THE CORPORATION'S RECENT REGULATION AS TO HALLS.

"The halls of the University shall not be open for persistent and systematic propaganda on contentious questions of contemporaneous social, economic, political, or religious interests". Since this regulation was made by the Corporation and Board of Overseers several days ago, we have received communications and heard some criticism concerning the justice of this move. We print on another page a letter which attempts to show that the Corporation has by this rule made an indirect move against the various political clubs which have been formed to forward the interests of the several candidates for the 1912 federal election. Several days ago we expressed a strong belief in these College political clubs. Therefore, we seize this opportune moment to reconcile the Corporation's unanimous opinion with what we conceive to be the true purpose of these political clubs.

In the first place, it is obvious that the Corporation, unless it is to allow its halls to be used by any fanatic who may procure an invitation to come here, must now have some definite regulation on excluding speakers. Up to within a short time there was no such rule. Then, a speaker came whom the Corporation saw fit to exclude. At once there arose the inevitable cry of discrimination. Papers all over the land heralded Harvard's ideas on the particular subject under discussion. As a matter of fact, neither the Corporation nor the vast majority of Harvard undergraduates had any such ideas. Naturally, this sort of publicity was odious to a degree. Thus, were there no regulation, every refusal by the Corporation would result in like misrepresentation.

In the second place, the rule which has been made seems to use the best possible under the circumstances. If we are rightly informed the Corporation thinks Harvard College not the fit place for the furthering of "persistent or systematic propaganda." We heartily agree. If any man in College wants to start political campaigning, he should find a field for his labors other than the academic halls of Harvard University. The Union has the same custom as the Corporation has recently adopted and we think it a good one. If some such regulation were not now in force, the College would soon become a hotbed of political and socialistic discussion.

But, as we previously pointed out, we believe the political clubs have a great function in the discussion which they stimulate, for thereby they are most instructive. We think further that discussion can be stimulated in no better way than by listening to the speeches of men prominent on contemporary politics. But it is possible to procure these men at times other than the middle of a campaign. Also it is possible to have these men speak on the broader aspects of politics. In short, let us have principles rather than propaganda; lectures rather than stump speeches.

And, in addition, we feel that the Corporation is amply competent to judge what is propaganda and what are instructive principles.