"Paternalism" seems to be bothering our student brothers at the University of Wisconsin, for a report made recently by a committee of students makes this accusation concerning the administration. The committee was appointed to adjust differences between students and deans.

Scott H. Goodnight, dean of men at Wisconsin, points out that the criticism of paternalism is merely a phase in the "cycle" of student thought. A demand for student self-government was instituted 15 years ago at Wisconsin, but when it was secured there was so much criticism that a subsequent demand was made by the faculty, "who knew how." The student disciplinary groups resigned, and the faculty was again burdened with the duty of rule-making.

Some of the same sort of thing has been on this campus. Years ago, there were student members on the council in charge of discipline, but it was found that these members were incapable of using good judgment. They were inclined to be harsher than the faculty members, or else they wanted to be lenient with their own friends.

Now, after considerable talking pro and con on the matter of student responsibility, students on this campus have been given a greater amount of freedom than they have had before. And it seems they are finding it isn't all a bed of roses. "Freedom," as it is preached, is the main thing, but when this freedom is translated into personal responsibility, the student does not want it. The cut rule is a good example. Student opinion for years was in favor of putting the matter in the hands of the individual himself. Now cutting is the student's own responsibility, but he wishes that he could be back under the old 10 per cent system where he could take as many cuts as he wanted up to 10 per cent, and get excuses for all the rest he wanted to take. Now he is accountable to his instructor for absence from class, and he is finding he cannot say, "But I haven't taken any more cuts in this course than I am allowed. You can't do anything to me." He is discovering that the instructor can do something, and in some cases this is plenty.

Other cases have occurred where the student shied at taking the responsibility put upon their shoulders. They wanted it only partially, and were not willing to take any that might be unpleasant.

The main difficulty is that there has not been time to develop student leaders who are used to taking responsibility, and who are willing to do so. One of the aims of a university should be to develop traits of this sort in all its students, and if it fails in this, it falls a great deal short of doing its duty. The way to develop students in this way is not to let them give up when sailing is hard.

We cannot agree with Dean Goodnight, but we can see that he has pointed out a human failing. We believe, though, that this failing can be overcome. --Daily Illini