To the Editors of The Crimson:

Albert Hsia, in his editorial of March 9, 1989, shows an intolerance towards minority organizations whose purposes are primarily social. He has confused the desirable goal of integration of public institutions and activities with a mistaken expectation of a fully integrated private social life. A free society should move towards equal access in the public arena, but only an authoritarian society would restrict its members from associating with one another according to personal inclination.

The editorial's author is gravely wrong to accuse the annual Blind Date that is sponsored by the Wellesley Asian Student Association of being "just another retreat from normal, integrated activity." It is an individual's choice to determine with whom and through what means he or she meets and socializes with other, especially those with whom he or she might form intimate relationships. To condemn social gatherings where most individuals are of one group is to demand that all dancing pairs be interracial. The Wellesley event is not an example of discriminatory practice; it is open to all interested persons of the various colleges, and many non-Asians chose not to attend, just as many Asians and some non-Asians chose to attend.

The editorial's author also makes an artificial distinction between cultural and social activities, declaring that cultural activities are legitimate while social activities are illegitimate functions for minority organizations. In reality, culture is a result of shared experience, and social interaction is often a reflection of cultural norms. Cultural activities should not be "just a show" to be viewed by outsiders but also a celebration of experience by those participating. Social interaction occurs amongst individuals of a particular ethnic group as an enunciation of particular means of communication. For example, those who do not know the degree of respect given to elders and the responsibilities of older persons toward their juniors in Confucian cultures will not understand that "adopting a little brother" is an expression of cultural heritage, and not an example of social self-segregation.

The experience of active and vital communities of color does not counteract the Admissions Office's laudable efforts to diversify the student body as Hsia claims. Instead, minority organizations which serve individual and community needs celebrate the diversity that Harvard-Radcliffe does have. To expect students who come from ethnic communities to disassociate themselves from their previous experience is ridiculous, and to deny minority students who do not come from ethnic communities the opportunity to share experiences and celebrate a heritage is racist. It is racist because America is a pluralist society where different experiences should not be ranked in order of desirability with monolithic Anglo-Saxon Protestant sensibilities on top. Anyone who has lived in Hawaii, Los Angeles, Puerto Rico, or New York knows that multicultural and amalgam communities are the norm, not the exception.

Minority organizations are multipurpose associations. Hsia notes that in the last election, one pair of candidates for the co-presidency suggested forming a sports team and holding card-game nights. Hsia fails to point out that these suggestions were one part of a comprehensive platform including strengthening political voice, increasing cultural activities, and aiding in the International Relations Council's Model United Nations Conferences. Additionally, the program emphasis of one particular leadership group varies over time, and it is unfair to assume that one type of activity represents the entire purpose of the organization.

Note that Hsia, in his editorial, used three examples of the activities of Asian-American organizations as evidence for a blanket condemnation of all minority organizations. Hsia's editorial lacks illustrations to back up his claim against non-Asian minority groups and displays a misunderstanding of the multi-dimensional activities of Asian American organizations, showing he made no effort to determine whether his presumptions about minority organizations had basis in fact. This is irresponsibile editorializing at its worst. Lewison Lem Lee '89