The editors of the CRIMSON are Iuckier than probably most of them realize. Harvard has a very wise policy of allowing a genuinely free undergraduate press, and I believe this is more than can be said of most universities. This policy makes it possible for the CRIMSON to play an important and constructive role in the life of the University community. But I wonder whether the editors take full advantage of the opportunities which are thus open to them?

Looking back on my own days on the CRIMSON, I think the answer is clearly that we did not take full advantage of our opportunities. This was not because we were particularly stupid, or because we didn't take our job seriously. The reason, I think, was rather that most of us had very few ideas about what a university ought to be and about the role it should play in twentieth century America. Let me cite an example of what I mean from my own experience.

Scrubwoman Case

It was during my career on the CRIMSON that the famous case of the scrubwomen occurred. I don't recall the details now, but the central issue was that Harvard was paying a certain group of scrubwomen less than the state minimum wage for women workers. A group of alumni, headed by Corliss Lamont if I recall correctly, took the initiative in publicizing the case and raised a fund to make restitution to the women concerned. I had to write an editorial defining the CRIMSON's stand on this gesture of the alumni group. The theme of the editorial was "a plague on both your houses:" Harvard had followed a foolish and niggardly policy, but the alumni should have had better taste than to wash dirty linen in public. Let Harvard pay decent wages, let the too-easily-excited alumni calm down, and let's all forget about the affair. By taking this stand, was the CRIMSON playing a constructive role? I subsequently came to the conclusion that it definitely was not, I think it was a case where the dirty linen could only be cleaned by being washed in public; and I think the CRIMSON, instead of chiding the alumni group, should have given them all possible support. But, even more important, the issue should have been made a spring-board for a thorough airing of a system of university government which would tolerate the underpaying of a group of its most defenseless employees. The case should have been treated as a symptom of a condition, and the condition should have been carefully investigated.

Cites Failure

If the CRIMSON had undertaken this job, it could have performed a genuine educational service. How many members of the University community really know how Harvard is governed? How many know that in the 17th century the Corporation was made up of active teachers and only later came to be a body of outside trustees representing the dominant economic elements in our society? How many know that this system of external university government is a peculiar American institution? From my own experience, I would guess that a rather small proportion of the Harvard community knows these things and that an even smaller proportion has thought seriously about their implications. The scrubwomen case, I think, would have been an excellent occasion for the CRIMSON to bring this whole subject into the open. The result could hardly have been other than beneficial to all concerned.

Perhaps the scrubwomen case could never happen today, and perhaps if it did the reaction of the CRIMSON would be very different from what it was in my time. I hope both these things are true. Certainly, there should be less complacency both in University Hall (or is it now Harvard Hall?) and among students than there was before the depression, the New Deal, Nazism, and all the other things that have occurred in the last decade and a half. But I suspect that Harvard is not yet a perfect university and that the CRIMSON may still have opportunities to criticize it, and help improve it, that are not fully exploited.

Criticizes Press

In any case, I believe that honest analysis and courageous criticism are the most important functions that the press has to perform. Unfortunately, in the country at large the press is abdicating both functions, largely because it serves the special interests of a small class. In relation to the Harvard community, the CRIMSON is in a much happier position. It is not subject to directives from above, and it has no special interests to serve. Let the editors on this Seventy-fifth Anniversary look into their consciences and ask themselves if they are really making the most of their opportunities. They may never again have so good a chance to learn (and teach) what an honest and fearless press can do