A DEFINITION OF TERMS

Present agitation against the erection of a War Memorial Chapel in the Yard to replace Appleton is now almost a week old. During that time many issues, pertinent and extraneous, have arisen which have served to make the question of opposition as confused as the original chapel discussion.

The many and beclouded issues of the preliminary arguments caused an inactivity which was prolonged with the coming of the House Plan. Annoyed by this inertia it was finally decided to apply the panacea and build the chapel. The confusion of the present opposition to the chapel is not so great that it can not still be organized into a strong phalanx and directed at the vital spot.

The attitude of the CRIMSON was and still is one of irrevocable opposition to the erection of the chapel. But opposed as the CRIMSON is to the chapel, it is equally hostile to the violent and distorted propaganda as shown in yesterday morning's "broadsides." The CRIMSON had no connection with this enterprise except that it allowed the distribution of the handbills at the same time as the morning CRIMSON, a paid service which it has extended before. It has no sympathy with the sensationalism of the protest or with the injection of the question of various religions. To heighten the agitation with the emotion of sectarianism is only to disrupt any united protest that might be achieved and to obscure the practical aspect by a cloud of bias, raised because of the irritation of a delicate subject.

During the course of the week it has been brought out that there are three main classes protesting. First, there are those who believe that the lack of religion at Harvard makes the erection of a new chapel unnecessary. These men deem Appleton quite adequate for both morning and Sunday services. Secondly, there are those who, silent on the practicality of a new edifice, are opposed to the erection of one in the yard, especially to the building that seemingly will arise there. Thirdly, there is a group which, partially passive as to the chapel question, feels that there are other buildings and other projects on which the money for a memorial might be better spent.

It is true that inability to reach an agreement in any manner whatsoever on a possible substitution for the chapel drove forward the plans for its construction. However, the present agitation has caused many new suggestions to be offered, all of which might might be considered. The 600 odd signers of the CRIMSON petition, which was originally proferred by a member of the faculty, have proven their opposition and have mentioned many possible substitutions. It is practically certain that all the protest purely against the chapel will avail nothing. The time for destructive criticism is at an end. Too much of it invariable tends to make the opposite side stubborn. When some agreement is reached on a memorial that would be fitting and useful a still stronger case for chapel opposition can be made. It is hoped that the administration, in view of the protest made and the suggestions offered, will reconsider its stop to proceed with the chapel this summer and again submit to a same discussion of the question, detached from the fever of hard talk and agitation.