To The Editors of the CRIMSON:
Your article on General Education A was deeply wrong on one most basic point. First, you accurately portrayed a search going on in General Education A to find a new and more satisfactory presentation of a required course in expository prose writting. Then, you negated the constructive force of the article by creating a totally fictitious conflict between Dr. Martin and myself on the issue of a new methodology. Your statement that "despite urgings from Pennington, director Martin said he has no intention of changing the style of Gen Ed A" is absolutely false.
First and most basic, as a member of Dr. Martin's staff, it would be more appropriate for me to "urge" him to effect a change in either the orientation or presentation of General Education A. In May of this year, Dr. Martin, because of the response to my sections, requested that I write a memorandum containing not only a description of the methodology used in my course, but a comparative evaluation of the results. He also requested that I give my personal opinion on the feasibility of adapting the basic and fundamental principles of this methodology as a "pilot plan" for the Honors Sections. This memorandum, which is of considerable length, was handed to Dr. Martin only two weeks ago.
Dr. Martin readily gave me permission to use parts of this memorandum in my article in Comment. Because I considered my opinions, suggestions, and evaluations as privileged information for the eyes of Harold Martin alone, I should never have permitted myself to reveal aspects of the memorandum if this permission had not been accorded. There is no conflict between Dr. Martin and myself. We have been engaged in a constructive attempt to find better ways of teaching the mastery of style in expository prose.
Because of one serious error, your article is an ugly distortion of a common effort on our part, and represents a step backward for General Education A. Frederic A. Pennington, Teaching Fellow In General Education A.