No one can deny the right of Professor of Law W. Barton Leach '21 to file a personal minority report on the Law School Faculty's decision to keep the Lubells. But he has chosen to do it in an unusual and unfortunate way. By implying that the Lubells' draft board--a higher power, so to speak--should take them out of school, he has stoked the coals of what should have been a settled issue and aggravated the most serious public relations problem his school has faced in years.

Professor Leach has served with distinction on the Law School faculty for over twenty years. His advocacy of expulsion for the Lubells was held on convictions that were sincere, held with neither malice nor a desire for favorable personal publicity. but it is difficult to see how his letter could have served any definite purpose. Taken at face value, his reasons for suggesting their draft seem unnecessary. True, the slow, social purge the Lubells have incurred makes them unacceptable, at present, to any bar. But the fact that they may have no vocational use for a law education is no reason to deny them their earned and confirmed right to get one if they want it. Their actions have also disqualified them from the kind of military position law students are expected to fill. Certainly this does not make them ripe for service. The Lubells, along with all other students, are ready to serve in the military once their education is completed. They cannot be more dangerous security risks then. If anything, another year at the Law School may, as hoped in the Faculty statement, clear some of the fuzziness from their thinking. Professor Leach's zeal to have the Lubells drafted, then, would certainly not benefit the army, the Lubells, or the draft system.

But what about the Law School? Perhaps Leach felt it would benefit from his move. But if he wanted to cleanse the Schools of their influence, his purgative is temporary at best, for nothing can stop the twins from re-entering after their military service. Perhaps, taking a broader view, Professor Leach wants to repair the Law School's prestige in the eyes of its critics by serving notice that at least some of the school does not want the Lubells around. If so, he forget that it is not he but the Lubells that make news. Because of this, the Boston press has used his suggestion as a springboard to blare the Lubells' actions once again. Although Leach did not plan it that way, his letter has just revived the eight-column banner implications that the Law School is full of Communists.

If Professor Leach disagreed strongly with the Law Faculty's decision, he might have issued a contemporary statement with his views and his reasons. But to take the tack he did, just as the issue was cooling, was not in the best interests of the School he has so long served so well.