It is characteristic of school and college publications to support unconditionally all philanthropic institutions, and failure to do so is likely to provoke accusations of a lukewarm and unsympathetic spirit. It is only natural, accordingly, that the CRIMSON's inquiries as to the reason for apparent shortcomings in the work or position of Phillips Brooks House should excite such accusations.

Brooks House as the center of the social service and charitable week of the University fulfills a decided need, especially under existing conditions, conditions which hunger and ignorance are still to a large extent problems of private philanthropy. But whether the present system of social service is the best conceivable and practicable, is not clear to everyone. There would seem to be much to be said, for example, in favor of a summer camp rather than the weekly-visit type of social service. Certainly, with a few significant exceptions, undergraduates lose interest in social service after their Freshman year. Perhaps the novelty has worn off and social service is considered less "the thing"; undoubtedly men in the upper classes have less free time at their disposal; but, after all is said and done, there is a large residue of men who have tried social service work and who--perhaps through fault of their own, perhaps through fault of the system--have found it wanting.

Brooks House is able to maintain numerous excellent activities of a religious or philanthropic nature in virtue of its position as an endowed institution and as a result of the donations received from undergraduates in the annual drive. It is unfortunate, however, that the undergraduate who suggests these activities should not be better informed of their character and scope. If Brooks House maintains missionaries in Syria, for example, the undergraduate whose contributions have made this possible is entitled to know the facts. He has in the past, especially if he is a Freshman, contributed--often because of social pressure--knowing only little of what he was supporting.

The President of Phillips Brooks House has pointed out rightly enough that the cooperation of the undergraduate is needed for the success of the organization. But this surely does not mean unthinking and unquestioning support. For it is just such support that has allowed Brooks House to become uninfluential in University life, by pursuing courses and activities merely because they have been pursued in the past.