For Legal Standards

[The following two pieces are dissents to a Crimson editorial which was published yesterday, February 26, under the heading, "On Advertising".]

The decision by the majority of Crimson editors not to publish an advertisement from the American Arabian Oil Company (Aramco) runs counter to the objective criteria that this paper should use in determining whether or not an ad should appear.

By precedent, The Crimson had been willing to accept any ad that was not libelous, sexist or racist. These are standards imparted by the law, and should be the advertising restrictions in this paper. The Aramco ad is legal according to present federal guidelines and should have run.

The Crimson has now deemed it appropriate to apply arbitrary standards to any advertisement, yet it has and will continue to run ads from companies such as Coca Cola whose corporate policies in regard to migrant workers are as offensive as Saudi Arabia's policy of racism. Why then single out Aramco?

The advertisement called for engineers to work in a country that refuses entrance to Jews. It has gone to the length of demanding that companies doing business in that country not employ Jews in projects within Saudi Arabia. These policies are morally reprehensible, but it is not The Crimson's prerogative to summarily refuse Aramco the right to advertise because of Saudi Arabia's domestic policies. Through its editorial columns The Crimson can and does attack these policies; to prohibit Aramco from advertising under the guise of moral responsibility is to commit a crime of equal proportion to Saudi Arabia's racism.