RE-EVALUATION

To the Editors of the Crimson:

This letter addresses itself to two complaints. The first concerns the lead story by Julie Wilson on Representative Morris Udall on Friday, April 9. I have two questions concerning that report.

* What was the purpose of the article? It is obvious that the story was an attempt to smear the representative. The headline ("Udall Wrote Letter to IRS on Sierra Club's Tax Status") and the first paragraph (Udall asking for the abolition of the Club's tax-free status because it opposed him politically) of the story insinuates that Udall is prone to misusing his political powers for his own personal benefit and that he is anti-environmental (despite his rhetoric to the contrary). The rest of the story, however, does not substantiate this appraisal of Udall. Not only was Udall's action "perfectly normal," but it was correct. According to the League of Conservation Voters (LCV), the Sierra Club was, in fact, violating the law. In addition, as Wilson notes later on, the LCV has ranked Udall highest among all of the candidates as an "outstanding environmentalist. Thus, instead of criticizing Udall, as Wilson obviously hoped, her article is, at best, ambivalent in its description of the representative's actions. The article seems to prove nothing at all.

* How is this article supposed to relate to Udall's current campaign? The incident described occurred ten years ago, and, as is pointed out in the story, over the years Udall has gradually become more convinced of the necessity of conservation. Today he is actually co-sponsor of a bill prohibiting any dams in the Grand Canyon region. Is the story attempting to claim that Udall is inconsistent? Far from it. It simply outlines a change in philosophy. I would dare say that a harsher criticism could be leveled at a man who was unchanging, and blindly sticking to one position.

In short, the article seems too unwarranted and unsubstantiated. I believe you owe an explanation of your motives.

My second complaint centers around your "Notice Columns." Recently, in what appears to be a change of policy, the Crimson has begun to write its own headiings on the notices, rather than the ones originally requested by the person placing the notice. Some of the headlines are attempts to be amusing (for example, the Hillel announcements). The justifiability of this approach is questionable--I wasn't aware that you had also assumed the function of college humorist. However, my particular complaint is about a notice that was definitely not funny. This item appeared on Saturday, April 10, under the heading of "Ethnic Purity." The notice announced that the Institute of Politics fellow Gilbert Carmichael and his former campaign manager were to speak about the "New South." The implication of the title, especially after the controversy over Jimmy Carter's use of that phrase, is that Carmichael and the rest of the "New South" are racist and/or are in reality supporters of racist policies. I would suggest that an apology is in order.

These two complaints underlie a serious problem that pervades the pages of The Crimson. This is the apparent inability of The Crimson to confine its editorial views to the editorial pages. Consistently, articles seem slanted in both style and content. Rather than responsibly presenting the news as disinterestedly as possible, stories seem to be selected for editorial impact, and then written in a manner that is decidedly biased.

I do not make this criticism lightly. I recognize that running a paper in addition to attending classes is a difficult, perhaps near-impossible task. Yet you clearly do have the talent, facilities and dedication to make it work. That is why it is so discouraging and annoying to see what could be a great paper become just another, irresponsible, student rag. I would hope that you give serious consideration to this problem. I believe many others would join me in suggesting that a re-evaluation is in order. Tom Keane '78