To the Editor of the Crimson:

In an editorial on March 1 entitled "Out of the Past" the Crimson stated that Conant's American Civilization Plan had three original provisions for the student: (1) the encouragement of self education, (2) the acquisition of a knowledge of "American history in the broadest sense," and (3) the establishment of a bridge uniting the different departments of the university. The editorial advocated the abandonment of the first aim owing to the "transcendent importance" of the other two. We wish to point out that a knowledge of American history and a connecting of the departments are not preclusive of self education.

If education is the recognition of one's self and one's environment--to that end--is not education through the self of primary importance? The university should recognize that no teacher can teach anything; from him, students can only learn. A Bliss Prize Exam, "a notable reading list in history, a series of brilliant lectures, a group of earnest scholars"--all these are useless without the student's personal drive. . . .

We do not believe that the American Civilization Plan should sacrifice self education to a fixed routine. Exams cannot truly measure the tangible results of a man's knowledge or of his self development; his increasing curiosity, self reliance, and self expression are better indices of his progress. These are developed by informal discussion. Hence the figure of eleven students taking the Bliss exam is no vital index of their inspiration. We would learn something from a course in or a regimentation of the study of American Civilization; but can we afford to sacrifice our voluntary self education? Samuel S. Binnian '40.

Nicholas Blatchford '40.