THE PRESS

The Crimson's editorials attacking the Legionnaires for their 'disgraceful and depraved" conduct during the recent convention in Boston has brought so many replies that the Crimson's editors have been able to take a couple of days off by printing all the correspondence on their editorial page.

Included in the batch of letters are all the familiar specimens of newspaper correspondence; there are the Legion boys themselves who start off with the customary cracks at the "deah old Harvard Ladies," and then continue in an equally intelligent vein; and there are the humorless, but conscientious Harvard alumni who write in and deplore the Crimson's "hasty and unwise policy;" still others hold "older men," viz., the board of directors, responsible; and a few strike out boldly in their wholehearted approval.

The whole thing is an amusing spectacle of undergraduate journalism at its best. We have no doubt that the Crimson gang is enjoying itself, that it is tickled to death with the results of its outburst, and that it is still sure that it was right in the first place. And the attendant publicity is an important factor as well.

But from Harvard's Alumni Bulletin comes the prize comment of the lot. In its pages we are told that "We are disposed to make allowances for the immaturity of Crimson writers, but the editorial *** cannot be condoned even on that ground. There are those who think the undergraduate daily should never be permitted to go to press until its contents have been scrutinized and approved by persons of good taste and judgment. Editorials like the one referred to increase the number who hold that opinion."

The question of what constitutes good and bad taste will never be settled by alumni bulletins or by any other single agency. What appears to one person to be in excellent taste is to another the worst sort of taste.

To argue that undergraduate editors are never guilty of poor taste is nonsense. But to set up a machinery of censorship to watch over "immature" journalists would be equally silly. Censorship would hardly move college journalists into the select circles of maturity anyhow.

Besides, we've always been told that the Crimson has the most mature editorial page to be found among the American collegians.

And in this particular instance we have the old question of taste applied to editorial stands that call forth in the editors who take them a great deal of intellectual independence and some courage. Whenever an editor comes out and whacks a public institution (possibly the American Legion) on the head, no matter how justified he may be, a great army of defenders of morals and manners goes into action demanding the scalp of the unfortunate editor.

In the case at hand, we cannot see that there is much room for argument. To be told in print that their convention was a "brawl" would irritate any loyal Legionnaire. But that it WAS a brawl, and that practically every convention of this sort is a brawl, has been overlooked by those who were criticised by the Crimson.

We cannot see that the Harvard men were guilty of poor taste. They spoke out honestly and with no little force. Fortunately for the interested spectators the Legionnaires fought back. Bad they remained silent everyone would have been disappointed. But their indignation adds nothing to the weight of their arguments. Cornell, Sun.