A SINGLE LETTER written by Noel Ignatiev has developed into a campus-wide controversy. Iganatiev, a non-resident tutor in Dunster House, wrote to the manager of the Dunster dining hall to protest the University's purchase of a toaster oven to used for kosher foods only.

The ensuing debate has centered on a university's role in accommodating the myriad interests of its disparate ethnic, racial and religious groups.

Students wrote a flurry of letters defending the toaster and attacking Ignatiev. Dunster held a big meeting to discuss the issue. Some suggested that he was an anti-Semite, a charge that Ignatiev vociferously denied. One person even suggested that Ignatiev physically abuses students who disagree with him.

For his part, Ignatiev threatened to sue The Crimson after one of our editorial writers facetiously labelled him the "Anti-Knish Tutor" and after one of our cartoonists skewered him. The whole thing became sort of absured.

But none of this provides reason enough not to rehire Ignative.

DUNSTER HOUSE Masters Karel and Hetty Liem, who made the decision on Ignative, have given insufficient reasons for not reappointing him. They say he has not been able "to foster a sense of community and tolerance and to serve as a role model for students."

Furthermore, he has apparently "impress[ed] his own beliefs upon all others, and demand[ed] immediate and unilateral changes in house policy." Finally, Ignatiev has apparently been lax in attendance at tutor meetings--although the Liems admit that this was not "the last straw" which prompted them not to reappoint Ignatiev.

What sort of "sense of community" do the Liems have in mind? It seems to be one in which no tutor challenges their much defended "house policy".

Only those tutors willing to suppress their objections to house policy or whitewash what they see as house problems are part of the Liems' "community." Like petty dictators from, say, former Eastern European regimes, the Liems want a "community" without dissent from their employees. This is, in our view, the worst sort to community one could foster.

What about "tolerance"? The Liems certainly have not shown much in this incident, and some might charge that Ignatiev himself was being "intolerant." However one feels about the kosher food-only toaster oven, the charge of intolerance seems misplaced.

One has to ask what Ignatiev will not "tolerate." He tolerates the existence of the oven--he hasn't tried to torch it and he wants to remain in the house where it is used. Most who charge him with intolerance say that if he had his wish, it would be more difficult for kosher students to eat at Dunster. In this sense, it would seem, he does not "tolerate" kosher students.

But his wish now only that the University not subsidize the kosher oven. Having to procure private funds for the toaster means that the University does nothing special to make culturally specific eating at Harvard easier for kosher students. For Ignatiev, the principle of secularism is more important than the convenience of students who choose to follow kosher rules.

Regardless of the merits of Ignatiev's arguments, charging them with intolerance is overstated, and saying that their expression makes Ignatiev a poor "role model" for Dunster is equally wrongheaded.

Only those who voice support for "house policy" or who keep their objections to it silent seem to proper "role models" by the Liems' definition. Again, these would be some of the worst sorts of role models we could imagine at a university.

AS FOR THE CHARGE that Ignatiev is "impress[ing] his beliefs on all others, we find it difficult to accept that voicing objection is tantamount to engaging in attempts at mind control--that beginning a debate is little more than brainwashing.