. . . CRIMSON REPLIES

(Perhaps, as often happens with those who deal in the intricacies of the English language, the only major objection to the article is a semantic one. Students who continually work closely with their professors on an individual basis sometimes prefer to term their complaints about departmental policy "suggestions" rather than "demands." If this is so, Miss Cantarow, a signer of the letter, might be more circumspect in her use of language.

Miss Cantarow seems not to remember telling the CRIMSON that four or five students had prepared 3-5 minute talks on each of the different proposals that she mentioned to the CRIMSON--including a proposal from herself to modify general examinations.

Perhaps also, Mr. Horowtiz, another signer of the letter, does not remember discussing the required pro-seminar with the CRIMSON and saying, "nobody likes the course, it's very abstract and very general." Whether the students' suggestions that they be allowed to help write the syllabus and choose the reading list constitutes a "complete overhaul" of the course is, of course, open to debate. Surely Miss Kyle, a third signer of the letter, remembers saying Monday night that "the consensus of the meeting was that the required courses be made much more flexible."

And it was Miss Cantarow herself who said she did not have an opportunity to present a proposal for a "radical" seminar that would be, as was reported, either an alternate or supplementary course to the required seminar.

As for the question of the student split, perhaps the graduate students should realize that a consensus in an afternoon informal discussion often breaks down when people speak individually at night.

Finally, Professor Levin seems to object to the statement that over half of the 45 graduate students attended the meeting. The CRIMSON stands corrected--there are 50 students in he department; however, if significantly less than half of the department were present, why have 24 graduate students signed the students' letter? Scott W. Jacobs