To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am writing in response to a column entitled "Of Rice & Men" which appeared in the Crimson on Tuesday, October 4.

This article was an inexcusably shoddy piece of journalism. It begins by citing Fox Butterfield's "...penetrating analysis of events in China on the basis of such salient symbols as Chairman Hua's hairstyle." In a country in which thousands of people filled the streets of the capital last May in massive demonstrations against the housefly, the decision by Hua to at least physically imitate Mao is or paramount importance. The attempted ridicule of Mr. Butterfield was clearly misdirected.

The most infuriating aspect of the article is the closing sentence. The writers claim that Butterfield's statements are "narrow-minded" since they come from "...a citizen of the country that destroyed vast areas of South Vietnam's once fertile fields." If this wildly faliacious argument is valid, what makes your reporter's perspective any different? M. Plotkin   Extension '78