To the Editors of the Crimson:

Granting that an attack upon a man's honesty should be accompanied by the author's name, I can, nevertheless, see why anonymous communications such as those of "Junior" are justifiable: For, in the first place, Junior did not attack the honesty of the instructors. He believed they were sincere in their marking, but he felt that, if a student's standing is to be judged by the marks he receives, that these marks should be given on a more equitable basis, even though "instructors are human." Therefore it is not their honesty he attacks, but the inequality of their judgments. Secondly, in giving their opinions for publication some writers feel a certain apprehension as to the validity of their own convictions and so refrain from singning their names. But their thoughts, such as they are, they give to the public, "carrying with them no higher authority than their logic." It might be well to add here that we are not all "careful students," nor are we all as confident or self-assured that "Junior's logic is not above the E stamp." Finally, the point is this: The CRIMSON is read by members of the English Department. Doubtless, then, it is both "manly" and expedient for Mr. Gentner to sign his article,- one supporting the position held by the English Department. Doubtless, it is quite as obvious that it would not be expedient for "Junior" to sign his article-one contesting the position held by the English Department,-even at the expense of a doubtful ideal of manliness. For, as Mr. Gentner says, "instructors are human" and "injustice must occasionally be done by them."

ANONYMOUS.