News that plans are going ahead rapidly for the erection of a chapel as a memorial to the Harvard men who died in the World War is unwelcome. Although a majority of the alumni has passively favored the proposal there has been vigorous opposition from a minority of the graduates. And in Cambridge militant opposition to the War Memorial Chapel has been the one consistent feature of undergraduate opinion since the idea was first brought forward.

Much misinterpretation has been placed upon this antagonism. It has been said that the objection of undergraduates is to a memorial in itself. This is not true. The undergraduates feel that the proposed memorial is a poor one, and they desire a memorial which would have more meaning in future years. The suitability of a chapel as a memorial is already demonstrated in the colossal failure of Memorial Hall to mean anything to Harvard men of the past few generations, except as an eating place, an examination room, and a floor for the now defunct Junior Prom.

Some of the leading defenders of the chapel as a memorial feel that the slight spiritual sentiment at Harvard may be uplifted and augmented by providing new and more beautiful surroundings. On principle, this is a very superficial method of raising religious ideals. And in practice, it would be a stupendous mockery. Certainly if the function of a memorial is to equal its symbolic significance, a new chapel is the last type of edifice to erect on Harvard ground. Among the architect's plans there is a chapel capable of seating a congregation of 2,000. Yet, only a few days ago, the University advisor in religion remarked that even Appleton is too large for ordinary services. The new chapel may be filled three times a year, notably when the Christmas carols services are held. During the remainder of the year it will stand, even more flagrantly than Memorial Hall and Appleton now stand, as a tribute to the poverty of religion at Harvard. Some more fitting memorial to the Harvard dead ought to be found.

Architecturally there is even less excuse for erecting a chapel on the proposed site. The plans call for the razing of Appleton Chapel and Robinson Annex, in order that a building in the customary bulldog posture may squat across the Yard opposite Widener, thereby effectively removing one of the few remaining airy-approaches to the Yard. A chapel so huge that its wings extend from the back doors of Thayer to the windows of Sever 11 and surmounted with a typical Harvard-Georgian-Colonial tower is not a pleasant prospect. From the point of view of location the thing would be even more preposterous than the three Wigglesworths of Massachusetts Avenue.

It is difficult to understand why the Administration is in favor of the project. Certainly the faculty cannot be in hearty support of these plans. There has been graduate opposition, and undergraduates are unanimously in the negative. The answer seems to be that there is sufficient graduate finance. $800,000 has been raised, and can be used only for a War Memorial. It is palpably undesirable to return this fund. But it is possible, with a little patience and foresight, for the Administration to convince the alumni that a far more suitable memorial might be erected.

There will be opportunities in the next few years to contribute something at once beautiful and useful, as the center of University life becomes adjusted to its new position on the river. At other universities, such edifices as infirmaries, athletic centers, student unions, and even class room buildings have not been considered too mundane to serve as fine expressions to the memory of war dead.

Any memorial to be a valid tribute must embody the united sentiment of those in whose name it is given. To railroad through the University a War Memorial Chapel that does not express the ideals of all Harvard men is to confine its significance to brick and steel.