After an entire term of being attacked from all sides, Howie Phillips is getting paranoid. His latest statement (such as it is), charging Dean Monro with unethical conduct and subversion, goes beyond all bounds of rationality and, indeed, belief.

Phillips and former Council member Roger Leed last week called Monro's attitude "highly unethical for a member of the Administration," and said that College officials should maintain complete silence on the issue of Council reorganization. They blamed Monro for putting the evil idea of realignment along the lines of an inter-House council into the head of Dunster's William Bailey.

And to those who would listen, Phillips and Leed said a lot more. Monro is out to get them, they whined; the Dean didn't even read the Leed-Zagat report. They were particularly galled at Monro's view that the votes taken in the Student Council are relatively inconsequential. In sum, they objected that Monro saw fit to express his thoughts on issues before the Council, and that he did not consider its decisions binding.

Free speech has taken a beating around here lately as it is, and Phillips' and Leed's statement makes one wonder what the College is coming to. Dean Monro has a perfect right to say what he would like the Council to be, or what he thinks CRIMSON editorial policy should be, or what numbers he wants to hear the Glee Club sing. And, of course, the Council, the CRIMSON, and the Glee Club have an equal right to ignore him. It seems strange that the Council would complain about "meddling," since a large part of its job is to inquire, often inexpertly, into the affairs of the University.

Monro has long propounded his notion of an inter-House Council, and it hardly matters whether Bailey and the Dunster House Committee got the idea, which isn't necessarily the best anyway, from him or by spontaneous cogitation. In fact, Monro told the CRIMSON at a press conference that though he would like to "get rid of the anachronism of Class representation and have the Houses represented the way they want," the Dunster move is "a danger signal," not a sign of hope. He said "there is no reason for other Houses to think about seceding, if the issue is left open," and that it would not "make any sense" to have two student councils. He was earnest in asking for serious and considered discussion of all plans for reorganization.

It seems plausible that Monro did read the Leed Zagat report, but, like so many others, was left speechless by a proposal that would enlarge the Council to 50-75 men, most of whom would have less reason to be on the Council than some of the present members. As for the matter of ignoring Council votes, it seems absurd for the Council to consider itself the last word on something like Sophomore Standing, and to think that a 10-9 head count should end discussion. A committee like the SCCEP is valuable for the points it raises on both sides of an issue.

In short, Phillips and Leed seem much too quick too condemn a man who has been honest in his conduct and use of influence. Monro has never hesitated to speak his mind, but he has not forced demands on any student or organization. Both he and the principle of free comment have been unnecessarily and nonsensically smeared.