A QUESTION OF METHOD

Any action against an undergraduate publication at Harvard is of immediate concern to its brother publications. The Lampoon, the Advocate, and the CRIMSON cover different material in a different way, but they all represent Harvard.

There can be no doubt that under some circumstances disciplinary action is justifiable. If the Advocate or the CRIMSON should deliberately misrepresent fact, the College must possess protection. If the Lampoon should fail to keep within moral limits, which are its standard, the College must again have protection.

Whether the punishment of the officers of the Lampoon and the padlocking of their building in this particular instance was justifiable, depends upon the spirit in which the parody issue was written. If it had as its purpose the satirizing of what was considered an extravagant, puerile magazine, its outdoing of Esquire should not be considered smut. But if the issue was put out for the purpose of filling the coffers of the Lampoon, the administration would not deserve condemnation.

What is more important in the present situation is the method of attack followed by University Hall. There can be no doubt but that the action of the trustees bore considerable connection with official opinion. A statement from Mr. Woodward, secretary to President Conant, however, said that the University "has taken no action." It is clear that the University was thus at fault on two scores; first, they did not accept responsibility for an action which they had instigated, and secondly, they did not deal directly with the students concerned.

The University should never appear to be equivocating, nor should it be roundabout in its dealings with students. It held a defensible position in this matter, but it failed to adopt a forthright course.