IT'S THE SPIRIT BEHIND IT . . .

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

In your editorial "Gift Without Giver" of Oct. 7, you criticized several stands of the Combined Charities Committee. Let us explain our current policy:

1. The purpose of the Committee is to obtain contributions from students who wish to contribute. Many charities need our money and to hold the Drive at a time of competing financial demands and pressures defeats its purpose. We anticipate better results in the spring.

2. Your editorial states that we are "presently" advocating a return to the term bill as a means of collection. This is not true. Administration officials irrevocably settled the matter last spring. Recognizing both the legal and ethical arguments, we are seeking a satisfactory alternative.

3. Contrary to the CRIMSON report, the Committee cannot commit itself in advance to cover any University bills defaulted because of charity donations. We have never claimed this power.

4. Pledges present great collection and bookkeeping problems. Following the usual November Drive, hour exams, Christmas expenditures, and mid-years all interferred with their collection. Moreover, only 17 percent of the money turned in last year was through this mechanism. The editorial's emphasis upon pledges as an alternative to delay appears unwarranted.

5. Our attempts to expand the Drive require time. To increase efficiency we hope to have several parts of the University hold simultaneous campaigns. Organizing the Yard competently and reducing expenditures through donations of advertising space also requires a delay until spring. Also, the Final Report of the 1953-54 Committee strongly advocated a switch to spring collection. David M. Dorsen '56. Edward M. Strasser '56

In its editorial, the CRIMSON did not criticize the Combined Charities Committee for scheduling its drive in the spring rather than the fall. The purpose of the editorial was to point out that a system of pledges is the most practical means by which the Drive can collect money. There is an obvious reason why, as Messers Dorsen and Strasser point out, only 17 percent of last year's funds were collected by pledges: solicitors placed more emphasis on cash giving than on pledges.--Ed.