(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressed under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

The Committee on Military Science and Tactica has made a report to the Board of Overseers finally recommending: "That the University further by its example and inspiration the establishment of a system of universal service throughout the nation."

Whether we are proud of Harvard's war record or not, whether we have contributed to it or not, whether we like Harvard's present military policy or not, whether we approve the first four recommendations of the Committee or not, I hope and believe that I express the thoughts of most Harvard men and most men interested in Harvard in condemning as utterly improper this final recommendation.

Apart from our opinion on the merits of compulsory military training, and quite apart from any peculiar national or international conditions that make it now more or less desirable than before the War, it would be the worst sort of folly for the University to be identified with a movement for universal service. It seems to me obvious that this question is one about which the University has no business to be partisan. For it to "further by its inspiration the establishment of a universal service throughout the nation" would be as inappropriate as for it to oppose the adoption of the woman suffrage amendment to the federal constitution or to favor intervention in Mexico or to take a stand on prohibition.

It the Committee means only that Harvard establish universal service among its students, as an example and inspiration to the nation, the Committee might better have said so unambiguously. That would at least be a proper recommendation and profitably debatable. WILLIAM GORHAM RICE, JR., '14.