REPLY

The head of the department of Naval Science in a letter to the CRIMSON quotes a paragraph from the Secretary of the Board of Governors of the Cambridge School of the Drama which would indicate that a plan had been devised whereby both the military unit and the drama school could use the Rogers Building together. Unfortunately, this letter was written before the expansion program of the school had been decided upon, and hence it is not applicable to the present situation. It is true that both the Naval Unit and the Cambridge School of the Drama have a claim to the building, but the question hinges on whether the former organization will accept some other place to carry on their drilling in order to permit the drama school to continue with its development.

As for the matter of the amount of time the drilling would require, it makes no difference whether such activities would require four hours a week or fifteen minutes. The fact that the drama school would be forced to dismantle the building twice a week for the marching of the Naval Science Department would mean a complete abandoning of any plans for erecting a theatre in the Rogers Building.

The Naval Science Department has been assured the unhindered use of the baseball cage for drilling in the fall, and a host of other places such as Grand Army Hall, or the various armories would be available for spring marching. The University even prepared the Big Tree swimming pool for this activity, but this the Naval Unit saw fit to refuse.

In the final analysis, the question of whether drilling should be included in the curriculum of a liberal arts college is the major issue. Even if it were conceivable that this matter was essential to Naval Science, the summer cruise would afford adequate opportunity for marching. But it is by no means certain that Harvard University should be the site of such unacademic and militaristic activities as drilling, and obviously the teaching of the theatrical arts here does fill a very great need.