To the Editors of the Crimson:
I am writing in response to the attitude of the UFW representatives concerning the end of the Gallo boycott (2/2/78). "(They) feel," your article states, "that the case is not closed." UFW New England director Lucretia Hudzinsky is quoted as saying, "They have to prove that they will negotiate in good faith with us in the future." As a faithful non-buyer of Gallo products during the boycott, I offer a constructive criticism.
The reservation with which the UFW reps seem to be treating the repeal is sadly defeating of the boycott's purpose. To be blunt, the less regard they will have for the effectiveness of the boycott as a legitimate expression of solidarity with UFW goals. This does not mean that the UFW supporter has to forego buying toothpaste or spring term books in favor of Gallo wine. Nor does it mean that one must prefer Gallo products over the previously non-boycotted products if the latter are less expensive or more desirable. But those among us who have in the past avoided Gallo by buying a more expensive or less desirable wine should stand up and be counted by changing our purchase to Gallo. Those of us who never tried Gallo prior to the boycott should be encouraged to do so now. Only by these actions will the total effect of the boycott be revealed.
I urge the UFW local reps to reconsider their stance. Now is a time for effective positive reinforcement of UFW solidarity, not for the proverbial "sour grapes" attitude. Dirk Coburn '80