A writer in a recent number of the Oxford Magazine asks the question: "How comes it that we have so few men in Oxford who are able to lead, who attract students to the university by their reputation, and send them from the university inspired with new motives and illumined with new light?" This question in reference to Harvard cannot fail to suggest many thoughts on the various features of university life at Harvard. At first sight a Harvard student will indignantly exclaim that the question does not apply to Harvard; that we have plenty of men here who do lead and who do attract students by their reputation; who do inspire students with new motives and feelings. To a certain extent this is perfectly true. There are in Cambridge a number of men who exercise a powerful influence in the world of letters and of politics, by whose fame the name of the university is spread far and wide, and whose lectures and talks inspire all who hear them with new and better ideas. But the number of these is too small for an institution like Harvard.

Harvard, together with Yale, Columbia and other colleges, should lead the thought of the country on all points and at all times. It is to Harvard men and Yale men the people should look with more respect when any great economic or social question is under discussion, and it should be their opinions which control the will of the people rather than the opinions of the so-called "self-made" men, - men who made a success in one direction - that of acquiring wealth - not by virtue of their ignorance, but in spite of it.

It may be urged that these professors lead the world by the indirect influence they exert over students who are expected to be the direct leaders. But even granting that it is inadvisable for Harvard professors to take an active part in politics, there is no reason why they should not discuss these questions more than they do at present. The present feeling at Harvard seems to be that politics is a question sacred to the family hearth, that must not be touched upon by outsiders. Mingled with this feeling there seems to be a feeling of utter hopelessness, as if politics were buried so deep in the mire that respectable men would accomplish nothing beyond soiling their hands by interfering. This state of things is a deplorable one. Politics and the science of government should occupy a prominent place in the teachings of a university. Professors are not expected to inculcate ideas peculiar to any party, but free discussions of general political subjects are always within their province. Such discussions by college men through the columns of the public press would be of much more benefit to the community than the political dogmas of professional politicians with which our papers are at present filled.