To the Editors of The Crimson:

I am a Jew, somewhat active in Hillel, though I often find myself in Political disagreement with people there.

I am writing to respond to the recent outcry against S. Allen Counter, particularly Daniel Libenson's demand for his resignation as director of the Harvard Foundation, because I think this demand is unnecessary, based partly on inaccuracies, and damaging to Harvard's racial climate.

To give a framework, consider Counter's statement that "out most intractable racial conflict has been between Jewish and Black students." Have there been any recent incidents involving direct conflict between ethnic/racial student organizations other than those involving Hillel and the Black Students Association? No.

But more than once the major Jewish organization, Hillel, has criticized actions of the major Black organization, BSA (criticism which was certainly often justified). Counter's statement is correct. Other recent racial incidents on campus involved action of individuals, not entire ethnic/racial student groups.

Within this framework, does Counter "insinuate a Jewish conspiracy on campus between Hillel and The Crimson," as Libenson says he might? Counter observes that many Crimson writers are active in Hillel.

He does not impugn their objectivity because they are Jewish; only a small proportion of Jews are active in Hillel. Admittedly, Counter is uncharitable in accusing Crimson writers of skewing coverage to serve their own "special interest" but it's common sense that students active in an organization will be more likely to cover the organization favorably, and thus cover and organization favorably, and thus cover and organization in conflict with it unfavorably.

The observation that The Crimson's many staff active in Hillel and lack of Black staff may well bias its coverage of racial conflicts is nothing like a Jewish-media conspiracy theory; it is an observation of a potential conflict of interest on the part of Crimson staff members that may affect their coverage.

(We need not look far to find unfair coverage: on April 17 Ira Stoll wrote that 'many saw [Counter's letter] as inaccurate and insensitive to Jews," which implies to anyone who reads between the lines that every objective person say Counter's letter as inaccurate and insensitive. In fact, the harshest criticism given by any of the three non-Jewish minority student leaders interviewed elsewhere on the page is "It seems that a number of things could be taken offensively by the Jewish community.")

Counter has at least as much evidence for criticizing The Crimson as Libenson has for ascribing the conspiracy theory to Counter.

Libenson also attacks Counter for having had the temerity to quote him. Libenson says, "It's completely unprofessional to take the words of a student and say anything about them in a public forum" (April 16).

Can he possibly mean this? Examine the use Counter made of Libenson's quote, "Harvard's celebration of Christian holidays such as Christmas is as offensive to Jews as is racism to Blacks."

Counter did not, as Libenson says, use it to demonstrate some sort of plot, or to "assert that Harvard Jews have an agenda of publicly criticizing the Foundation's work," or to "publicly put down" anyone (he didn't use Libenson's name), or even to say that Libenson speaks for the Jewish community.

He used it as an example of a "concern raised by the Hillel students that go [es] far beyond the scope and the mandate of the Harvard Foundation" and said that it "did not promote further discussion of race relations." That Christmas is a basic part of American culture is certainly beyond the scope of the Foundation.

And it seems that Libenson does speak for Hillel students: Richard Primus, for instance, wrote a column in the Independent in October using the rhetoric of affirmative action to raise this concern, and I have heard this concern raised numerous times around Hill with no dissent but mine.