One hesitates to criticize a poll which was prepared over the course of two months with the help of the Social Relations Department (and corrected with its IBM machine). There can be little doubt, however, that the Council's recent Food Poll was poor. It asked the wrong questions right.

With remarkable fairness to the Dining Hall Department, the Poll concentrated on points which have not been prominent in general criticism of the food. Few people care about the variety of vegetables served; objection centers around the fact that most vegetables are boiled--unimaginatively and very efficiently. There is likewise little feeling anywhere as to whether pork is, "over-cooked, about right, undercooked."

The more generally phrased questions asked by the Council poll were even further off the track than the neat little queries about the cookedness of pork. The average student is unable, and in most cases reluctant, to examine the "nutritional variety of the menu, over the week"; his answer--and the statistical answer of the College--means nothing.

But the poll did ask one worthwhile question; "Do you think that the dining hall system would profit from an impartial survey by a firm of restaurant specialists." It is perfectly true that the four to one vote for this survey cannot be considered a responsible student mandate because the question was phrased in the abstract, and took no consideration of the possible disadvantages of such a survey. It offered, in short, a simple, unthinking way to express general dissatisfaction with Harvard food.

The decisive answer to this question, however, and indicates that a survey might be a good idea, demonstrates at least that there is dissatisfaction, if only because of this dissatisfaction. It might be a good idea, of course, ad still not be practical, and for this reason the Council invited William A. Heaman, manager of Dining Halls, to discuss the case with them last Monday night.

Heaman said he objected to a survey for four reasons: First, that it would cost too much money. Granted $5,000 is a considerable sum of money, but the survey might well discover ways to save money. Cost cannot be the sole reason for rejecting a survey. Second, that no firm of experts is available in the area. But food experts do exist and can be persuaded to travel. Third, that machinery for examination exists in the form of House Food Committees and Visiting Committees of mothers. These people, however, are amateurs--they know nothing of slicing beef or buying coffee, they can evaluate appearance and taste, not method. Fourth, that an investigation would be a slap in the face of the Dining Halls Department. But this argument, which was the core of Heaman's case and has also been cited by Dean Bender, is demonstrably invalid. Does the fact that the University has its books audited annually mean that it suspects embezzelment? And is the central purpose of the Dining Hall Department to keep its hierarchy happy--or to serve the best possible food?

These are not adequate reasons for putting off a survey. If there are others, the Administration should mention them; if there are on more, it should start looking for surveyers.