LUCID, BUT CONTROVERSIAL

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I am seriously disturbed at the attitudes toward Professor Lattimore's address, sponsored by the U.N. Council, expressed in the CRIMSON editorial of March 1, and by the moderator of the meeting, Prof. Holcombe. In stating the basis of freedom of speech at Harvard, both the Crimeds and Prof. Holcombe seem to have fallen into la trap laid by McCarthyite demagogery. This trap consists of the almost patronizing attitude taken towards such speakers as Lattimore; that Harvard is showing a really generous spirit in allowing him to speak.

The CRIMSON editorial lumps Prof. Lattimore with such figures as Gerhard Eisler, Earl Browder, and Gerald L. K. smith. Yet Lattimore is at most a moderate liberal, as borne out by his address. He does not even support , as I believe a good many Harvard students do, the recognition of Red China as the de facto regime of that nation. Yet because of the vicious and totally false picture of his views presented by the American McCarthyism, a picture apparently accepted to some degree by the Crimeds, he is presented as a radical and unorthodox figure.

But the attitude of the CRIMSON, and of Prof. Holcombe, that in listening to such men Harvard is waging an heroic defense of civil liberties is perhaps one of the most frightening indications of the spread of fear in America to appear on the local scene. Hugh C. MacDougall '54

The article in Monday's paper was labelled "Brass Tacks," and was not an editorial. A "Brass Tacks" is an analysis of a current or historical question; it is intended only to inform and does not contain an editorial opinion. In the Monday "Tacks," Lattimore was included with Browder, Eisler, and smith because he too is a controversial figure. The protest by the American Legion ever the invitation to Mr. Lattimore was one indication that his appearance would be controversial.

The "Tacks" was factual, historical background about past men who were permitted to speak at the University in the face of requests that they be banned. The article was not written to pass Judgment on Mr. Lattimore or his views. Its only conclusion was that the University was following the principle laid down by Dean Bender permitting an undergraduate organization to select its own speakers.