IN DEFENSE OF THE COLONEL

Several undergraduates, including football captain-elect Dubiel and cross country captain Playfair, have written us a letter defending Colonel Apted, which appears in another column of this page. We shall attempt to answer sincerely their points.

The letter maintains the Colonel is subject to ridicule before he commences a case. We believe that he is subject to this ridicule because of his lack of understanding of human nature and his officious egotism in determining such cases.

The letter maintains that Colonel Apted is sympathetic and understanding. We have always been willing to concede he aids immeasurably undergraduates whom he likes, but we believe he is prejudiced. If he does not like a student or if he has reached a premature solution, the ordinary undergraduate does not stand a fair chance with him.

The letter maintains that we do not represent "the entirety of undergraduate opinion." We make no such claim about any editorial we print. Our editorials are based on investigation of all available sources and a discussion of the resulting facts. The Apted editorial, like our other editorials is a Crimson editorial which represents the combined opinions of our editors. We do not believe that unanimity of opinion ever exists on any one question.

The letter maintains that the Yard Police is "intricate, smooth-running, and effective." It is certainly intricate and may protect University property, but it has failed to solve many cases which an intricate and smooth-running organization should.

The letter criticizes our recommendation for a successor with a seat on the Administrative Board. While we grant it is debatable, we insist it has no bearing on the present case.

The letter maintains Mr. Apted immediately turned the case over to the police. The fact is he had charge of it from Saturday evening to Monday morning. It is during this time that we claim he made his blunders. Mr. Ryan was certainly more intoxicated than George from his own testimony. Yet despite the widely prevalent belief Sunday that Ryan had committeed the crime, Apted never questioned him.

The letter never discussed the one point where we thought we had overstated our case. When we mentioned "concealing testimony," we never meant to imply that the Colonel was intentionally dishonest or insincere. We believe he has always possessed the best of intentions.

Despite our own point and those of the letters, we feel that Apted's lack of human understanding, his prejudice, and his narrow outlook make him an undesirable mentor for erring undergraduates. Consequently, we still urgently recommend his dismissal as Chief of the Yard Police.