Inaccurate and Belittling

Once again, The Crimson has not allowed fact to interfere with the opportunity to present an uninformed, condescending editorial.

The Crimson's staff editorial of February 23 criticized and demeaned those students who were working to modify the Library Committee's proposal to move the Government Documents division to the first floor of Lamont Library. While the editorial demonstrated the editorial staff's willingness to rush to judgement, it also highlighted a gross lack of research or objectivity that raises serious questions about The Crimson's journalistic integrity.

Instead of attending one of the numerous meetings of the Academics Committee of the Undergraduate Council in which the relocation of Gov Docs has been discussed. The Crimson relied on second-hand sources to gather its facts. None of the members of the Library, Academics or Undergraduate Education Committees that are working closely with the issue were consulted. Alarmingly, the one Crimson reporter who had talked with members of the Academics Committee wasn't even consulted when the editorial was written. As a result of the editorial staff's sloppy reporting, inaccuracies and innuendos replaced facts. In order to correct some of the editorial's more egregious misconceptions, it should be stated that:

* Neither the U.C. Academics Committee nor other students opposed to Gov Docs' relocation disagrees that an alternative gov does site must be found as soon as possible.

* The proposed move to the first floor of Lamont will have an impact on study space. Although the area is slated to occupy half of the first floor, the noise and traffic that the division generates will have a deleterious effect on the first-floor alcoves and second-floor carrels.

* The lack of undergraduate study space is a real concern. The Crimson has suggested that initiative would lead students to discover study space in such libraries as Robinson and Tozzer. But all the initiative in the world will not keep open these libraries past 10 p.m., when undergraduate use libraries the most.

As disturbing as the inaccuracies was the editorial's tone. In likening the opponents of the move to spoiled kinder-garteners. The Crimson belittled groups that are fighting for the preservation of scarce study space. The editorial staff wrote that the issue should be ignored because the Committee on Undergraduate Education is looking into expanding undergraduate study space anyway. If Crimson editors had done some research, they would have know that CUE is looking into the issue as a direct result of the very "whining" that The Crimson denounced.

In light of the editorial staff's sloppiness, it was wholly inappropriate for The Crimson to label the opponents of the move as immature students who have not learned the preschool lessons of sharing. The "juvenile whining" that The Crimson criticizes has created important negotiations that will hopefully lead to an expansion of both Gov Docs and undergraduate study space. Had the staff consulted any of the parties involved with the issue, it would have known that. Instead, The Crimson rushed to a conclusion before learning the facts and displayed the very immaturity and irresponsibility that it criticized. --Sean M. Becker '94   Brandon C. Gregoire '95   Co-Chairs, Academics Committee