We regret that the question of speakers at the Union should have called forth the letter from Mr. Fordyce printed in the news columns. For we believe his accusations unjustifiable.

If the CRIMSON has imputed "inexcusable narrowmindedness" to the Union it has done so on the basis of the speakers it has had so far this year, all of whom have been decidedly of conservative opinions on social questions.

The choice has without doubt been regulated by circumstances of availability etc. But we have believed that in thus following the line of least resistance the Union has temporarily lost sight of the principle of presenting both sides--a principle necessary for fairness and, even more, for education. So we have reiterated this principle, as being more important than circumstances. In so doing we have, conversely condemned the opposite principle of suppression.

But to say that we have done so in "discourteous" language is to suggest that we have attacked individuals--more particularly the Governing Board. We believe that no language is strong enough to condemn the principle of suppression. But we have never believed that the Governing Board favored or ever even considered such a policy. Nor can yesterday's editorial, if read carefully, be construed so as to prove we felt otherwise.

What we said was that any persons who supported the policy of suppression which we condemned should also be condemned. We never stated that the Governing Board supported that principle. It had not stated what its policy was and the natural assumption was that it was in conformity with that of Harvard. Only those who assumed otherwise than did we could construe that impersonal condemnation as being "discourteous" to the Governing Board.

We assumed that the Board favored the presenting of both sides, for if it did not it would be untrue to Harvard's principles as recalled by President Lowell. And it has proved itself, and the individuals composing it have proved themselves, unwaveringly true to those principles.

Condemnation of a principle only effects those connected with it. The Governing Board has never connected itself with the principle we condemned, and since it has known this as well as we have we cannot believe that it has taken offense.

Offense to anyone has never been intended in these columns, and never will. We can only regret a misunderstanding both of our intentions and our remarks if Mr. Fordyce or anyone else has found it there.