CATEGORIZING HARVARD BLACKS

To the Editors of the Crimson:

I cannot understand why Prof. Martin Kilson's attacks against the Afro-American Studies Department receive so much attention while rebuttals seem to be few and far between. If a review of a department is made, it should be an objective review, without excessive treatment of blatant accusations.

I am a freshman. I am Black. I will most likely be an English major. Very well. Does that exclude me from most of Kilson's catagories? I am sure that this Booker T. Washington is so worried lest others learn something of their cultural heritage has learned all he cares to about his people (and he is one of our people, no matter how much he tries to obliterate the fact), but will he at least give credence to those of us expressing a desire to learn more? He seems intent upon destroying the Afro-American department.

Kilson implies that those Blacks who gained teaching and administrative positions did so because there was no "competition from white scholars." Every department at the University is open only to a select group. Would he have himself head of Far Eastern Studies? Kilson is denying that those teaching in the department are qualified to teach, at the same time implying that Harvard lowered its standards for the creation of the department. Many of the courses listed in the catalogue are not given during the year precisely because qualified instructors cannot be found. I suggest that Kilson do some actual research instead of barking empty accustations.

It is the general impression at the University (even among some Black students) that Afro-Am courses are guts. In reality there are few guts in the department. Three courses I looked into for this year had heavier reading lists than my seminar, plus papers and-or exams!

Merely being at Harvard says something about the militancy of the Black students. Most talk more than they act on any kind of militant resolutions whatsoever. One would have to go to SDSers to find the militant group here. The department made no stand on Herrnstein, and the recent protest concerning Gulf Oil was initiated by a group of students outside of both the department and HRACC, and has little to do with the AFro-Am department "ideology." The "ideology" of the Afro-American Department deals with AFro-Americans. Would Kilson have it deal with white society and customs?

Black students and faculty are aware of Kilson's ideology, but for some reason whites have never come to grips with his position. Indeed, Prof. Kison is entitled to his opinion and his professorship in the Government department, yet so are Blackss entitled to study Ibo or AFro-Am lit, or Liberation Politics without being told they are satisfying "emotional need." Kilson is convinced that "Afro-Am" means second class. Tell me, Sir, do you also back Herrnstein's theory? Or is it that you fear falling under the Afro-American Studies department if indeed it passes review? June Cross '75