Mr. Noyes, who wrote the interesting matter regarding the recent "B. Y. O." invitations of the Associated Harvard Clubs, has the idea, not expressed in his letter, that "it is fashionable for Harvard undergraduates to be wet. One hesitates to disagree with this, although it is undoubtedly true that in this respect, as indeed in most, the unfashionable greatly outnumber the fashionable. But the reasons for the fashion, which has been more condemned than studied, deserve investigation.

It seems most probable that the undergraduate's occasional excesses are actuated largely by a sense of irresponsibility, and that feeling of rebelliousness which manifests itself in the young of all species. One's early training rarely causes one to revere the law for its own sake--but rather to fear the consequences of disobedience. The bold blades, therefore are naturally impelled to brave the possible consequences, as an exhibition, perhaps a quite unconscious one of daring or recklessness. Increasing the penalty may deter some; but it enhances the exploit for the rest. The policy of laissez-faire" probably has the best effect on the young--for lacking the zest of risking something, the undergraduate has only the intrinsic merit of drinking itself as a lure. And judging from observation, this lure is not overwhelmingly seductive among college men. The greatest factor seems to be the innate dislike for authority; the survival from school days of the contempt for the "teacher's pet" and the "goody-goody", who represent in the popular mind the upright and the law-abiding.

It is unfortunate for the nation however, that these inhibitions outlive a college course, and continue to assert themselves after graduation. The undergraduate is usually conscious enough of his own insignificance, often painfully so. The graduate, apparently, does not lose this conception, when in all reality, he has every right to regard himself more seriously. The undergraduate feels that he does not count in the large world; and probably he doesn't. Whatever the graduate feels, it is obvious that whether he wants to or not he does count. His is the larger sphere of action and influence; and while he may feel that he is thus being unjustly discriminated against with no responsibility lifted from the shoulders of the undergraduate and laid heavily on his own, he is forced to realize that the distinction is not arbitrary.

At the same time one cannot entirely justify this lack of seriousness on the part of the undergraduate. He may count for something after all. One can never be sure. But censure is not in order from an undergraduate publication which cannot take itself more solemnly than its members take themselves. The point worth emphasizing is that the tendency to visualize the law abiding citizen as a "goody-goody" to use one of several possible terms requires careful analysis in order to establish firmly the qualities of obedience and uprightness as attributes worthy of whole hearted emulation.