The settlement reached by the Cambridge Civic Unity Committee and the management of the Club 100 depends for its effectiveness as an anti-discriminatory device upon the good intention of the club management to observe the spirit of the agreement. For within the actual wording of the document there are abundant loopholes which will allow the Club 100 to continue its policy of operating ostensibly as a private club with restricted membership but actually admitting anyone of Caucasion descent.

The objective of the University wide committee, which for the past few weeks has employed pickets, pamphlets, and publicity to bring pressure on the club, was to induce the operators of the club, actually to run it as a private organization (which would have every right to select its own membership on any basis it might choose) or, if the club is to remain a semi-public establishment to open its facilities to all comers.

Yesterday's agreement includes the management's assertion that the club's by-laws do not preclude members because of race, creed, or color. This is a bare statement of fact. The management, if it wishes, can still, continue to refuse membership to colored persons. And the stipulation that guests of members will not be barred because of color smacks heavily of a condescension. Taken in its worst interpretation it could mean that colored persons are acceptable when accompanied by someone who will be responsible for their conduct.

However, judgment should be withheld until time has given the management opportunity to prove its good faith. If it does carry out the highest meaning of the spirit of the agreement, the management of the Club 100 merits commendation for its change of policy, even though the change was the result of pressure whose necessity was deplored even by those who supported it most strongly.