The Path of Duty

(Ed, Note-The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed. In printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld).

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

The recent letter of Mr. Harry Nolder Jr. in your paper is delightfully naive and uninformed in its criticism of Professor Holcombe's analysts of the recent CRIMSON presidential poll. Mr. Nolder's letter states something which many would like to believe; namely, that the average American undergraduate does know and care something about politics. Unfortunately, any man who has had the slightest experience with Harvard students is aware that their lack of information is political affairs is surpassed only by their indifference to them.

Political activity in a college is at best a thankless pursuit, and it is made so by the indifference of the students. It is very disheartening to hear people announce that they will support Hoover "because it is a bad plan 'to swap horses in the middle of the stream", or that they will vote for Roosevelt "because he is a Democrat and we need a change", or that Thomas is to receive their support "because neither of the other men is any good anyway". Another typical student attitude is that politics are dishonest and are no place for an honest man. Yet they never make an effort to ascertain the merits of the respective candidates-they merely vote the ticket supported by their fathers and their friends. The very men who are most needed in politics, if the affairs of our government are to be conducted with honesty and intelligence, are the men who are least interested in them. There would be no place in American politics for the "ward-heelers" and the Vares and the Thompsons if the college men, both undergraduates and graduates, would shoulder the burden of responsibility which becomes theirs when they receive advantages superior to those of the majority of the population.

It would be merely repetition for me to say that the very advantages we now enjoy are made possible only by the existence of an enlightened and capable system of government. It is true that if we are to maintain our form of government we must have the leadership and cooperation of the men who by education and training are best fitted to determine the future course of our country. If this country ever awakens to the fact that politics is a science and not a game and if the college men ever muster enough courage and resolution to shoulder the burden which is rightfully theirs, the era of Hardings and Curleys, Falls and Dohenys, will be doomed to a sudden death.

It has always been a source of wonder to me that students whose future material welfare depends almost entirely on the course taken by our government in the matters of business regulation, foreign trade relations, etc., could so thoroughly divorce themselves from any interest in their government.

It matters little how a man votes: the important thing is why he votes that way. And in reply to Mr. Nolder's delicious bit of sentimentalism, I state my opinion that of the 2000 students who voted in the recent straw vote, not more than 300 had any sound reason for supporting the candidates they did, be those candidates Democratic, Republican, or Socialist. And this is a college which by ability and tradition is better fitted to supply leadership to this country than any other institution in the land. John T. Higgins '34