CONFUSION

To the Editors of the Crimson:

We are saddened by the confusion arising from your article of February 11, concerning 1306 Mass. Ave. Our specific purpose in contacting Harvard was to put an end to the rumors and allegations concerning the ownership of the building, and as representatives of the tenants, to define precisely the nature of our relationship with the University. These attempts were prompted by the slow, unsatisfactory response by the management of the building to a knifing attack on a tenant several weeks ago. During discussions with R.M. Bradley and Co., managers of the building, concerning our pleas for immediate installation of the security features required by law, we were told that Harvard University is the owner of the building. If this is indeed the case, and considering the urgency of the situation, Harvard should accept responsibility for immediate action. This reasoning led to our conference on Thursday with Stephen Hall.

We fear that you have done a disservice not only to us but also to Harvard and to R.M. Bradley and Co. by presenting as the substance of our statements that which is nothing more than speculation and rumor, and was presented to your reporter as such. We explained our concern that nothing be printed which which could not be substantiated, and were assured that this would be the case. Most exasperating to us are the many inaccuracies, misattributions and serious distortions in the article. The statement, for example, that the police commented on the locks installed since the knifing was not made by us.

We would request that the Crimson, in dealing with this matter in the future, exercise greater care. Kulth A. Nier   Elia Baker Poet

* The Crimson stands by its report.