On January 28, before the storm broke, an editorial suggested that the investigating, if done at all, be conducted by a "royal commission," such as used in England.
On Conant
Coming as it did on the eve of the investigations, President Conant's decision to retire could hardly be thought of except in terms of its impact on American education. That is why, on January 15, the CRIMSON wrote:
"for all our confidence in his choice and all our pleasure that he is assuming such an important post, we are saddened and worried to see him go. We are not really worrying about Harvard itself--he has put it in a better condition than even its most exacting critics can demand. But we are worried about education, in which Conant has long been the recognized leader. Conant reached greatness by refusing to dictate policy, by avoiding the panacea, the rule of thumb and the easy answer. He reached it by . . . demanding honest and unfettered seeking after truth. He was not only the leading defender of academic freedom--he was its personification. . . . Too few have had the courage and the will to follow his example, We cannot deny a sense of personal loss, because we are students in America and because we are Harvard students."
In addition to President Conant's resignation, the Corporation considered Provost Buck's. The CRIMSON paid its tribute to the University's second-in command on May 8:
"For thirteen years the Provost, with the President's, cooperation and advice, has presided over (the College's diffuse administration), initiating and carrying out consistent policies. vigorous in their aptness to the present and striking in their maintenance of Harvard's best traditions. . . . A Provost must somehow secure confidence while playing politics, a feat which Mr. Buck accomplished with astonishing success. . . . It is a rare combination, ruthlessness and warmth; but from this paradox of character have come most of the advances by which Harvard has retained its place as the foremost American college."
The role of religion in an undergraduate's life again became food for editorials this year when, in the Spring, the Corporation decided to put the to-be-appointed University Preacher, assisted by an Episcopalian divinity student, in charge of Phillips Brooks House, the College social service center. From the CRIMSON, this brought the belief:
"that certain pitfalls await any clergyman, regardless of stature, who steps into active direction of a secular institution . . . and it is difficult to see how (the divinity student's) position as an embryonic cleric can fall to inject a religious element into the organization. Heading P.B.H. with sectarians might well frighten off undergraduates who prefer to eschew organized religion in their extra-curricular activities. . . . P.B.H. has thrived partly because members have not thought in terms of one another's religion. This is the way it should remain. The Graduate Secretary should continue as a secular post.
Finally, the contentions over spring football practice reappeared briefly when limitations on substitutes were reimposed. Though there was enough disagreement within the staff to warrant an "On the Other Hand" column, disagreeing with the majority opinion, the CRIMSON reversed its former position:
"With the reinstitution of the limited substitution game, however, the resurrection of spring football becomes essential. Limited substitution should help equalize competition between big and small colleges. . . . Three weeks is hardly enough time to produce the versatile player now required."