BOY, PAGE MR. WHITNEY

The recent controversy in the daily paper of Illinois University in regard to "Harvard Snobbishness" has been watched with interest by many students here, only a few of whom, if any, know the full facts of the case. The first communication was printed in "The Illini" of January 20 under the head "Facts from Harvard". It was in the form of a reply to two statements which had been published in "The Illini" a short time previously,--one a criticism of "Harvard's aristocratic democracy," by Mr. Rosewell S. Nothwang, the other the claim of Professor Watkins that the old eastern college professor is so separated from his students that he cannot be reached with a five hundred foot pole. The correspondent refutes in a dignified but emphatic way Mr. Nothwang's beliefs that "Harvard is generally admitted to be an aristocratic school," that "Harvard students come from the two highest classes, the idle rich, and the rich professional class which serves the rich", and that "certain distinguished Harvard professors of undoubted aristocratic lineage could well afford to be democratic in theory". The communication, signed "H. Payne Whitney, Jr., Harvard 1921", stated that "less than 15 percent of Harvard students come from homes of more than ordinary wealth.

Five days later, Mr. Howard B. Day attacked Mr. Whitney on the grounds that his idea of "ordinary wealth" is "different than yours and mine." This communication, entitled "The Harvard Quibblers" uses the fact that Mr. H. Payne Whitney, Senior, "is one of the largest financiers of Wall Street" as conclusive evidence that the young Whitney's ideas of democracy and wealth must be decidedly biased.

The effectiveness of Mr. Day's arguments is rather shattered by a careful search of the university catalogues of the past four years, which falls to disclose any evidence that H. Payne Whitney, Jr., was ever registered with the class of 1921. Yale University might well be dumbfounded at the suggestion that one of its most loyal families--for the Whitneys are strictly and Eli clan had taken up the defense of Harvard in the Middle West.

The mystery in regard to "H. Payne Whitney, Jr." becomes even more involved in the "Illini" of February 2. Here a correspondent, who boasts that he "has no Wall Street rating, but comes from a family of very ordinary means from a little New England village of five hundred," takes up the defense of the apparently mythical "Mr. Whitney". "The writer knows Mr. Whitney quite well," he says, "and Mr. Whitney is widely known for his democracy, friendliness, and courtesy, as well as exceptional personal ability". As the communication is signed "Harvard '23", the identity of Mr. Whitney's friend can not be determined.

The question of who Harvard's defenders in the Illinois paper are, is of considerable interest, especially due to the assumption of a false name; but apparently we have an enemy in our midst as well as a champion. On February 1, "Harvard '22" writes to the Illini:

"I have been a Harvard student for over two years, and have been in touch with student activities in various ways. Harvard is essentially undemocratic, aristocratic, pandering to wealth and the idle rich, fostering snobbishness and class distinction. . . . The members of Harvard's exclusive clubs, in which a Wall Street rating is prerequisite for membership, are so removed from the few common students here that they cannot be reached with a thousand foot pole. . . . It is true Harvard has no Greek letter fraternities, but Harvard has just as snobbish and detrimental club system, whose baneful influence is lessened only by the smaller number of those aristocratic organizations. Campus offices and honors seem to be synonymous with wealth and family prestige. The recent Senior election has proved that."

It is clearly a waste of time to refute such game of thought as "Harvard 1922" contributes, but the combination of assumed names, and letters, from at least one person obviously not in touch with affairs at Cambridge, suggest that the whole affair, or at least part of it, must be a "frame-up", and that the letters were written by men who are not members of the University. The situation offers a rare opportunity for a budding Sherlock Holmes.