To the Editors of The Crimson:

The Crimson's coverage of the Undergraduate Council debate on the ROTC resolution is, at least in one place, critically misreported. Brian Hecht's article, "Council Votes, 41-24, to Reinstate ROTC" (April 24), mistakenly reports that Harvard ROTC members receive less ROTC aid because Harvard has no ROTC program on its campus. This is not true, as I pointed out in debate; Scott Frewing, co-sponsor of the resolution, responded by saying that only the Army ROTC program puts Harvard ROTC students at a disadvantage. The Navy and Air Force ROTC programs do not, and unless someone just has their heart set on fighting for the Army and going to Harvard, there's no reason why a potential ROTC student can't choose an ROTC program that gives them the full scholarship.

Viewed this way, the debate resolves itself differently, and it does not, as it did at Sunday's UC meeting, have to turn into a referendum on the very principle of ROTC programs. Once we realize that Harvard ROTC members aren't really being hurt by Harvard not having a program on campus, the issue looks like this: on one side, there's a 15-minute bus ride every once in a while for 3 percent of Harvard's students, which is apparently "inconvenient." On the other, there's an institution that openly and systematically discriminates against a minority which numbers at least 10 percent at Harvard. Throw in all the other problems of ROTC, and the present compromise looks very appealing.

ROTC is a philosophical and moral morass that we need not mire ourselves in. Let those who benefit from its discrimination take the bus. Wade Lagrone   UC Representative   Dunster House