Not Provocative

To the Editors of The Crimson:

While generally appreciative of the opinions offered by your editors, I was appalled at the quality of the editorials in the May 7, issue. Benjamin M. Smith's "A Fatal Mistake" appeared promising enough. A student's view on college concentrations is usually insightful, especially for those readers who may be ambivalent about their own choices. However, Mr. Smith provided little wisdom at all, serving only to perpetuate inaccurate and damaging stereotypes. Though "Pre-Meds" may be overzealous in their quest for grades, I doubt that any would stoop so low as to steal a wallet. It wouldn't even help their grades. Mr. Smith chose only to portray every college major in its worst stereotypical light. Attitudes such as these, even if in jest, serve only to misinform and misrepresent. To add insult to injury, Mr. Smith engaged in blatant sexism. He wrote that "a wily person [no gender here] can use these stereotypes to his advantages," by being able to entice the students at Wellesley and Lesley. Are these advantages available only to men, or are women also subject to attack by "a squad of Lesley co-eds."

After finishing Mr. Smith's editorial, I was quite prepared to read some provocative commentary. Unfortunately, I started John Rosenthal's "The T.P. Squeeze." Has Reading Period been so taxing on Mr. Rosenthal's mind that the only topic he could write about was to gripe about Harvard's toilet paper? Surely there are better subjects for Mr. Rosenthal to write on. He, at least, could have addressed the real problem with the toilet paper--its extreme coarseness--rather than relating his little experiences with the various toilet paper holders.

I hope future Crimson editors find more worthy topics to write about in later issues. David Lee '88