To the Editor of the Crimson:

On Friday, January 10th, an editorial appeared in the Crimson which scathing attacked the Naval Science Department. The article is not in good taste, and it does not adhere to fact.

It is true that the public has looked upon the Navy as a movie locale. This of course, does not represent the Navy as it is. Those who would obtain a clear picture of our first line of defense, are referred to the very interesting and illuminating article in Life (Oct. 28th, 1940), which was written by an unbiased observer.

The editorial further stated that Naval Science was a "gentleman's course" and a "refuge for the major H and the broad A." It was also stated that attempts had been made to improve the esprit de corps "via beery conviviality." Since the beginning of our Navy, an important requirement for an officer has been that he be a gentleman. The R.O.T.C. trains officers.

That the course is not the sinecure the would-be critic would have us believe is borne out by the official college record of the distribution of final grades in the college. The record indicates that for the past year grades for all classes in Naval Science have been more severe, group for group, than has been the case with the average of all other courses which have at least a proportion of 25 per cent of undergraduates.

The "beery conviviality" mentioned in so uncomplimentary a fashion is a result of the esprit de corps, not an attempt to bolster it.

According to this editorial, the instructors are unprepared. This is an absurdity. The officers who instruct the courses are line officers of the Navy who have seen duty aboard naval craft and will see it again. These men know that which they teach; they have not only studied it, but much responsibility has depended on their knowledge. Any incapability would have caused their dismissal. When the editor stated that these officers were not trained for pedagogical work, he failed to consider that, as active officers, they were required to train the men beneath them. In addition, these men are older and have had more experience in teaching than have had most of the section men in the University.

He deplored the fact that the lectures came from the reading material. Perhaps it would be wise to consider that the reading is sufficiently important to require emphasis. The teachers' lack of insight and their inability to produce interest is thrown up to us. The editor cannot reasonably expect the instructors to tell tales for the pure amusement of his class. There are times when it is possible to illustrate and enlarge a point by a reference to an actual case. When possible, this is done.

Examinations in the course are far more practical than has been admitted. There is a great deal of memory required, it is true. One must know the rules of the road, however, before one can handle a vessel in crowded waters; they must be memorized. In the recent Naval Science III hour examination a very good refutation of the author's criticism appeared. The question outlined a certain situation and then desired to know what violations of safety rules were present. This is a practical and interesting way of asking for information. The editor mentioned navigation but forgot spotting, mooring board, and strategy amongst other parts of the course which are strictly practical. He neglected to consider that the laboratory periods emphasize the practical aspects of previous instruction.

Some of the student officers were referred to as martinets. Even if this were so, discipline is an integral part of any military organization, and all connected with one should learn to take orders gracefully, from whomever they come.

In order to give an example of our deficiency as a unit in competition, the editor stated that Yale outshoot us last summer. His logic is poor, since his example is as true as inferring that all Harvard is radical because of the Student Union. The official report of firing practices by Harvard units on the U.S.S. Wyoming states that the firing training "was basically sound--this conclusion is verified by the fact that the practice was fired without casualties to material or personnel." The report from U.S.S. Leary of July 9th, 1940, in this regard, remarks, "Harvard R.O.T.C juniors art in general well versed and capable in firing 4-inch guns."

In view of the facts, as presented above, we should suggest that the Crimson verify material before publication and remedy such irresponsibility as was shown in the editorial of January 10. Rodney Boynton '42,   William H. Taylor, Jr. '41.