Grape Debate Coverage Was Presumptuous

In the last few weeks, I have counted at least three Crimson staff editorials which supported the grape boycott while denigrating those who were against it as either insensitive to the plight of workers or simply taken in by "catchy phrases" about student choice. While the amount of editorial space used to advocate the same position on the same issue is the prerogative of The Crimson staff, I became disturbed when the bias seemed to spill over into the actual coverage of the debate, a phenomenon that culminated in the naively uncritical interview of the former grape worker who was chosen by the United Farm Workers (UFW) to be questioned, and whose answers were given through a UFW "interpreter", who happened to be the union's vice president.

While this strange idea of student choice might seem trivial to The Crimson, to many of us who voted against the boycott it is singularly important. I do not particularly like grapes, and I found the literature from both the self-interested pro-grape lobby and the notoriously disingenuous UFW less than credible. Nonetheless, I do not feel that I have the right to decide for other Harvard students whether or not they wish to make such a political statement. --Allan L. Hill '98