Not Censorship, But . . .

If any conclusions can be drawn from the action taken by the Dean in charge of student activities in denying the Committee to Save O.P.A. permission to use the steps of Widener for its rally Wednesday, extra-curricular organizations would be justified in pressing for a more sympathetic guardian. If, on the other hand, Dean Duhig was merely acting as a spokesman for University policy, as he occasionally claimed, the issue is one which has been frequently raised and often settled, but apparently never made clear to all who might be concerned.

Applications by the spontaneously-formed group for the Dean's consent to use the outdoor rallying place began a week ago and culminated in a formal petition by the whole committee, in person, on Tuesday. Seldom has a group been composed of students more serious in intention or more responsible as heads of various student activities. Seldom has an issue been more important or less controversial in the University community than question of price control. The committee's object was simply to bring out into the open, for the benefit of legislators in Washington, a concrete expression of the latent convictions held by nearly all students.

Dean Duhig failed to make his authority clear even after lengthy discussion. He argued the effect in the Yard of possible disturbances and "horse play" which the rally might create-as if he were in a position to use his own discretion in a final decision. He contradicted this stand by declaring that his hands were tied by the policy of a Faculty committee, which happened, for the most part, to be away on vacation. In no event did he suggest any further recourse among University Hall administrators, nor imply anything but that he was the highest authority present. Subsequent information has proved that there was indeed a higher, and willing, authority.

So often has the Dean's Office been called to task in the past for alleged "suppression of student opinion," that it seems hardly likely that the Faculty committee in charge would have delegated its authority in the form of a policy so apparently inflexible. They may perhaps have been on tenterhooks after the colorful demonstrations touched off by misunderstandings as to the purpose of a Liberal Union Win-the-Peace rally last March. Actually, the repercussions in publicity from that incident were generally playful and reflected no discredit on the University. At any rate, the publicity could never have been as damaging as if the Faculty had given the press an excuse to picture a bigoted ogre murdering free expression. If the more recent action had not been more obviously illogical and inconsistent with any intimate interest the University might be expected to have in price-control, the outside press might even now be adjusting its floodlights for a rogues' gallery portrait.

There is sufficient evidence to convince most undergraduates that the Dean's refusal was not merely malicious nor an act of narrow censorship. There did appear a lack of judgment and sympathy with the legitimate operation of a student activity. Unless the Faculty committee concerned defines its position more clearly and makes provision for the wise use of its powers at all times, it may find that the fair name of Harvard entrusted to it has been needlessly splotched.