All esteemed contemporary recently viewed the House Plan at Harvard as meaning nothing more than "added paternalism and increased floor space." There are, no doubt, many who would be pleased to construe the experiment as simply as that, yet the fact remains there are several questions which are uppermost and will not be settled until the scheme has a reality.

Out of the welter of questions to be settled on the banks of the Charles, not the least is the problem of the number of meals to be eaten in the houses and the charge to be imposed. The Harvard CRIMSON views the change which the University will make for meals as "contrary to an ancient Harvard policy and bound to arouse opposition from all those who prize this tradition of individualism and non-interference." And elsewhere a former Harvard man expresses the opinion that the charge per week virtually says: "Unless you are rich and can waste money, you must eat all your luncheons and dinners here."

The idealists who place the House Plan before unwilling eyes must realize that its success or failure rests on the simple and prosaic custom of eating. Their decisions will be awaited with interest, because it means either regimentation or freedom, and paternalism or "laissez faire". The ultimate disposition of fraternities and clubs, moreover, cannot be solved until more illuminating information is forthcoming as to what the dining halls will actually mean. Until this much-anticipated illumination assumes definite shape, discussion appears to be nothing more than abstract the-orizing, which will conveniently occupy any free afternoon.