?? Frank the Press? ?? CL, Number 1 ?? into frozen ?? ?mpton Street, ?? ?orgia town. As ?? over the tundra? ?? stood by a beach, un? ??teful to have escaped the six-degree ?? ?sed to ice my teeth. While I walked ?? ?hing long-haired girl, someone who ?? all like me shuffled through Memorial ?? ?abbed the registration envelope bearing ?? Because the registrars eyes are no sharper ?? have been for the last two years, the ruse ?? again.

?? may be a lesson in all this-and not simply ?? ?tain young journalists have discovered the ?? ?son style. It is sad that Mother Harvard has ?? ?pletely reduced her children to numbers on ?? ?tion tapes that she cannot tell one from ??

?? a little effort, we could probably extract ?? ?theme. While the loss of student identity ?? ?creaming through on mass-processing days ?? yesterday, the kids aren't the only ones who ?? have suffered. The extent to which everyone at ?? Harvard-the once-respected Faculty as well as the ?? ?ansient students-is having his humanity squeezed ?? ?ay is one of the truly depressing phenomena of ?? last few years.

?? ?Men are not just teachers any more. Now they ?? ?potential votes, which can be mustered behind ?? Enlightened or the Neanderthals at one of the ?? ways-urgent Faculty meetings. Even that kind of ?? ?wn-making is only a laughable slight when com?? ?red to what grotesque dehumanization happens ?? where. Ernest May is a good if pathetic example. ?? ?ing from the relative security of the Faculty ?? come Dean, May is now the closest thing ?? to an Instant Pig for any and all ??

?? ?nths of enduring personal har? ?? with no real connection to his ?? me thinking that he is provi? ?? be punished. It is hardly sur? ?? the Pig begins to think in animal? ?? himself. The students who chant ?? longer people but "barking dogs." ?? by using the same canine imagery ?? Report, suggests that the rhetorical ?? University may at last have found ?? wepon. It is a discovery that no one ?? ?appabout; the University should not ??

?? THOSE ?? the issues lurking in yesterday's ?? ?gistration ?? it is probably best to let them ?? undistu Anyone who hasn't already felt ?? ?ueezed wi? ?? be convinced by reading about ?? Those wh? ?? for themselves don't need to be ??

?? ther? ?? subjects which seem-to me-?? other of dragging out into print ?? a topic which I know something ?? people may not; the other is a ?? which is about to enter the public ??

?? CRIMSON. I have tried hard and ?? fully to avoid a CRIMSON-centered ??d; I realize that not everyone is ?? minutiae of the paper's opera? ?? am. That is why I do not plan to repeat ?? of deta led analysis of the CRIMSON's suc? ?? and failures that I did in a piece last Fall. But the last year, which was as remarkable in the CRIMSON's history as it was for the rest of the College, taught us on the paper a few things which may be of general interest.

I have always been amused to overhear conversations about "the way the CRIMSON has changed." In the standard decline-of-CRIMSON theories, the students who ran the paper four or five years ago were dedicated but cheery young men, who always ?? standards of good taste and objective jour? ?? passing whims or pressures. But as ?? moved on it was replaced by a new kind ?? journalist. The distinguishing marks ?? ?comers were their fascination with radi? ??d their inability to keep any of it out ?? stories and editorials.

?? current CRIMSON events, the theory ?? dismal note. Many people seem to ?? whatever sanity exists on the newspaper ?? only because of a few residual oldtimers, who have fought hard to beat down the radical threat. On more than one embarrassing occasion I have had Faculty members tell me how glad they were that I and some of my friends were holding down the Young Turks. But what, they ask, will happen next year?

Any scheme that tries to divide members of the paper into revolutionary and administration-toadie camps is bound to be wrong far more often than it is right. Aside from one or two permanent polar opposites, most of the political alignments on the paper shift constantly-and leave no real trace for the reading public to follow. As far as I can tell, the people now running the paper are as politically diverse as most classes have been for the last few years.

The problem with entirely junking that what-happens-next-year question is that, in its blundering way, it hits an important point. There may not be any impressive Passing of Mastodons this year at the CRIMSON, but there is a distinct difference between students leaving the paper and those now taking it over. The difference is not so much in politics or style as in the things we've learned to expect from Harvard and from the CRIMSON.

There is a group of people on the CRIMSONnearly all of us now seniors-who came to a university and a newspaper which were unrecognizably different from those we sec today. The people who wrote editorials when we were freshmen proclaimed themselves-with no trace of embarrassment-to be the "New Middle." There was much easy talk then of the CRIMSON's role as "the University daily" which would "serve the University community."

It is hard to listen to any of those phrases nowespecially "the University community" -without wearing a sour smirk. The changes that have come to the mythical University community since. 1966 are obvious; what may be less immediately apparent is the way those changes affect a newspaper.

IMAGINE for a moment a newspaper whose circulation is limited to members of Nixon's Cabinet plus the Weathermen, or to a random sampling of soldiers on either side of the DMZ. The you will have some idea of what it is like to put out a newspaper in a university at war. Anyone who has ever written a news story knows that the subjects of the story almost always complain about the results. That is usually a good sign, since the reporter tries to get a more detached view than any of the participants. And most newspapers are usually able to endure the gripes because they have a healthy buffer zone: since only one or two per cent of their readers are ever involved in the stories, papers like the Times or the Globe have more room for both interpretation and error.