Crimson Biased Against U.C.

To the editors:

The Crimson has proven itself completely incapable of unbiased reporting on two subjects: the semi-secret blah blah, and the Undergraduate Council. The unfunny Lampoon coverage is, however, put to shame by the intentionally offensive council reportage.

The council is, at best, the institution that makes Fly-By lunches and Core reform possible. At worst, it is a harmless debating society. So why does The Crimson have so much animosity?

First, Crimson reporters appear to hate attending council meetings. Their resentment filters directly into their articles and indirectly into opinion pieces. In my experience at council meetings, reporters never asked questions, always tried to escape early and never bothered to fraternize. Perhaps there were other news items to cover on Sunday nights, but somehow, I doubt it.

Second, council president Beth A. Stewart '00 and the council are easy targets for lazy editorialists who would rather weigh in with a non-opinion than brainstorm real topics at editorial meetings.

It's truly pathetic that all but one editor would support a piece saying they would "stand and cheer" for the demise of the closest approximation of student self-government on campus (Editorial, Oct. 5). Perhaps the Crimson editors would rather be governed by another old favorite--Dean of the College Harry R. Lewis '68. MATTHEW S. CAYWOOD '99   Oct. 6, 1998

The writer is a former member of the council.