Inconsistent

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Crimson has done it again. Your editorial piece. "Sore Losers" (3/23/83) had a chance at being one of The Crimson's best it failed to have any serious impact, however, because of a sort of "tunnel vision" that is becoming more and more characteristic of the Editorial Board.

In the editorial Ms. Williams asserts that the white Epton's "plans for the city are nearly identical to those proposed by the [Black] Washington" she then concludes that all of the white Democrats who vote for or in favor of Epton are therefore voting on the basis of race. That is a fair statement--any person who votes for a candidate solely on the basis of color deserves to be called racist.

Ms. Williams, however, neglects to apply that standard to the other ethnic group involved in the elections--the Blacks. Given that there are no differences in the policies of Epton and Washington, one must conclude that the 80 percent of Blacks who cast ballots for Washington were also voting solely on the basis of color. And yet no mention is made of this in the editorial Whites who vote for a white are (and should be) called racists are not then Blacks who vote for a Black simply because be is of the same ethnic group equally racist?

Although racism against whites is not a major problem in our society, the philosophical stand against racism should never be compromised in such a manner I am not opposed to liberal stands on most issues, what I do oppose, as I believe most of the Harvard community does as well, is inconsistent liberalism. Take any stand you wish. Crimson--but then apply it consistently and fairly, regardless of your own petty beliefs and prejudices. Mike Mollerus '96