Harvard Law School Makes Online Zero-L Course Free for All U.S. Law Schools Due to Coronavirus


For Kennedy School Fellows, Epstein-Linked Donors Present a Moral Dilemma


Tenants Grapple with High Rents and Local Turnover at Asana-Owned Properties


In April, Theft Surged as Cambridge Residents Stayed at Home


The History of Harvard's Commencement, Explained

Freshman Debaters Win at Home, Lose at New Haven

Neutrality versus Plan of Collective Security Is Topic


Emphasizing the past failure of neutrality policies in their arguments on the negative side of the question: "Resolved, That this house prefers a system of neutrality to a system of collective security", the Yardling debaters won a unanimous decision over the Princeton Freshman delegation at 7:30 o'clock last night in the Upper Common Room of the Union. At the same time, the Freshman team at Yale lost.

The negative team of, Tudor Gardiner '40, Garfield H. Horn '40, Victor C. Vaughan '40 advocated America's adoption of collective security, organized on the same plan as the League of Nations. Stating that war is inevitable under a neutrality platform and that it is the United States' moral obligation to cooperate with European powers, the Yardlings contended that an international peace movement is the only hope for world peace.

Murray M. Day, Gustavus Ober, and Brooke Lee of the Princeton, affirmative team vainly advanced the contention that neutrality, when strictly applied, has and will keep a country out of war. Such a policy would allow reciprocal trade with other non-belligerent nations but would cut out all war profits.

Judges for this last debate of the year were Albert Norris '25 of Milton Academy and John R. Crane, instructor of Economics, while Robert J. Glaser '40 presided.

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