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 prohibition pantomime in Washington has enlisted supers from New Haven and thus interested even more keenly the college world. When a member of the faculty diverges in matters politic or impolitic from the mental paths of the undergraduate, and does so in the spotlight of the governmental stage he points more morals than he really intends.

For, at least in the present case, it is rather patent that Professor Fisher is completely at variance with the delegates from the News. They cannot believe that prohibition has accomplished at New Have what he insists it has. He cannot believe them at all. The difference in opinion is that between a flat "yes" and a flat "no"--and that is really a rather important difference.

To say that one is right and the other wrong would be--in the present case--quit silly. After all, charity begins at home. But the truth of the matter might appear to lie in a synthesis of the two views. Prohibition may have helped--but not enough to justify its--function. To this probably neither would agree. The reformation prohibitional like the reformation protestant often befogs eyes otherwise very clear. Yet to add words to such a superfluity of verbiage as has already developed at Washington is certainly futile. Time and the taste of man eventually effect much. Reformers notwithstanding. One must at least complement the editors of the New for their courage and honesty.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.