The slings and arrows of Professor Hall's Alumni Bulletin letter are but part of the natural reaction to the policy of University Hall in its handling of the Harkness gift and House Plan publicity. The secrecy and procrastination of the officials in refusing to place the whole matter quickly and fully before the graduate and undergraduate body have turned out to be a boomerang. In the absence of illumination from University authorities arguments for both sides of the controversial issue have been supplied with a characteristic speed. Professor Hall is, perhaps, not the only one who feels that the House Plan was being "railroaded" to its destination through channels far removed not only from the perception of the "corpus vile" of the undergraduate body but also from the approval of either a suppressed or pusillanimous Faculty.

Misunderstanding is the worst enemy a project of the nature of the House Plan can face, as is being found out. Comprehensive information properly communicated might have been prevened the immediate hostility which Professor Hall's vigorous thrusts will aggravate.

The prompt response of the authorities to the "railroading" charges should be conclusive enough to prove that the Faculty had ample opportunity to reject the House Plan if it saw fit to do so. The Committee of Instruction, the governing body within the Faculty, knew of the House Plan before the Faculty did and gave its details unanimous approval. This fact strengthens the official cause, even providing the minimum of time and consideration were given the matter by the bodies as a whole. The significant but unfortunate thing is that the authorities should have to take the defensive side of the issue at this crucial stage of the game. If Professor Hall's letter aids in awakening them to the importance of promoting free discussion and inviting constructive comment, it will throw valuable light upon the conditions that surround the controversy.