Professor Samuel Eliot Morison, in his article on Oxford which was reprinted in yesterday's CRIMSON from the London Spectator, pointed out what seems to be the most striking difference between English and American universities. Of English universities Professor Morison said: "They are not expected to be all things to all men; nor is admission to their colleges demanded as a right." The reverse of this statement is true of American universities.

In a commendable application of democratic idealism American universities have sought to guarantee to all men an equality of opportunity to enjoy the benefits of higher education. College doors have been thrown open to the world, and over their portals have been inscribed a standing invitation to "Enter to grow in wisdom." From all directions and all conditions of life the aspirants have come: from mansion and hovel, from city and village, from adequate background and from no background at all, the motley thousands have crowded within the college gates.

After a century and a half of experiment the accomplishment seems to fall far short of the undertaking. So large a class of half-educated men and women now exist in American society that even the most sanguine believer in the capabilities of the common man must see that to grow in wisdom mere entrance at a college is not enough. In guaranteeing equality of educational opportunity, American universities have come very near accepting as a corollary that dangerous equality of educational condition which, under the "open door" policy, sets its standards only slightly above the plane of mediocrity.

There is no need to dwell at length upon the consequences which have been wrought by the American system. The inertia of the mass has been a constant drag upon the initiative of those students whose capacities and preparation justify a raising of academic standards. But at the same time a jealous public has resisted, in the name of their "inalienable rights", the exclusions which follow the tendency to raise standards, to enhance appreciation of matters of the intellect, in brief, to make universities true institutions of higher learning.

In the face of these conditions two courses are open to American universities, if they are to prove themselves worthy of the name. On the one hand they may define their function purely in terms of a high ideal of intellectual attainment and then, adopting whatever measures are necessary to effect their purpose, they must disregard the complaints of the incompetent and the indifferent.

On the other hand, the universities, while realizing that the attempt to drag the incompetent up the academic hill has been a failure, may feel themselves too dependent upon public opinion to shut out this class altogether. If so, they must establish a clear distinction between the competent and the incompetent, and declare them subject to different laws. They can then carry out their real purpose with the first group, raising standards as high as they please without hurting the feelings of the public, and at the same time they can minimize the dissipation of their energies to the second group by granting them residential privileges and academic immunities.

Justice and academic idealism call for the adoption of the first course. Expediency may urge the second. The universities must take their choice.