"CONCEIT vs. CUSTOM."

"OSSIP," the writer of "Conceit vs. Custom," in the last Crimson, says that whoever believes that "complete independence is the only position that can be taken by a man who has any self-respect" is apt to be "a disappointed aspirant for popularity"; that such a person "openly depreciate[s] what he inwardly esteem[s]"; that he "blurts out his opinion" and pronounces "unsolicited his views on college life and the motives which he thinks should guide it"; and that "he calls every one a toady who is not of his way of thinking." "Hatred toward the popular," "Ossip" quotes from La Rochefoucauld, "is nothing but love for popularity"; and he argues, in conclusion, that "the popularity which the independent man professes to scorn .... is the esteem, the respect, and the friendship of manly men."

The aim of the article is to demolish the "independent man," and, we infer, to disprove the existence at college to any great degree of that fungoid growth, toadyism.

Undoubtedly the writer does demolish his independent man, but that creature is made chiefly of straw. For why a man to be completely independent (as every man of self-respect should be) need "blurt" out unasked his opinions or his views on college life and its proper motives does not appear. Nor is the reason evident why he should call every one who is not of his way of thinking a toady. Nor does it seem very clear why he should scorn the esteem, respect, and friendship of manly men.

The "independent" man who does all this would be a cross between a boor and a fool. When "Ossip" shows the necessary connection between independence and such actions he certainly will show how unsatisfactory a thing independence is; but in the mean while the old prejudice in favor of it will remain.

But if independence does not involve the folly attributed to it, in what does it consist? In two things: in fearlessly acting in accordance with the dictates of a manly conscience with absolute disregard to popular opinion, and in fearlessly speaking whenever there is a principle at issue. Foibles should be cheerfully tolerated, but not immorality. If, for example, when that amiable idiot Hollis Holworthy (now well known through the Lampoon) is talking like a "Harvard man" about how he is going to be "as full as a goat" to-night, etc., etc., some one would delicately but intelligibly intimate that H. H. was gobbling like a gosling, though it is true that the "tough" H. H. might not relish the remark, yet in the future he would probably think twice before making an exhibition of himself again. Nine tenths of Holworthy's hearers, doubtless, are quick enough to think privately that he is talking like an ass; but openly they smile approval, and this often from good-nature, and in the unconsciousness of any insincerity, - nay, more, with the inward satisfaction of having displayed great worldly tact. Undoubtedly worldly tact smooths intercourse, and should therefore, in regard to the foibles of men, be generously used. But if principle is at stake we make but a poor bargain if we exchange it for smoothness of intercourse. Witness our College, where certainly the tact alluded to in Holworthy's case is plentiful enough; no doubt that intercourse here is sufficiently oily, but is not the moral tone, or rather the absence of moral tone, somewhat juvenile? Certainly it is not characteristic of men to disregard morals; disregard of them is peculiar only to sots or very young men. Only when we free ourselves from these boyish views, and when we attain the moral courage to speak (i. e. when toadyism is dead), will there be manliness among students.

If we ask what keeps toadyism alive, the obvious answer is the desire to be popular. Frankness of expression is not compatible with a certain popularity. Nay, more, if you would be popular, you must not by your silence let it be suspected that you inwardly frown on most or much or even some of your neighbors' modes of thought and action. Silence, because men do not know how much you disapprove, is more feared than open censure, and in the uncertainty your disapproval is overestimated, and in proportion feared.

To sympathize with all (that is, to be insincere) is a short and easy road to one kind of popularity. But to act and speak fearlessly, in accordance with conscience, and without regard to the opinion of others, brings something far better than such popularity, - the consciousness of having acted like a man. For, so acting, a man can never, unless he be misunderstood, lose the esteem, respect, and friendship of manly men. If misunderstood he still has the sanction of the voice within, - a sanction which to judicious men outweighs the opinion of a whole theatre of opponents.

Popularity may result legitimately from truthfulness or illegitimately from insincerity. When La Rochefoucauld says that hatred towards the popular is nothing but love for popularity, if he means hatred of legitimate popularity, he is certainly right. But the popularity which results from insincerity men do not hate: they feel contempt for it.

G. E.