Amid Boston Overdose Crisis, a Pair of Harvard Students Are Bringing Narcan to the Red Line
At First Cambridge City Council Election Forum, Candidates Clash Over Building Emissions
Harvard’s Updated Sustainability Plan Garners Optimistic Responses from Student Climate Activists
‘Sunroof’ Singer Nicky Youre Lights Up Harvard Yard at Crimson Jam
‘The Architect of the Whole Plan’: Harvard Law Graduate Ken Chesebro’s Path to Jan. 6
(The Crimson invites all men in the University to submit signed communications of timely interest. It assumes no responsibility, however, for sentiments expressen under this head and reserves the right to exclude any whose publication would be palpably inappropriate.)
To the Editors of the CRIMSON:--
Something happened Friday evening in Sanders Theatre that Harvard should be ashamed of. The decision of the debate was considered by the majority of those present as unfair.
As a former student of the University of Washington I can sympathize with the men who came 3000 miles and did not get a square deal; as a present student of Harvard University, I can be ashamed of my college of the treatment accorded the visitors. For had the decision been rendered by the opinion of the audience it most clearly would have been for Washington. Many were the exclamations of surprise and indignation from Harvard men when the decision was given.
The blame, I think, lies with us. The selection of the judges was the fault. It is not fair that in an East vs. West debate the judges should all be New Englanders. Putting to one side the personal characteristics of the judges, can it be that they, who are completely in accord with the institution and ideas that the Harvard team stood for and who are completely in discord with the principles that the team from the West brings with them, can it be that they can judge such a debate fairly? It seems to me that they are absolutely unfitted for such a task. Why could we have not had judges from Chicago or New York or some place that is under the influence of neither institution, or neither set of principles? It seems that that thought might well bear consideration.
To us here the debate is a small matter; another Harvard victory, no more, no less. But to the West it is different. Every student of the money bringing these men here and taking them back was raised by popular subscription on the University of Washington campus. Every student at Washington is vitally interested in the chance his college has of gaining recognition in the East through this debate. They trusted confidently that we would give them a fair chance. We Westerners are not poor losers, we want only a square deal. When I heard a Harvard audience grumble at a decision that so astonished me, I truly believed that the University of Washington had not had a square deal.
Friendly inter sectional relations can hardly thrive under such cultivation. PAUL MCK PALMES UNO.
Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.