(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 tendency of certain members of the academic profession to abuse the academic freedom of their classrooms in order to conduct political agitation for a pro-allied economic or military intervention, even to the extent of imputing physical cowardice and lack of integrity to students who do not accept their personal dogmas, need necessarily surprise no one.

In 1937 James Phinney Baxter, the distinguished American historian, at his induction as President of Williams College, remarked pointedly; "While Congress fumbled with the economic aspects of neutrality . . . too little attention has been paid to the risks of emotional involvement in war. We have heard much about British propaganda in the United States, but no adequate study has been made of the volunteer unpaid efforts of thousands of Americans to conduct 'pro-ally' propaganda themselves. If the next war brings democracies to grips with fascist states, the risks of emotional involvement will be still greater than they were twenty years ago."

The "next war" is here, and thanks to the volunteer unpaid efforts of these Benedict Arnolds, we are now so thoroughly involved emotionally that even the attitude of an armed American neutrality may soon be construed by them as evidence of membership in some "deeply subversive fifth column." After all, these tactics of "if you are not with me you are against me" proved their deadly value in the hands of the Nazis years ago.

But Baxter went further and discussed academic freedom: "Chancellor Capen of the University of Buffalo . . . before the Association of American University Professors . . . referred to the 'exhibitionists' and 'mountebanks' in the academic world 'who to feed their own vanity, recklessly stake the profession's most precious and hard-won possession'." Baxter's remaining discussion of "the danger that the teacher will seek to impose his own political beliefs on his students" merits study. . . .

In view of this despicable type of disloyalty, one may wonder if a mere local student reaction supported by the local press is enough, now that academic freedom, prestige, even tax-exemption are perhaps at stake. . . . No matter what happens in Europe or here, the poise and loyalty of American scholarship must remain above suspicion. Let us not learn too late that the educated fool can cite "historical facts" to prove his purpose just as well as the devil can cite scripture. Furthermore, let us not forget that the original Trojan horse that doomed Troy did not goose-step through the gates, but entered as a holy sanctimonious offering to the gods. George Kingsley Zipf '23,   University Lecturer.