THE MAIL

(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 with-held.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

As a former CRIMSON editor, I am naturally interested in your recent editorial comment on the proposed charity football game. And though I am forced to concede to you powers of logic, I nevertheless disagree with both your approach to the subject and your conclusion.

To weigh the private administrative policy of even so great an institution as Harvard against what seems to be a palpable national need and national duty, is in itself an attitude lacking a certain quality of courage and boldness. But to let this private administrative policy and the arguments which may be marshalled to its support, overweigh that clear need, is to distort principle in all cases as well as to distort judgement in this one.

Both you and President Lowell, if your reasons are alike, impress reasonable minds as having built up a formidable argument at the expense of clear duty and justice. It is not wholly a formidable case, at that. The generality with which your editorial states that funds raised in such a way would be negligible in comparison with the evil worked on administrative policy, seems to indicate a trifle of uncertainty, of lack of self-conviction, on your own part. I do not like to see either you or President Lowell practice intellectual acrobatics, or, what is worse, fall back on a safe, selfish administrative policy in order to escape a necessary, though unpleasant, task.

This charge may seem unsympathetic. It is not meant to be so. But the attitude that the CRIMSON has adopted on this question is one which Harvard is famous for on small issues, and occasionally infamous for on great. It is good to believe that Harvard does not engage in intellectual quibbles over her private policy when an issue larger than private policy is at stake, although it is her glory to do so all the rest of the time.

The issue is larger than Harvard's policy; the private question should be scored off the sheet, entirely, boldly, finally. People are suffering. This is the only issue. Harvard can give money. This is the only answer. Neither Sympathy nor Right buy bread. Eugene L. Belisle '31.