In his address to the faculty Dr. Butler stated that "for those who are in statu pupillari the phrase academic freedom has no meaning whatsoever." We feel quite certain that these "wards" of the University will not agree. We do not think that they will hold with Dr. Butler that this phrase "relates solely to freedom of thought and inquiry and to freedom of teaching on the part of accomplished scholars." The undergraduate has a right to assume that freedom of thought and of inquiry is a privilege which extends to himself as well as to members of the faculty. If academic freedom has come to have a meaning for the enlightened student, which it has, and if he has adopted it as the principle which he would like to have govern his relations with the university, then no definition of terms from above can deprive him of the conviction that this limited concept be extended to apply to his own case, as well as to that of the faculty. . . .

Dr. Butler says: "Those whose convictions are of such a character as to bring them in open conflict with the university's freedom to go its way towards its lofty aim should, in ordinary decency and self-respect, withdraw of their own accord from university membership." This suggestion neglects to consider the interests of the student, who after all stands to suffer most by such action. Whether or not members of the faculty will take up Dr. Butler's challenge, we don't know. The result is more likely to be that those whose conduct is in "open conflict" with the pronouncements of the University will take pains to hide the fact; while those who agree with the University's attitude, but abhor restrictions on academic freedom in the name of academic freedom, are more likely to adopt a policy of "watchful waiting" till they can see how the principle is applied in practice. We too are waiting. --The Columbia Spectator