Crimson Too Hard on Clarke

Once again, a Crimson editorial has reminded me of a child's doodling rather than the sophisticated and mature editorial that is should be. When I read the sarcastic remark about Black Students Association President Kristen Clarke '97 in the January 4, 1995 issue ("Resolutions for All," staff editorial), I laughed. I laughed not because I found the remark humorous; rather, I realized that I have never before read so many editorials in one newspaper that were plagued by a lack of clarity, disregard for the truth, illogical deductions and overall stupidity such as those in The Harvard Crimson.

First, The Crimson attempted to create controversy by implying that Ms. Clarke is a separatist. Of course, this attempt failed. I was thoroughly amused when The Crimson called for Ms. Clarke's resignation from the position of president of the BSA. This was met with a strong response form not only BSA members but other minority organizations and several Harvard graduates. After personally witnessing Ms. Clarke's consistently meeting and speaking with Hillel's president and her outward concern for Black-Jewish dialogue since her first year at the College, I found this last accusation strange indeed.

Since The Crimson's editors take such a strong interest in Ms. Clarke, I would recommend that they accompany her every week when she devotes her time to tutoring and mentoring children. I would also recommend that The Crimson speak to the numerous Cambridge Rindge and Latin graduates with whom Ms. Clarke worked day and night, helping them to research colleges and fill out the applications. Do not be surprised to find that many of these students are not Black. Such actions would hardly be characteristic of a racial separatist.

Many students, both in private conversations and letters to the editor, expressed discontent with The Crimson's famous knack for misquoting them. In The Crimson's bold yet feeble attempts to undermine the BSA this year and in past years, it has tarnished its own reputation. My initial thoughts were that The Crimson's faulty reporting and ludicrous editorials served to mislead and manipulate students. Yet the January 4 editorial convinced me that such an intelligent scheme did not go into the editorials about which I am writing. It was just irresponsible, thoughtless and, at the best, amusing. Victoria Kennedy '97