The Mail OFFNER'S DEGREE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

Your article on Thursday about the Faculty's withholding of the M.A. from Mr. Offner did not do justice to the injustice of the case, because you did not underscore the critical factor: Mr. Offner had long since completed requirements for that degree before last April. According to Dean Elder, he would in fact have received it had he applied for it in June 1967 or on four subsequent occasions.

Nobody is arguing with the desirability of clarifying the rules concerning this sort of thing, but the suggestion of the Faculty motion that such an action should apply retroactively to a degree voted by the Mathematics Department, and the Administrative Board of the Graduate School, acting, as Dean Elder stated, in the absence of any rule, seems to me outrageous and very probably illegal. Mr. Offner's behavior in University Hall is irrelevant to this consideration.

Unless the CRIMSON or someone makes this issue clear and raises a cry about it, a flagrant ex post facto action is likely to pass unnoticed. The Gazette, it might be noted did not mention this particular Faculty action at all.

NO HATCHET MAN, HE

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I read with interest Monday's article entitled "The Harbus News-How to Make Enemies and $5000." Mr. Goldhaber, the author, has done an outstanding job in selling CRIMSONS, but has missed the mark in his interpretation of our interpersonal relationships. We are not, as he portrays us, Machiavellian hatche-tmen. Instead, we are entrepreneurs experiencing the traditional operational and organizational problems of running The HarBus.

Two misimpressions require special mention. First I have the greatest respect for our publisher Wil Stevens, and he and I despite the article, are good friends. My request for his resignation was prompted by a realization that two individuals cannot effectively co-ordinate the news-gathering and lay-out procedures of The HarBus. Wil recognized this but wanted to remain in touch with the paper, so we successfully negotiated a compromise where I was compensated for an additional work load and he retained his duties as general manager. We did this without bitterness or personal threats.

A second misconception Mr. Goldhaber holds is my relationship with the Administration. I feel strongly that editorial direction exercised responsibly is more important than calling names and making accusations which create rather than solve problems. For this reason I maintain close contact with the Administration.

I hardly view this contact as Administrative control over my job as editor. I try to improve the student's lot here as best I can, and often this requires simply a brief mention to the proper administrator. If a problem continues and no action is taken. I have not hesitated to level the editorial guns and fire point-blank. The paper's criticisms are seen as more valid, and provoke more of a response, because they are not made indiscriminately. If a paper can be more effective as a student force without arousing public opinion and pressures, as it often has been, so be it.

I concede Mr. Goldhaber's point that my editorial philosophy sometimes fails to provide the excitement so often generated by CRIMSON reporters. Nevertheless, if I have a choice between forcing and slanting news or responsibly reporting it. I'll choose the latter every time. A newspaper is a powerful force in the community, especially if it is run with discretion.