Harvard Law School Makes Online Zero-L Course Free for All U.S. Law Schools Due to Coronavirus


For Kennedy School Fellows, Epstein-Linked Donors Present a Moral Dilemma


Tenants Grapple with High Rents and Local Turnover at Asana-Owned Properties


In April, Theft Surged as Cambridge Residents Stayed at Home


The History of Harvard's Commencement, Explained

No Nostalgia



To the Editors of The Crimson:

Your recent editorial supporting the CRR boycott impels me to write this letter.

The writer of the editorial states that the student boycott of the Committee on Rights and Responsibilities is a powerful tool for a reform of the unfair composition and procedures of the Committee. This is ridiculous. If the boycott is a powerful tool, why hasn't it had any effect in seven years of operation? The author's conclusion that a unified boycott is the "only weapon students have left" is obviously erroneous.

Second, the writer refers to the class of 1980 "retaining" the boycott. The class of '80 cannot retain its boycott because we have never been involved in it. Certainly, we have no legal or moral compulsion to continue that which was begun without us, seven years ago. Thus the implication that we are somehow "defecting" is also untrue.

Lastly, it should not be supposed beforehand that any effort to reform the CRR is doomed to failure. It certainly can't be any more ineffective than the seven futile years of boycott. If I was before the CRR, I would certainly want at least some student on the Committee. And, if worst came to worst, the students could resign, leaving us no worse off than before.

The boycott of CRR has flopped and is continuing only on its own inertia. Like so many meaningless Harvard traditions, it should be abandoned. Gregory S. Sergienko '80

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.