Whose Diggeth a Pit Shall Fall Therein'

(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inapprepriate.)

--

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

One could almost weep at the puerility of the editorial writer who made the magnificent suggestion as to the distribution of debating medals in yesterday morning's CRIMSON. We had hitherto labored under the impression that the columns of the CRIMSON were not open to attempts at parody of the same type as the red and yellow leaflets recently distributed as samples of undergraduate literary genius. Evidently the writer of the editorial headed "Medals for All" is an aspirant for the same kind of notoriety.

It would seem reasonable to suppose that an expression of opinion in an editorial column ought at least to be serious. The columns of a daily college newspaper are not the most appropriate place for attempts at satire. Editorial candidates who desire to imitate the "Spectator" should at least conform more closely to their model.

Fairness is a good policy even in college journalism. The unnamed editorial writer in the CRIMSON seems to sneer at the bad fortune with which the University debating teams have met. It would be a safe wager that this writer has never attempted to participate in a debate, and he probably did not even attend the debate which brought on his laughable and amusing attempt at a display of immature wit. Does he know how much work a debate entails? Is it any worse to lose a debate than to be defeated in an athletic contest? Would he likewise suggest that the members of a losing football team or baseball team should not be awarded their letters? Is his criterion of merit not sincere effort, but accidental result? Would he give recognition only to those who are favored by chance, and stamp out of existence those who are less fortunate? His meaningless allusion to Prussianism might easily be made a boomerang.

The CRIMSON, as a dignified college paper, should not lay itself open to criticism by countenancing unnecessary disparagement of any college activity. The University has perhaps been unsuccessful in other fields besides debating, but I venture to say that the editorial writer who found amusement in practising his original brand of sarcasm on debating, would not dare to do the same in regard to athletics. It might be good training for him to come out and try for the debating team next year. He would at least learn the wisdom of thinking before writing. He might come out of the debating trials a sadder but wiser man. We make no promises. J. J. TUTUN '20,   Of the University Debating Team.