RADICALISM, GOOD AND BAD.

In spite of the fact that most college men are probably as tired of refuting the charge of "solid conservatism" as of hearing it, the appearance a short time ago of a so-called intercollegiate magazine, "Challenge," re-opens the discussion concerning the advisability of radicalism among students. Mr. Arthur Brisbane, of the New York Evening Journal, in commenting recently upon an editorial printed in the columns of the CRIMSON, corroborated the assertion that "real intellectual turmoil is necessary if the owner of the intellect is to amount to anything." In addition he suggests that radicalism and thought are identical. By that, he has reference to that kind of thought which leads to an ultimate improvement in existing conditions, which makes haste slowly, and reaches a logical conclusion.

It is generally during his college career that a man formulates the policies that are to govern his later life. Then is the proper time for experimenting. If certain doctrines are not to his liking, he discards them for others until at length the guiding principles of his activities are settled to his satisfaction. Meanwhile his ideas may run riot, but if he is a normal person, the final decision will make a change for the better. In short, it is constructive radicalism which ought to be harbored.

But radicalism may assume another form, as illustrated by the magazine, "Challenge." It is destructive radicalism. In the April number, recently issued, one of the articles, "The Thinking Bayonet," declares that a revolution is necessary before national preparedness can become a reality. Adopting a socialist view, the writer, tears down and rakes over our whole economic, social, and political system, merely to leave it in that condition. The importance of universal education is stressed, and an elaborate, impossible scheme is set forth for a new system, but aside from this, no methods for improvement are suggested. The present measures of the government for preparedness are denounced as misdirected. Of what value are powerful armies and navies, it asks, when we have no minimum standard of living? It proceeds by demanding an elimination of all graft, and an unlimited appropriation for educating alike the thousands who dig ditches and the scores who direct corporations. The author advocates "some good way of combining democratic distribution with efficient production in our great industries," failing completely to realize that the two are incompatible. It is just such things as these which mark the play to the grandstand. This article may be taken as typical of the paper, which stands for freedom of speech among students. When radicalism degenerates into an anathema against existing conditions, it no longer serves its useful purpose. The advance of civilization has depended not upon the impulsive actions of the dissatisfied, but upon the careful deliberation of thinkers.