Letters: Dec. 5, 1969

(4 of 4)

Sir: Unhappily, draft-card burners and Viet Cong-flag wavers steal the lion's share of publicity. The first clown I run across yelling, 'Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh ... the N.L.F. is gonna win!" is gonna win a punch in the mouth. But why condemn the majority of compassionate, intelligent Americans crusading for peace just because of a few morons?

LAWRENCE M. JONES North Easton, Mass.

Sir: My nephew was killed in action in Viet Nam two years ago. During the November Moratorium, his name was printed on a placard and tossed into a coffin in front of the White House.

Jack would never have understood the use of his name against a cause he believed in. When his mother read about it, she had to be placed under sedation.

What kind of ideological ghoul disinters the dead and uses them for purposes they did not believe in while they lived?

MARK B. WARREN Fayetteville, N.C.

No Agreement

Sir: The article "Clergy and Abortions" [Nov. 28] contains several minor statistical errors and one misleading statement that should be corrected. You say that when the clergymen's counseling service "was being organized, a committee met quietly with state officials and agreed to the ground rules." The meeting took place, but ground rules were merely discussed. State officials did not agree to them.

DAVID SKEDGELL Correspondent TIME Magazine Detroit

> TIME regrets that due to a mechanical error late corrections did not appear in the story as printed.

People Power

Sir: Your article on M.I.T.'s Howard Johnson [Nov. 21] has an undemocratic flavor. No one man cools such a potentially explosive situation. By failing to report the actions of other persons in cooling the M.I.T. scene, the story makes Howard Johnson "the winner."

I don't like reporting that makes a Horatio Alger success story out of what must have been a satisfactory democratic experience in which many persons acted responsibly and in which the people won!

OTTO H. ANDERSON Costa Mesa, Calif.

Sir: In your report on the demonstration at Fordham University, where students occupied the administration building, I would like to clarify some of your subtly misinformative statements.

The lead pipe you mentioned: its use is in question as to whether a guard possessed it originally and whether it was struggled over. There were no "buckets of hot water" thrown by students, and the guards were bountifully armed with nightsticks and blackjacks—both weapons were used, shall we say, rather extensively. The demonstrators were not given the opportunity to leave peacefully after police were called but before their announced arrival. As they leaped out of windows to avoid imminent arrest, they were grabbed and ill-treated by the badly trained I.B.I, guards. The confrontation of the students outside the building with the guards—a result of the students' witnessing the brutality of the guards—led the demonstrators within the building to barricade it in self-defense, resulting in some of the property damage. Student-government leaders in the building, who were given access by the demonstrators, observed no damage up to that time.

CAROL LONGO The Bronx, N.Y.