Eighty years of fulmination is a crusty enough record for any newspaper. For a college enterprise, it is remarkable. This piece of unsolicited applause naturally leads to the question of who, beyond the characters within 14 Plympton Street, are responsible for this longevity. College journals, after all, do not just happen. To survive, they must publish in a tolerant atmosphere, one tolerant at least of what the incipient newsmen are trying to do.

Bizarre as it may appear to this column's regular readers, our acknowledgment must go to the populations of Massachusetts and University Halls. Not only have they provided much news-stuff, those small and often noxious rulings that tickle one's ire, but their attitude in great part has made publishing worthwhile.

Many universities, not so generous with freedom, hover over student publications, protecting good names and upholding the dignity of official commands. In all but a few instances the result is journalism that amounts to cranking out batches of publicity releases and admonishing readers for their lack of college spirit. Though we are often damned, we doubt whether it is for that.

The idea of a newspaper unfettered by edicts from above or the shifting tastes of its readership is old and praiseworthy, and apart from abstract theories of liberty, this freedom is healthy in terms of interest, truthfulness, and mental stimulation alone. For those on the typewriter end, moreover, its worth--the maturity gained from unhampered grappling with journalism's problems--is equally clear. All this seems so obvious that undergraduate journalists who do not strive to practice this ideal are neither giving nor receiving what a newspaper should offer.

Our good fortune has been that the local officialdom agrees with us, or at least that it goes along far enough to grant us independence. It is true, of course, that the College has at times tried to assert control, but these assaults have come only spasmodically. Whether relief in those cases came from higher officials or from the deans' self-restraint is obscure, but what is important is that all such attempts have failed.

It is quite true, too, that other organization here have been needlessly hampered by rules, and that the administrators have mocked their own policy of freedom in matters social. Yet, so far as the press is concerned, the University's record has been more than adequate. As the CRIMSON has expanded its idea of what a college newspaper should be, the scope granted by the administration has been wide enough to allow the necessary changes, Few colleges can claim that.