To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Let me hasten to congratulate you on your bold front page article of Harvard's Ku Klux Klan invasion. With all respect to the worthy and essential members of the press, may I ask why the facts have not been brought to the fore at a prior date? Ludicrous, indeed, is the thought that a Washington editor, in the guise of a spectator, must tell the police where to look for the criminal. Can it be that this paper is so dedicated to an impossible program of neutrality, that it hates to publish the intimate truth unless the outside world first backs it up? If I believed that last statement, I would take to cancel my subscription (which, by the way is not paid).

Instead, I feel that the Crimson's policy has been one of cautious, watchful waiting, which however ridiculed in the world today is the only same and logical course to pursue-and, one which I don't believe will leave anyone "holding the bag!" Certainly, a newspaper should be eternally careful to publish the facts as they are, but once having done that, a definite editorial stand has to be taken. And by "facts as they are," I do not mean to skip the ones which are likely to pinch someone's toes, or those which are not in deep and concordant harmony with the men of the press. Since my side has already been branded as red, conservative, capitalist, illiterate, and what hurts most-unamerican, let me add that they are also human beings and as such would like to receive equal, fair consideration in the news, without discrimination.

How much longer must the country walk around with blindfolds on, letting race and national prejudices be their guide? To state a representative view of the people, may I point out that the masses (I despise this ugly word) swore roundly at the business-men for being war-mongers, and are now attacking most of them for not being willing to throw away (partially at least) a culture which can be less demonstratively saved than by fighting, or so they think.

Permit me further to say that Professor Merriman, having a slight trace of English blood in him I believe, could not possibly be biased, and as for illustrious but unpredictable Sir, Elliott, the Yale University Graduate School of Traffic Conditions would no doubt be able to report more accurately the actual predicament of the man who crosses Harvard Square.

It is a shame that the other unbiased professors' names are not available yet, for they would probably prove equally interesting. Don't be skeptical though; there are lots more!

My last thought is for the character of Mr. Frank Waldrop, which I hope will not be unjustifiably besmirched before some sort of analysis of the situation has been attempted. Let's try by a simple method of rational thinking, to find out what the truth is, before we publish it and call it such.

With sincerest appreciation for a start to discard the covering of deception which has increasingly prevailed upon the real facts, and a wish for more just triumphs of this kind. Robert E. Lincoln '44