(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld.)
To The Editor of the CRIMSON:
Orchids to your independent attitude in forsaking an all too common and deeply regretted "aim to please" policy. Twice this week you have chosen to handle a "hot poker."
There can be little doubt but that the total amount distributed to graduates of Cambridge schools in all branches of the University has in recent years been equal to the income of the Buckley fund. But in your calculations you assume six thousand dollars of this income is distributed to Freshmen, whereas the fact of the matter is that no Cambridge Freshmen have received money publicly identified with this source. They have received what have been termed Cambridge scholarships (awarded to those with honor grades) and Cambridge Aid. All but a few Cantabridgians have been under the impression (or delusion) that this money has come from the general funds of the University and is more or less a sop to the tax-exemption squabblers.
If this money did not come from the Buckley fund it would seem that the entire $10,000, formerly $15,000, would be available for upperclassmen and graduates, which total amount, of course, has never been distributed to the latter. They receive approximately one-half the listed income (1934-5) of the Buckley fund.
You put your finger on the crux of the matter when you state that the University contribution "is very meager if non-existent." You state "it is obvious that the entire annual income of the Buckley fund and the Cambridge Aid was not used." I agree if Cambridge Aid (allocated by the Administration from general funds for Cambridge students) amounts to any substantial sum. But if the source for the latter is the Buckley fund, the only ethical way out would be to abolish the term Cambridge Aid and identify all the money distributed with the Buckley fund or at least that proportion traceable to the latter. Thus, in brief, the question to be answered by University Hall is "How much money, exclusive of that provided by the Buckley fund, is distributed to graduates of Cambridge schools?" If the sum "is meager if not non-existent," then the University has been putting on a front with "Other People's Money," to adopt a caption used by the CRIMSON in an editorial last year flaying Cambridge politicians for exercising with the tax-exemption problem. On the other hand, if the figure be substantial then the point of your editorial is evident--that "from the number assisted and the amounts received" the Buckley fund is not being exhausted. Edward A. Crane '35.