A MATTER OF INTEGRITY

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

After much debate, I have decided that Professor Anderson's charges in front of the Faculty need to he answered. There has been much publicity about the two "opposition members" of the CRR; another member of the CRR went to a member of the Senior Common Room of my House, and then attacked me verbally in a quite vulgar manner; and then Prof. Anderson charges that "at least one member of the CRR has revealed privileged information," offering no proof of his charges, and at a forum where no reply was possible. I don't think it would take great mental leaps for any of the Faculty to assume he was referring to the two "opposition members." However, I must deny being the source of any "privileged information" in Mr. Lubow's [Feb. 12] article, and I do not know that the other "opposition member" was still in Cambridge when the article was written. Further, though I do not know Mr. Lubow's sources, it is possible that he talked to the interviewees themselves, and I do believe they have a right to talk about their own interviews.

Second, if the integrity of the CRR has been shaken, it is solely because of actions of the CRR, and not, as Prof. Anderson seemed to imply, that "privileged information" was revealed. Nowhere does he deny the validity of Mr. Lubow's article, and, if the actions strike him as lacking in integrity, then perhaps this is because the CRR has acted with little integrity.

The CRR is a committee with strong powers, and a committee which the administration has tried desperately to put into the background (viz. the ?ew "election" procedures), with Dean May filling us in on the details in his "Occasional Reports." Perhaps what bothers the administration the most is that the CRR has become an issue again (as it deserves), and that once again students will reject the CRR.'71 Member of the CRR