Faux Pas

The College Social Affairs Committee, a loose association of House dance committee chairmen and other dignitaries, has been washing its intramural linen in public, and in the process has unwittingly revealed a number of significant if unsavory facts about itself.

The Committee, whose main duty is to arrange dance dates, met last Thursday and after a turbulent session voted no confidence in its chairman, John K. Lally '49, who was accused of failing to keep adequate records of agreements and of going over the heads of the rest of the Committee in policy decisions. Twenty-four hours later, after the story had reached the public, the Committee met again, this time off the record, and reversed its decision by voting confidence in Lally and asking him to receive in office.

In addition to this obvious inconsistency in its public behavior, the Committee had created an extremely ambiguous internal situation; for the group, not knowing that its Council-approved charter had no provision for impeachment, had not been sure itself just what it had done to its chairman. After the vote of no confidence, Lally had offered his resignation, then left the chair and the acting chairman entertained nominations for a man to replace him.

The members of the Social Affairs Committee were indulging in random and irresponsible personal squabbling. They had never wanted the proceedings to be known, they said; once the case became public they about-faced to preserve their chairman's name. Their arguments are not convincing: either Lally was guilty of the charges--and there is some reason to think that he had not run the Committee well--or he was not to blame for the mixups. If he was in the wrong there was no reason to shield him; if the charges were strong enough to be raised and accepted, the no-confidence vote should have been supported, whether it was public knowledge or not. If the charges were false or insufficient, they should never have been raised or accepted.

The Social Affairs Committee operates under a constitution approved by the Student Council and the Council controls is through an ex-officio member sitting in at meetings. It seems impossible that the Committee, with its simple regulatory duties, should need any supervision; but apparently it does. It is up to the Council to secure minimum efficiency in all groups under its wing, and it must do this in spite of the number of such groups. The Council must supervise, even when supervision seems ridiculous.