions on campus created to improve racial harmony were not doing their job well.

Explicitly racist and anti-gay incidents still occur, many students complained. And we found that a more general lack of sensitivity, whether intentional or not, often allows for actions and attitudes that can be hurtful.

As Reid herself told our reporters in part one of the diversity series, "I'd like to see a lot more interaction between the groups other than just the fact that we're here. I don't see a true interaction or alliance of different racial groups on campus."

Precisely. Many students said the administration could be doing more. Last fall, Reid suggested "a mandatory event that all freshmen must go to" in order to learn about living in a diverse community. Not a bad idea. What's the Foundation doing about it?

"A number of students complained to this office that they had given the Crimson group 'extensive interviews' and that 'none of their pro-Foundation comments were included in the articles because they did not fit with the Crimson's ulterior slant."

Really? None of the students we interviewed complained to us about the way we portrayed their discussions of the Foundation. And to suggest that we did not print pro-Foundation comments is simply dishonest. For example:

"I think the administration does a great job," Manuel S. Varela '94 (now a Crimson comper) was quoted as saying. Linda L. Wei '92, former president of the Asian American Association, told us that the administration does "a lot of good things" to make a diverse community work. "The Harvard Foundation is one of them," she said. Former Hillel Coordinating Council Chair Daniel J. Libenson '92 said the Foundation "does a very good job." All of these comments appeared in the diversity series.

Of course, many students did criticize the Foundation. Black Students Association (BSA) Vice President Zaheer R. Ali '94 told us that what Harvard is doing now -"putting people together without getting their mentalities ready to be put together"--is not effective in achieving racial harmony.

Many students told us that they see the Foundation as a "feel good" club that does little to ease tensions on a diverse campus. (Counter and Reid themselves wrote that their "efforts are successful" if they "make our students of all races 'feel good' about race relations at Harvard.")

The response to these criticisms should not be denial and accusation. It should be reform.

And what about this "Crimson group" business? This phrase is used repeatedly to refer to The Crimson, its reporters and its editors. It seems to suggest a sort of conspiracy, a cabal--some "group" that has taken over The Crimson.

Near the end of the letter, Counter and Reid say that "Crimson writers active in Hillel" have complained about the "Foundation's support of some of the BSA's programs," Could Counter and Reid's "Crimson group" be a bunch of Jews?

In point of fact, the only opposition that The Crimson ever voiced about a BSA event came in a single staff editorial about BSA's invitation to Leonard Jeffries to speak at Sandes Theatre. The Harvard Foundation was not mentioned, and we actually praised the BSA "for inviting a diverse and important range of speakers" to campus.

We have objected to none of the BSA's programs--except its co-sponsorship of the Jeffries speech. And our staff editorial on Jeffries was voted on by all Crimson editors at the meeting, not just the one "active in Hillel."

"Some students who work closely with the Foundation have expressed the view that The Crimson's editorial and articles were not designed to enlighten but rather to discredit the Harvard Foundation for its lack of involvement in The Crimson's racial agenda. For example, students cite the Harvard Foundation's for its lack of involvement in The Crimson group's recent hostilities with a Black City University of New York [CUNY] professor over his political beliefs."

What on earth do they think "The Crimson's racial agenda" is? Traditionally, The Crimson has voiced strong support for minority hiring and affirmative action. We called for and praised the Afro-American Studies faculty appointments and, more recently, we have supported protests for minority hiring at the Law school.

In our staff editorial of December 10, which followed the diversity series, we made one general point about race relations on campus: that unfortunately, many students often say their friends are drawn from one racial or ethnic group, and that this affects their interaction with others on campus.

We did not single out the Foundation for criticism but said that the University as a whole has been ineffective in dealing with this problem or even in informing students about the official methods of dealing with harassment.

We did not say the Foundation itself should close its doors or fire Counter. In fact, we said the Foundation does a good job within its important mandate--to sponsor cultural activities that certainly help students "feel good' about race relations at Harvard."

We did say, however, that the Foundation and Assistant Dean Hilda Hernadez-Gravelle's Office of Race relations and Minority Affairs have failed to coordinate their activities to address the tensions of a diverse community that need more attention than displays of cultural pride.

Both offices have tried to deal with the larger problems, and the result has been a sort of competition for University resources and prestige. "They need to straighten up the whole issue of who deals with what," Reid told us last fall. Exactly.

We suggested that merging the two offices would end the silly administrative infighting and allow for more coordination, especially in the crucial area of student outreach. One office with a charismatic leader, we proposed, could better address the problems of students who feel uncomfortable on a diverse campus.

That's our "racial agenda." Period.

Still, Counter and Reid quote people who seem to think that "The Crimson's racial agenda" is one that is decidedly pro-Jewish one and anti-Black. The Jeffries incident seems to be exhibit number one.

"Panelists at a recent Harvard Foundation program...indicated that Professor Leonard Jeffries and Professor Michael Levin (a Jewish professor also on the CUNY faculty who has written extensively and promoted the belief that 'Blacks are innately inferior to Whites' and other equally racist ideas) were invited to debate at Princeton. Levin's racist teachings (which are the same as those of David Duke) have been defended as free speech. Some of the panelists and students asked 'why The Crimson and other Jeffries detractors had given so little attention to or shown interest in Levin's demagogy.' And 'could the Crimson writer's silence on Levin possibly suggest agreement?"

Unbelievable. The anonymous people Counter and Reid quote don't seem to understand what got Jeffries into all that trouble. It wasn't his political beliefs. In fact, on February 3, The Crimson defended Jeffries' right to free speech and BSA's "right to invite people with nonmainstream" and even "racist" views of history.

But we drew the line at inviting violent, hate-mongering racists. Racists like Jeffries who say that white people should be "wipe [d]...off the face of the earth." Thugs like Jeffries who threatened to kill a Crimson reporter if he published racist and anti-Semitic comments Jeffries made and who had his bodyguards steal the reporter's tapes.

Moreover, it wasn't The Crimson who had the primary hostilities with Jeffries. It was the trustees of CUNY, who recently removed him as chair. It was, among others, the Asian-American Association, the Bisexual, Gay and lesbian Students Association, La O, the Radcliffe Union of Students, Raza, the South Asian Association--as well as Race Relations Tutor Tomni Dance, Professor of Government Martin L. Kilson and Dean Hernandez-Gravelle. The Foundation's absence from this coalition was conspicuous.

And what about Levin? The facts that he is Jewish and that Jeffries is Black are completely irrelevant unless the Foundation is trying to suggest that the Crimson singles out Blacks like Leonard Jeffries for harsher criticism that Jews like Levin.

The Crimson is interested in Jeffries more than it is interested in Levin for two reasons. We originally became interested in Jeffries when he threatened to kill our reporter and took his tapes. We remained interested in him when student groups invited him to speak on campus.

Levin never threatened to kill a Harvard student and has never spoken here, as far as we know.

Of course The Crimson condemns Levin's horribly racist teachings. And if he were invited to speak here, we would be the first to say so in print. It's The Harvard Crimson, remember. If we were The CUNY Crimson, we would cover both Levin and Jeffries extensively.

"WHILE MOST OF OUR WHITE, Black, Hispanic and Asian students are getting along admirably, our most intractable racial conflict has been between Jewish and Black students."

This is simply ridiculous.

We wonder if we attend the same school as Reid does. The white, non-Jewish students who hung Confederate flags last year weren't getting along "admirably" with Blacks, or for that matter with Hillel, which joined BSA in condemning the flag hangers. The anti-Arab sentiment expressed during the Gulf War is not "admirable." The Asian-American Association and Raza's condemnation of Jeffries were not an example of "admirable" relations between Blacks and Asians or between Blacks and Hispanics. And the recent anti-Asian slurs in Lamont and the bigoted phone calls to Asian-American students show that much work remains to be done.

In trying to prove that the prime racial problem on campus is between Blacks and Jews, Counter and Reid offer one example:

"[A]t a recent 'Open Discussion on Race Relations'..., a student leader of Hillel complained that 'Harvard's celebration of Christian Holidays such as Christmas is as offensive to Jews as is racism to Blacks' The student went on to compare the American celebration of Christmas with racism and anti-Semitism, stating that "America is not a Christian country." Unfortunately, these concerns did not promote further discussion of race relations among the students in attendance. Changing America's and Harvard's celebration of traditional Christian calendar events is beyond the mission and interest of the Harvard Foundation for Race Relations."

This is certainly true. But Counter and Reid take a statement about how both Jews and Blacks face marginalization, quote it out of context, pronounce it unhelpful and cite it as a Jewish statement that harms Black-Jewish relations. They reduce Black-Jewish tensions to a single statement by one Jewish student. Essentially, they blame such tensions on Jews alone. And who are counter and Reid to dismiss a Jewish student's apparently heartfelt discomfort as "not promot[ing] further discussion"?

"According to former President Derek Bok, 'we have been saved much of the hostile race-relations climate reported on other University campuses largely because of the work of the Harvard Foundation."

We have? See above

"The dogma of the Crimson group's challenge to the Foundation appears to be 'if you are not serving my special interest, then what good are you?'...Invariably, some groups will feel that we are not doing enough for them or that some of our programs are in conflict with their interests. For example, The Crimson frequently cites the Harvard-Radcliffe Hillel...as one of the student groups that is dissatisfied with the Foundation's work...The Crimson group, however, failed to point our that the frequently quoted student leader of Hillel is on the student advisory board of the Harvard Foundation."

Again, what do they think is The crimson's "special interest"? Counter and Reid suggest that we are a mouthpiece for Hillel, always driven to support the "interests" of Jews. But our only interest with regard to race relations at Harvard is in building a campus where diversity does not cause friction.

And aside from mentioning the Jeffries incident, Counter and Reid ignore The Crimson's coverage of minority and race issues. This year we have covered the Institute of Politics' invitation to David Duke, the problems of internationalizing the University, the Reserve Officers Training Corps' ban on gays, the problems of Cambridge's immigrants, hate crimes in Cambridge, the lack of diversity in Cambridge public schools and a host of other stories affecting all minorities on campus.

Furthermore, suggesting that our diversity series quoted Hillel members more frequently than others is simply false. And, in point of fact, we did identify Shai A. Held '94 as a student who works at the Harvard Foundation.

"Further, it should be pointed out that from its very inception, the Harvard Foundation has reached out to Hillel students, initially to be told that its members were White and not a minority group."

Wrong again. Rabbi Ben-Zion Gold, the director emeritus of Hillel who has been at Harvard since 1958, said on Sunday, "At no time were we approached [by the Foundation], either in writing or in conversation."

"It is of some interest that the Crimson group would choose to do a feature article on diversity and not cover its own status with regard to staff members of different racial cultural and religious backgrounds.

It is of some interest that, once again, Counter and Reid get their facts absolutely wrong. In our series on diversity at Harvard, former crimson president Rebecca L. Walkowitz '92 spoke extensively about the newspaper's recruitment efforts, calling the paper's relative lack of Blacks women and openly gay staffers an important problem. For year, The Crimson has had serious difficulties in attracting minority writers. The problem is a constant subject of discussion in our organization and a constant source of deep concern. We honestly feel that The Crimson provides a welcoming atmosphere to people of all races, and we work hard to ensure that this is the case. Our comp is open to all undergraduates who choose to walk through our doors.

Yet the problem persists. It's getting better--this year our business manager, our design editor, our sports editor and both our managing editors are members of non-Jewish minority groups. But we still have trouble recruiting minorities to comp.

We know we do our best to cover minority issues sensitively and objectively. We'll continue our efforts to attract minorities to The Crimson, but we're honestly not sure what more we can do. We urge members of minority groups who share our concern about racial imbalance on the crimson staff to do something about it by camping themselves. If more women, people of color and openly gay students join us, others may feel comfortable joining us in the future.

IN CLOSING, WE are most stunned that Counter and Reid's carefully phrased attack--which may be read as anti-Semitic by some--and their distortion of the truth have allowed them to charge The Crimson with a pro-Jewish (and, it seems, anti-Black) "racial agenda."

Quite simply, this is false. We think it at the least "insensitive" of Counter and Reid to suggest that because some of The Crimson's editors are "active in Hillel" (read: Jewish), the paper does not oppose the anti-Black sentiments of such people as Michael Levin and ignores pro-Foundation sentiment on campus.

Not only are Counter and Reid consistently inaccurate; they are also highly offensive. By suggesting that the Crimson has a pro-Jewish "racial agenda" and, more troubling, by intimating that a pro-Jewish agenda necessarily implies an anti-Black agenda, they are being insensitive. It makes us wonder how well the Foundation's leaders are equipped to carry out the University's mandate on issues of difference: to improve the climate of relations among all students on a diverse campus.

As the administrative leader of the Harvard Foundation, S. Allen Counter can have a tremendous effect on the level of sensitivity on campus. Unless Counter retracts what seems to be gross insensitivity on racial and ethnic issues--and does it quickly--he should not be in charge of intercultural and race relations at Harvard.