SILENCE IS DROSS

In the forgotten days when the Advocate and the CRIMSON were both fortnightly magazines, "journals of opinion," controversy waxed hot between them. Each was the other's particular scorn, and their feuds filled editorial and communication columns with inky battles. The amity between them now is perhaps a sign of decadence; a little more discord might encourage good-natured argument, and from argument is bred opinion. But as long as tactful, sympathetic criticism is the only intercourse between them, no one will ever be moved to enthusiasm by their disagreements.

The leading article in the March Advocate is itself an illustration of the danger of too much conservatism in expressing opinions. What the writer of "Political Sentimentalists" says about Mr. Boyden in Europe is hardly open to attack--it is an ingenuously clear statement of fact. But what he says about college thinkers is dangerous, if not a little absurd. He objects, rightly enough, to sentimental reasoning and arguments not based on facts; but he goes farther and demands that a man should either have a thorough opinion reasoned from complete knowledge, or no opinion at all. If he is to utter a view on the World Court, for example, he must be as wise as the Senate, or he must be silent.

Such an attitude, especially in college, is somewhat inappropriate. Well considered judgments are for the most part impossible: In fact, carried but logically, the idea would effectively squelch all interest in debatable affairs, for college men cannot expect to be omniscient on any subject, and as long as their information is even partly incomplete, their opinions are bound to be influenced by the imperfections which the critic condemns. Snap judgments, to be sure, are valueless as judgments; but if a student, even from the bare data of headlines or hearsay, expresses an honest conviction, he is at least displaying a commendable concern for affairs; and from the disputes which his remarks may arouse, he can be persuaded to more intelligent views.

Certainly if there is any place in the world where vain ideas and fantastic notions may suitably be aired, it is in the proving-ground of the college. There they can have no serious permanent effect; they can be met in time and corrected. The meeting of the Debating Union last night gives useful witness. The principal speakers on each side prepared their arguments carefully; but those who talked from the floor spoke each in his own degree of knowledge, little or great. And the mistaken expressions were just as useful in clarifying the issue, and in stimulating thought, as the studied opinions.

One must be tolerant of the sentimentalists: perhaps their misguided mouthings will rouse someone, like the Advocate's contributor, to answer them; and perhaps he will arouse other answers in turn. Even bigotry has its uses.