Not Conspicuously Absent

To the Editors of The Crimson:

The April 27 Crimson staff editorial entitled "Race Relations: Now a Time to Heal" begs a response. As one of the co-presidents of the South Asian Association (SAA) I would be remiss if I remained silent. I am upset by the tone of the staff editorial. It is this style of reporting that perhaps also antagonizes and upsets other minority leaders on campus. The Crimson states that "the signatures of students from Hillel, BGLSA and the South Asian Association are conspicuously absent from 'unified' calls to defend Counter."

Why not print why those signatures were absent from the letter "A Call For Change," (April 24)? One thing I must make clear at this time is that though I am one of the co-presidents of SAA, the words I write are mine, representative of my view. I will not have had a chance to meet with the Association, or even the SAA Executive Board before submitting this letter.

On April 14, S. Allen counter submitted a letter to The Crimson citing problems with the newspaper's coverage of minorities and its portrayal of the Foundation {"Crimson Misrepresented the Harvard Foundation"). I read Counter's letter and agree with some, but not all of his criticisms. Specifically, I did agree with most of the criticisms about The Crimson, but not of the comments made linking The Crimson with distinct groups on campus, namely Hillel.

In my view, The Crimson does not cover news, it covers confrontation, I am sure you will cite numerous articles which involve no confrontation to refute my comment, and I am offering no statistical proof to back my view, but I am sharing with you my general feelings. Crimson reporters, and I by no means want to say all reporters or even blame specific reporters but refer to the many I have dealt with, search for conflict, specifically between students and Administration.

This is the primary reason SAA did not come to The Crimson with the full story behind our push to maintain the Indo-Muslim cultural chair. Crimson articles have an anti-administration slant, and thus, we wanted to steer clear of this bias and maintain control of our discourse with the Administration.

This critique does not specifically relate to signing the letter mentioned in your editorial, which I will address later in this letter, but speaks to my own criticisms of The Crimson. I encountered this "Crimson attitude" (and I am in no way implying any conspiracy, but a general feeling one gets from several reporters) not only in minority issues, but also in representing other campus groups.

As the student coordinator of the First Year Dean Search Student Committee, I came to The Crimson with a story which I perceived as "news." For the first time in Harvard's history, the Administration established a student committee to play a role in the search for the new Dean of First Years. This committee was also given the task of issuing a report commenting on the quality of life during students' first year at Harvard. I attempted to convey this to The Crimson reporter, but the reporter I was dealing with repeatedly asked me if I considered signing the letter because of the time constraint.

This is not to say that we as an Association would have endorsed or condemned such a letter but that even the consideration here was not possible. Perhaps the voice of SAA should have been more clearly articulated. When asked by the Crimson reporter two weeks ago, I shared my view that "I, as President of SAA, did not see any benefit in having organizations line up and take sides. Race relations problems are not solved through a volleying of accusations via letters, but through constructive discourse."

Furthermore, if we did choose to not sign the letters in question, it could have been, and indeed would have been, for a different reason than was blatantly insinuated in The Crimson editorial. The Crimson is wrong in the conclusions they imply about why the voice of SAA is missing in a unified support for Counter and have no basis to draw their conclusions. We simply did not have the time to enact our organization's mechanisms to make such a decision.

I hope that the paper is done with its printing of antagonizing editorial dealing with the topic and this campus can more forward and regroup to overcome the incidents we have faced. But we as students must open our ears and be honest with each other and only then can we constructively prevail together.

As critics will note, I have mentioned some of my views on The Crimson, but have not actually mentioned my specific opinions on Counter, Hillel, the Black Students Association and the greater pressing racial tension on this campus.

I am sorry to say that I do not believe an Opinion page of The Crimson is the most constructive or more effective forum to air those views. I would support a meeting of the leaders to each minority group in which each can make his or her views known, thereby stopping this volleying of accusations and, most importantly, move us closer to finding a solution. Mukesh Prasad   Co-President   South Asian Association