While Memorial Hall stands as a monument to both the Union's Civil War dead and to the moribund ideas of John Ruskin, it also rests on a plot of very desirable University property. Monuments need not be functional, but when one sprawls grotesquely over ground the size of two football fields, there is some question whether good sense has not been sacrificed to sentiment.

If alumni were not sentimental, there would have been no costly fire in Memorial Hall, because workmen would have never set out to restore the structure's various gargoyles. Now the University must decide whether to restore the building at a high cost, leave it as it is, or build a more functional structure in its place. Possibly the Administration tends toward the latter alternative and even President Pusey has said that "we may have to find an appropriate replacement" for Memorial Hall "which would still preserve its memorial quality."

As long as a vocal group of alumni, however, make themselves heard through the Alumni Bulletin and through more effective media of communication, such as money, the University will have a difficult job in carrying out any anti-traditional policy, such as tearing the place down. For that reason, it is desirable and possibly helpful for present undergraduates to express their opinions on the subject.

Two weeks ago a member of the Student Council advocated that the group poll student opinion of the fate of the 80-year old shrine. Since the Council purports to represent student opinion, one might presume that members would heartily support such a motion. They defeated it.

At present we stand neither for the preservation nor the demolition of Memorial Hall. But the question merits consideration and the expression of ideas. For the Student Council to vote not to find out what student opinion is, places that group in an ineffective and unimaginative position.