Is the spirit of revolt rife in American colleges? Mr. Evans Clark thinks so, and in an article in the New York Times Magazine, partly quoted in these columns, he sums up his observations and hazards a guess as to the causes. He has caught the color of a large section of undergraduate discontent when he uses the words, "Menckenism," "negation," "cynicism." But he concludes that it all proceeds from a type of student he designates as "the carefree, mentally and morally loosejointed 'flapper.'" Had he looked deeper Mr. Clark might have discovered that this is neither a very penetrating nor very accurate judgment.

Mr. Clark goes on to say that "the more articulate student of today is a 'wise bird'--nothing fools him, especially the cherished institutions in or out of college." He doubts the sincerity and significance of student discontent upon evidence gathered from five sources: the Boston University Beanpot, the Harvard Lampoon, the Harvard Advocate, the Nassau Literary Magazine, and the Syracuse University Speckled Bird--all of which fell under the ban of censorship. If the two Harvard publications are representative of the others in this quintet, it would be folly to say that their suppression is evidence of any deepseated revolt among college students. Harmless satire bordering on bad taste is not sufficient proof of a revolutionary spirit. Satire and parody do furnish evidence of mental alertness of a critical disapproving sort. If the offended and offending college publications prove anything at all, it is that there is present in many students a vague consciousness of emptiness in American life which the colleges are falling to fill, and of an incompleteness of development which education is falling to correct; and this dawning consciousness is expressing itself in random shots at things in general.

Perhaps this is what Mr. Clark meant by the "flapper" mind. His mistake has been to dismiss all student animadversion as being of this type. He almost ignores the serious and thoughtful criticism of American life in general, and of college life in particular, now appearing in many college papers. In some of them, at least, vagaries have given place to direct and definite analysis. The Dartmouth, for example, has seized upon some of the salient faults of "this generation of ours." Says the Hanover paper: "We are the froth of the post-war wave. This generation of ours has perverted freedom as a means of escaping obligation--has lost appreciation respect--humility--reverence. This generation of ours is intolerant stereotyped complacently smug cowardly ignorant." What has all this to do with education? It is the very problem of education, itself, and a few student publications are alert to the fact that present educational methods are not adequate to meet it.

The Yale News has summed up in a sentence a general emptiness and disconcerting lack of purpose among college students. "We are a prohibitive and self-conscious collection of middle-aged business men without any businesses trying for four years to fill in that alarming want." Is a scheme of education longer to be tolerated which fails to supply the first essential of education--giving purpose to life?

In a series of Persian Letters, the CRIMSON has emphasized the same fundamental defect in the schedule of things which pass current for education. Mirza wrote to his friend Usbek: "My observation convinces me that, in spite of all their pother and noisy activity, few of these young men really know what they are about. Their universal rule seems to be: 'Do something. Get busy. Fill the hour. Make every minute count--never mind what it counts for--and in four years the magic of hustle-bustle will transform us into educated men'."

True, no college paper has yet proposed an adequate solution. But neither have the college authorities, many of whom are frankly seeking a remedy. Student unrest is net her more nor less than a reviving consciousness, rather imperfectly understood, that old educational systems are restrictive, and inadequate to meet the needs of the day. A few student papers and many college faculty are working independently toward a common goal, the former always insisting that since the primary need is to a waken the student, the student must take a leading part in his own education.

And yet Mr. Evans Clark, upon superficial evidence, has dismissed it all as a "flippant revolt." Mr. Clark never made a greater mistake in his life.