(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor of the Crimson

The recent protest and petition by eleven members of the Freshman class, resulting from the recent House assignments, are beneficial because they call attention to the need of a better system of House admissions; they are, however, unhealthy in that this is a campaign not prompted by any altruistic desire to better conditions in general, but an expression of resentment on the part of a small group who feel that several of their personal acquaintance have been unjustly excluded.

I begin by granting that an injustice was perhaps done in at least one of the cases which the eleven protesting members cited. This, however, does not alter the fact that a protest requesting "strict observance of the merit system; in other words, on the basis of outside activities" does not contribute one constructive idea towards the solution of the problem. It is merely the expression of an admission standard already so often expressed it has become hackneyed.

In a like manner, the petition which was posted in the Union on Friday evening is but an elaboration on principles already adequately dealt with in the Student Council's report on the subject. A few near-sighted amendments are offered to the Council's report--near-sighted because they are again only advocating principles already in practice when they recommend that the National Scholarship men and Student waiters receive preference over men of equal records; near-sighted because in recommending that all Dean's List men be assured of admission, they are contradicting their own position since their cry has been to admit the all-around man rather than the so-called "grind." The proposal to assure admission to all Group IV men who have engaged in three or more major activities is rather shallow because it leaves the road open for the dabbler--a man who puts his fingers into everything, but does nothing well.

Finally, these recommendations totally ignore the personal qualifications of the House candidate, which do and should play such an important role in admission. While it is granted that the previously mentioned criteria are fairly indicative of a pleasing personality, this is certainly not always the case.

The fact that the suggestions made by the protesting Freshmen are so manifestly shallow and hurriedly gotten-up leads one to the inevitable conclusion that the whole outburst has been prompted by a personal indignation rather than by a constructive desire to rectify a pressing problem.

Such a publicizing of the individual "gripes" of two rejected Freshmen, however just their case may be, can only cloud the issues and make the formation of a constructive plan the more difficult and remote. Jack Prudden '42