Lack of Understanding

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Even the fact that the editorial staff of the CRIMSON must find or make controversial material for their columns is not a sufficient excuse for the lack of understanding with which the question of a weekly board charge under the House Plan has been approached.

The University provides the House Plan--and the undergraduates accept it as the Senate "accepted" the invitation to the United States to join the World Court. Apparently it is felt that failure on the part of students to bring up objections to the Administration's projects would indicate a lack of independence.

Some suggestions for changes in the various details of House organization have been made and, naturally, will be made, which are of real value. But those made in regard to the board charge seem to be based on a misunderstanding. One of the primary advantages of the House Plan is that it can put a stop to continual "eating around", or rather that it affords an opportunity for congenial groups of men to have their meals, at board rates, in agreeable surroundings in the buildings in which they live. Perhaps it is not simply a contrary reaction which inspires the frantic defense of eating where one chooses and brings forth slightly ridiculous remarks about the spirit of democracy, the traditional freedom of the undergraduate, and--thunder from Plympton Street--the evils of the system. It may be that the upperclassmen have some sentiment about breaking established attachment with the Georgian. And there will naturally and rightly be some concern about the fate of the Clubs. But if their place is equally well or better filled by the Houses, there ought to be no great regret if some of them at least do go out of existence.

The most reassuring part of the whole matter is the thought that with as fine a group of men as will be associated with the Houses as Tutors and with as comfortable and agreeable surroundings as the Houses will afford there will probably be no question of anyone's eating a large majority of meals in his House. Many other minor objections will doubtless be forgotten as soon as men are actually living in the Houses. G. C. St. John Jr., '33.

(Editor's Note):--The CRIMSON's correspondent has evidently misinterpreted its stand on the Dining Hall charge. The CRIMSON did not deprecate the primary advantage of the House Plan that it can put a stop to continual "eating around". Neither did it imply that upperclassmen have some sentiment about breaking an established attachment with the Georgian. The CRIMSON contended, and to date finds no good reason for the withdrawal of that contention, that a disproportionately high weekly rate requiring an absurdly large number of meals to be eaten in the House will work hardship on many students. It pointed particularly to the fact that this financial pressure will bear more severely upon men of moderate means than upon the wealthy. It still thinks that such a situation is in accord neither with the spirit of democracy nor the traditional freedom of the undergraduate. It completely agrees that it will be a fine thing if the surroundings in the Houses will be such as to make a man want to take a majority of his meals there. Its contention merely centered around the point that a high weekly rate not only detracted from the attractiveness of the House Dining rooms but makes it appear that the Bursar, at least, fears that the surroundings will not be sufficiently attractive in themselves.