"Mollycoddling"

To the Editor of the Crimson,

You display lack of generosity in refusing to believe that Professor Mather's decision to comply with the Oath Bill is the result of his unwillingness to involve the University in a legal battle. Professor Mather does not need to "extricate himself rather gracefully" from anything. He has shown himself willing to take personal responsibility for his action. If there were not men like this who shun the ineffectual mollycoddle ways of the CRIMSON, democratic government would have vanished long ago, if indeed it could ever have appeared at all.

You suggest that perhaps the oath will prove not to be mandatory. Then the refusal of one man to obey the law would quickly have shown this. Next you suggest a test case on the constitutionality of the law. How is this to be brought about except by the refusal of someone to obey it? Lastly you suggest that if the law is a poor piece of legislation, as you say is "probable", Professor Mather could "arouse public opinion to influence the State Legislature in its repeal". Is this not just what he set about to do? Bert Arenson, '36