To the Editors of the Crimson:

I know this is exam period and we're not supposed to be paying attention to anything but our work--but it still surprises me that Corporation member Hugh Calkins expects his latest absurdly anti-democratic and self-contradictory remarks on the Engelhard library question to slip by unnoticed.

On December 11, Calkins stated in an open meeting that if a majority of students favored renaming the library, the issue would be put on the Corporation's agenda. But now, after the results of the Student Assembly poll are in, he says "an expression of student opinion does not automatically put the issue on the Corporation docket."

The poll results showed that a majority favored renaming the library no matter what, and the people who ran the poll have publicly stated that had the question not been worded so vaguely, the vote in favor of dropping Engelhard's name might well have been higher. Yet Calkins says, "I don't know whether I or other Corporation members will regard this poll as indicating the majority of students want the name changed and the money returned."

Just what would convince you, Mr. Calkins? Nothing, I suspect. I've been writing a paper on authoritarianism and I've run across something called the "leadership principle," whereby even if the voting public turns against him, the Leader continues to represent the "objective will of the people." If this is how you really feel, then why not just come right out and say so? I don't know anyone who is fooled by your rhetoric about the Corporation's commitment to "free and open debate" anyway. Peter Sacks '79-3