IN our last issue we made some remarks concerning the Registrar, for which we wish to apologize publicly, as we have already done privately. The remarks were caused by a misapprehension for which the Faculty -by their leave -were partially responsible. The facts of the case are these: A year ago a vote was passed by the Faculty, that undergraduates should not be informed of the number of absences from recitations, etc., with which they were charged on the secretary's books, until they were summoned to receive the penalties imposed for such absences. Accordingly the Registrar, in the proper performance of his duty, notified the monitor who posted the number of absences from prayers of the men whom he marked that, unless his action had been previously authorized by some one in authority, he must discontinue the practice. The vote of the Faculty was not made known to the students, and at the time the editorial in our last number was written, we were not aware of the existence of any such regulation. In this manner we were led, much to our regret, into making an unjust attack upon an officer of the College who is much respected by all who have anything to do with him. We think we see two ways by which such a mistake might have been avoided. In the first place it would have been prevented if the Faculty had adopted the plan of making public all their votes regarding the government of the students; and, in the second place, we should certainly not have committed the error had they refrained from passing a vote which we agree with the Advocate in thinking unnecessary. We do not propose, however, to discuss these points at present, and we desire to state once more our sincere regret that we were led into expressing opinions likely to convey an erroneous impression of one who is remarkably just and considerate in all his relations with the undergraduates.
NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED
May 06, 2017