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 withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.

To the Editor of the Crimson,

In the reports of the proposed Peace Strike, a regrettable confusion has appeared between the news and the editorial columns of the "Crimson." In a recent news story, you saw fit to describe the Peace Strike as a phenomenon of the restlessness of spring. And yesterday's editorial, "Peace Strike--Or Agitation," contained not only your legitimate if prejudiced opinion, but seriously inaccurate news-reporting, the only news-reporting of this event in the issue.

It is not true that several hundred Harvard students will, at eleven o'clock tomorrow, "hie themselves to the Boston Common," unless they are as badly misled by the "Crimson" as by the Childes lecture announcement. The meeting on the Common is at twelve o'clock, and will be preceded by an indoor meeting in the New Lecture Hall to be addressed by Professor Schumann and Dean Hanford; this is the eleven o'clock meeting, under purely Harvard auspices. Again, Professor Robert Morss Lovett is not even primarily a "pro-labor sympathizer," as you describe him, in your attempt to make the greater Boston Peace Strike look like a mass labor meeting for the C. I. O. A Professor of English at the University of Chicago, co-author of a widely used history of English literature, a "sympathizer" with many liberal causes. Professor Lovett is better qualified to speak "authoritatively" on peace than you assume.

Aside from these facts, one may object to a peace meeting being addressed by Powers Hapgood, though the causes of peace and of labor are surely not wholly separate, and Mr. Hapgood is a well-known liberal as well as labor sympathizer. The many backers of the Peace Strike indicate that it will not place "undue emphasis . . . upon the problems that confront labor." It is bad taste to speak of a professor from another great university as "haranguing" an audience, before the fact; it is simply misrepresentation to describe Professor Lovett as you have, and to omit all reference to the meeting at Harvard. In behalf of good journalism and its own self-respect, the "Crimson" should correct the inaccuracies left in the minds of its readers by this editorial. W. N. Chambers '39