Theoretically "Daily" editorials should express the opinion of Radcliffe as a whole. Valiantly the frantic desk editor scans the "New York Times", the "Christian Science Monitor", and even the "Harvard CRIMSON". If luck is with her, she hits upon a suitable phrase from which she tries to evolve the universal idea of Radcliffe. Now, the body she is attempting to represent is, though not great, diverse. Therefore at the very outset she is in a dilemma--to say or not to say. If she chooses the better course, she merely compounds various facts and theories into a sort of non-opinionative hybrid, which might be dubbed editorial-written-under-necessity-of-writing-an editorial. If such an article is read at all, it may be quickly forgotten. Another of the usual alternatives is to write a short editorial about some personal idea which she tries to modify so it will fit a large group of people. The result of such a procedure is to rouse the indignation of half her readers.

But oh the rare occasion when there is really something to offer--an opinion quite representative of Radcliffe! On such an occasion the "Daily" both gives us a good editorial and upholds the dignified idea of college scholarly interests.

Perhaps, were time enough spent, some worthy subject could always be found. But, the question rises, would that process be really representative? There's no denying that we, as a group, hold ideas which, though not lofty nor all-embracing, interest and influence us. "Hash parties" or "bull sessions" stand proof to this. And after all, the world isn't really fooled into believing we are always serious. So let's be ourselves and dare to express some of our more frivolous ideas. Radcliffe Daily.