WORSE AND MORE OF IT

Thoroughgoing disgust with the Comptroller's office in the handling of the scrubwomen affair is now the only feeling possible for a large mass of Harvard men. Seldom in recent years has the University received so much undesirable publicity as it has over the fact that it was apparently underpaying the cleaning women in Widener Library. Daily papers throughout the whole United States have made scare-head scandal stories of the matter, weekly journals of opinion have run scathing editorials and searing special articles, organizations so far removed as the California League of Women Voters have issued special manifestoes. Harvard men everywhere have been made the object of sarcastic inquiry and scornful protest, as though they were in someway responsible for the ineptitude of the Comptroller's office.

Annoyance only gives way to down-right exasperation when the whole sad story of mismanagement at last is brought to light. It was had enough to and two weeks ago that the Comptroller had at his disposal information, the prompt release of which after the appearance of the first newspaper story would have so vindicated Harvard's reputation as to obviate all further discussion. But yesterday at a hearing before the Rules Committee of the Massachusetts legislature the treasurer of the Corporation made known the strange news that in March 1928 the Comptroller was in a position to establish a definite agreement with the Wage Board through the mere sending of a formal letter.

As is set forth in another column of the CRIMSON, the University had explained the working hours of the women concerned and the Wage Board was in complete agreement with the proposition that the amount of rest time allowed these workers put them essentially on the required hourly rate. A formal letter: of acknowledgement was all that was needed to set the matter at rest for all time. After just having emerged from the mire of publicity which came as a result of the neglect to do this, one can only admire Mr. Shattuck's restraint in his statement, "the College apparently omitted to furnish the formal evidence."

For their failure to issue prompt and accurate information of the affair early in January one may conceivably expense the authorities on the ground that they have had woefully little practice in a proper handling of the press. But it is far more difficult to explain away both their lack of routine courtesy and their egregious want of intelligent self-interest in falling to reply to the proposal of the State Minimum Wage Board when the matter was so near settlement two years ago.