As loyal Columbia students wipe eggs and tomatoes off the statue of Alma Maler, in the course of rioting following the expulsion of a student editor, three issues stand out: the justice of the editor's criticism of the John Jay dining halls, the justice of his expulsion, and the attitude which University administrators should maintain towards undergraduate editors.

On the first two of these issues distant observers are scarcely in a position to pronounce judgment. In criticizing the dining halls the Spectator tackled a problem which puzzles University officials throughout the country. Few student dining halls have proved wholly satisfactory, and Columbia's promise to conduct a thorough investigation probably indicates that the Spectator has done its readers a real service. But whether or not the halls are run for the personal profit of those in charge is not for outsiders to judge.

The Spectator's former editor has stated that his substantiation of these grave charges against dining hall officials was "complete and explicit," while Dean Hawkes has asserted that "his response was wholly without proof." He further charges that Harris was guilty of a series of "innuendoes" and "misrepresentations," and has shown himself not a fit candidate for a Columbia degree; here again outsiders cannot say where honors are due. It is not necessary, however, to have an intimate knowledge of the local conditions to feel that Dean Hawkes has been maladroit and unpolitic in his treatment of the situation, summoning the whole managing board to his office, communicating with the editor in notes, and apparently making little attempt to settle the question by personal discussion. A solution less embarrassing both to the student and to Columbia might surely have been reached.

Despite the clouding of these other issues, what is the proper attitude of University administrators to student publications remains clear. All that University officials have a right to demand from editors of an undergraduate newspaper is conformity to the ordinary standards of honesty and decency which are required of men taking part in any other activity. At Harvard the administration, adhering to this liberal policy, has permitted the CRIMSON to enjoy complete independence. No such incident as the expulsion of an editor or official interference of any kind has ever been necessary. The CRIMSON has freely criticized the actions and policies of the University officials in connection with a variety of topics such as the tutorial system, hour examinations, the handling of bequests, the erection of a new chapel, the conduct of the dining halls, the medical service, and the room rents; officials have welcomed, or at least tolerated, the criticism. On the whole they have been willing to supply information regarding the administration of Harvard believing that the facts will be fairly stated and that in case of error due correction will be made. Honesty necessitates factual accuracy, but editors should always be left at liberty to give free expression to their opinions.