It is with concern that we hear that Clark University is in a ferment because Mr. Scott Nearing's lecture was peremptorily stopped by President Atwood in the middle of its course. Mr. Nearing, previous to the interruption, had alleged that colleges are controlled by bugaboo of radicals, "vested interests", which hampers free speech. Toward the close of the lecture President Atwood entered the hall and shortly announced that the meeting was dismissed. When his announcement had no effect he had the lights turned out, thereby abruptly ending the lecture. Students and professors alike have strongly objected to the move.

President Atwood's action would appear to vindicate Mr. Nearing's allegation. There are few more ticklish subjects than freedom of speech and it is unfortunate that a university president should be so entangled in it. As a private individual, one can understand President Atwood's action and sympathize with him, for no one cares to have his profession abused. But as the head of a university, one can not commend it. Such circumstances put an officer in an extremely awkward position; he hears that a man whose views he distrusts has been asked to lecture, and he objects to having those views placed before the students who are his charges. Yet if he forbids the lecture before it takes place he is criticized for hampering free speech, and if he stops it while it is in progress the criticism in even worse. His one course, when he has not been consulted previous to the sending of the invitation, is to let the lecturer go on and trust that a university audience has balance enough not to be too greatly affected by platform sentiment. It is unfortunate that President Atwood did not pursue this course.