Pursuit of the truth in an atmosphere of freedom is the business of a university. This is an elementary point; it should not be necessary to defend it, especially on the pages of a publication under the auspices of Harvard University. The freedom to hear and discuss all point of view has so long been part of the air we breathe at Harvard that it comes as a profound shock to find that the Summer School does not uphold that freedom.

This week officials of the Harvard Summer Socialist Club were informed that their group can no longer carry on its activities in University buildings. In effect, the club has been banned. Deprived of the privileges normally granted an undergraduate organization, it ceases to exist in its previous form.

The action of the Summer School reveals a serious lack of comprehension of the purposes of a university, a lack confirmed by the reasons given for the action. These reasons are intellectually unsupportable; for the most part, merely to state them is to refute them. But since they precipitated such an important move as the banning of a political club, they should be examined more closely.

The policy of the Summer School, it turns out, is to discourage "discussion type clubs" such as the Socialist Club, or the Young Americans for Freedom, or for that matter the Young Democrats or Young Republicans. Such clubs are controversial and do not provide the proper kind of "student participation." They are particularly unwelcome when they sponsor speakers from outside the University, as this affords "a platform for all kinds of views" with which the Summer School might not agree. Furthermore, in the opinion of the Summer School administration, such views might be "unrepresentative," because only groups whose ideological fervor is especially strong are likely to take the time to organize a summer program.

None of these "explanations" would satisfy Harvard College, or any of the other branches of Harvard University. If the Summer School is serious about them, its contempt for its students is enormous. In the eyes of the administration, Summer School students possess so little intelligence that they are incapable of benefiting from free discussion of public issues; the only activities suitable for them are Yard punches and mixer dances. In addition, the Summer School underestimates its own faculty when it claims that the menace of "unrepresentative" opinions comes only from outside the University. There are enough faculty members with controversial views to poison the mind of the most protected Summer School student.

What the Summer School is really saying is that it is so different from the rest of Harvard that it cannot live by the fundamental principles of this or any great university. It cannot permit controversy; it feels that it must violate a proud tradition of Harvard University by refusing to provide "a platform for all kinds of views." If this is true-if the Summer School student is so different from the Harvard man that he cannot participate in the life of a university-then a Summer School has no place at Harvard. If it is untrue, as is far more likely, then the Summer School administration should reverse its action.