PROFESSORS OPPOSE HUTCHINSSPEECH IN BROADCAST TO NATIONi^^Must Aid Britoiii”Insists The FacultyAmerica's Goals Can Only be Reached in a World Freefrom the Menace of TotalitarianAggressionBy JEROME G. KERWIN(Associate professor Pol. Sci.)(Text of Radio Broadcast sponsoredby Faexdty Committee OpposingHutchins. The committee consists ofProfessors Warner, Viner, Crane,iVtrffc, Kerwin, Schmitt, McKeon,Douglas and Spencer all of the Uni¬versity faculty.)In his speech delivered last Sundayover the stations of the Mutual Broad¬casting System on "The Propositionis Peace," Pres. Hutchins stated thatthe issue is whether we are deliber¬ately to go to war and thus destroythe democratic order in this country.. .or whether we are going to remainat peace to wage a total war on pov¬erty and social injustice in this coun¬try.This is *8 misstatement of the issue.The issue is not whether we are de¬liberately to go to war, but whetherwe are to aid those who are resistingthe dictators even at the risk of war.This issue has already been decidedby the American people, and in theaffirmative, after much deliberation—deliberation in which Mr. Hutchins andSenator Wheeler have taken part; de¬liberation in which Mr. Roosevelt andMr. Willkie have taken part; deliber¬ation in which the whole Ameri¬can people have taken part for manymonths past. In accordance with ourdemocratic methods the majority ofAmericans have said that they do notwant war if it can be avoided; butthey have also said, according to theGallup Poll to which Mr. Hutchins re¬fers, that they will aid Britain to theutmost, even at the risk of war. TheLease-Lend Bill provides for justthat, and there can be little questionof the determination of the Americanpeople on that point. Whether we getinvolved in war or not will be de¬termined, not by us, but by the manwho sits in the seat of the mighty inBerlin—he will decide. I doubt notthat the last thing Hitler wants iswar with the United States at thistime. The burden, however, is onhim; not on us. We have chosen ourcourse. It were better to advise Mr.Hitler to go slowly, and not theAmerican people.Must Be Free to ActWe have not been attacked, saysMr. Hutching, so why all this hostil¬ity? Surely Mr. Hutchins and thosewho sympathise with the isolationistpoint of view must know that in thepresent conflict several nations havealready lost their freedom becausethey waited to be attacked. Hitlerdoes not attack physically until hehas prepared the way psychologicallyby spreading the deadly poisons of dis¬unity, confusion of issues, fear anddespair within the borders of his pros¬pective victims. No people can wiselybind themselves to a permanent re¬solve not to enter this war, for we aredealing with war lords holding arbi¬trary powers, and free to change theirobjectives and their military tacticsfrom day to day. Free peoples mustbe free to act.The American people are not indif¬ferent to the social, economic, andmoral ills existing in this nation.Some of them know these ills by re¬port and too large a number becausethey are victims of them. But theycan cope satisfactorily with theseproblems only in a climate favorableto peace, rather than in an atn>os-phere of perpetual danger and con¬ stant threat which a Hitler-controlledworld will provide for us. It is be¬cause we are very much aware of oursocial needs in this country and be¬cause we desire to solve them accord¬ing to our democratic traditions thatwe are determined to bolster the re¬maining bulwarks of democracyagainst the mightiest and the mostsinister threat it has had to face inmodern times. While we seek theperfection of our own land—a worthygoal for any people to set before it¬self—we must put ourselves on guardagainst those who frankly state theirdetermination to destroy the systemthrough which we seek perfection.Mussolini’s chief spokesman promisesthe United States that the Axis, incase of victory, will present us withan economic depression that will makethe last one look merely like the lossof a penny in a slot machine. DoesMr. Hutchins really believe that wecan successfully pursue perfection insuch a setting?Hitler’s AidsHitler definitely counts upon theremoval of obstacles to his programof conquest by able and sincere men,men of unquestioned good will, in thedemocratic countries—men who hatethe carnage of war, men who lovetheir country, but who in placing dis¬tant ends before emergency needs,serve to darken the issue, confusethinking, and paralyze the nationalwill.It is because we believe that Mr.Hutchins, whose friends we all areand whom we greatly admire, hasbeen misled by his love of perfectioninto adopting a role in the presentcrisis which plays directly into Hit¬ler’s hand, that we are taking this oc¬casion to examine his arguments andtheir consequences in the light of theobvious realities of the present situa¬tion.By BERNARDOTTE E. SCHMITT(Archibald MacLeish, DistinguishedService Professor of ModernHistory)Mr. Hutchins, declaring that "theproposition is peace," states that “theproposition has nothing but its rea¬son to recommend it.” This languagemust mean that the proposition is(Continued on page three)Paul DouglasFreedom of the Seas . , • President Hutchins. . . ‘'Perfectionist"Students OK,KO FacultyBroadcastStudent comment on the Sundaymorning speeches of the five Univer¬sity professors was not easily gath¬ered. The Maroon inquiring reportersestimate that 9/10 of the students didnot rise in time to hear the 10:30broadcast. Evidently professors rollout of bed earlier than students.Among the briefer commenters wasWebb Fiser, president of StudentForum and Chapel Union who said hewas “glad that some members of thefaculty are acquainted with the ma¬terial in Social Science I”.Nazi Victory"The professors well answered Mr.Hutchins’ weakest point—namely theresult of a possible Nazi victory",mumbled Nort Ginsberg, senior ingeography and chairman of the CivilLiberties Committee, as he bit into alarge sandwich in the Ellis Co-op.“Well spoken, but not well answer¬ed" was the laconic comment of StanChartrand, graduate student in socialsciences. Also somewhat critical wasBill Speck, junior in the law school—"I’m pretty sure it wasn’t as com¬petent as Hutchins’ original”.International Relations StudentsStrongest supporters of the broad¬cast seem to be students takingcourses in International Relations.According to Norm Kogan it was “anauthoritative and expert report on thereal problems which face the nation.”Said Jim Engle, another student of in¬ternational problems, "I felt that itwas a more realistic and accurate def¬inition of the international situation.It was the proper attitude that theAmerican people should take towardour role in the war.”Some students made references toparticular speakers on the broadcast.Several said they were impressed byDean McKeon’s “Aristotelian” refuta¬tion of Hutchins. “I got a real kick outof the way McKeon called Hutchinsa perfectionist after which Douglasmade a remark about "fifth column¬ists, Nazis, communists, and perfec¬tionists,” whispered Ed Barnes inHarper reading room.Three freshmen in the college hadthese comments: “It was very goodlogic but I still believe in Hutchins”,said Betty Rosenheim. “We aren’t in¬fants in the cradle. I agree with the(Continued on page four) ^^Stay Out OfPleads The PresidentReach America's Goals by Maintaining Peace, Not byDeclaring Total War, Losing TotalFreedomBy ROBERT M. HUTCHINSText of Chapel Address, March 30We hear on every side that war isinevitable, even that we are at war,and that there is nothing we can doabout it.Things look black. The Presidentnow calls for “total victory” over “theenemy” and urges upon us the deter¬mination needed to win.Still there is a chance that these re¬marks are for foreign consumptionand do not mean what they seem tomean. They seem to mean that theBritish, Chinese, and Greeks are ourallies. If this is so, it is immoral tolet them die for us while we sit safelyat home. We should have been in thewar from the start. We should fightnow. And if we are actually to presson to total victory, we must fight. Weare rot justified in hoping that theAxis will suffer total defeat withoutfull American participation in thewar.Peace Was PromisedTwo days after war broke out inEurope the President assured the na¬tion that he would do everjrthing hecould to keep it at peace. He has re¬peated these assurances again andagain. Every speech he made duringthe capipaign contained a pledge tokeep the country out of war. Thenight before the election he said, “Wepropose and expect to continue ourlives in peace.” Two weeks ago hesaid, “Do not let us waste time re¬viewing the past or fixing or dodgingthe blame for it.” But I cannot be¬lieve that this means that he wantsus to forget his promises to pursue apolicy of peace.Until we are engaged in militaryaction we must continue to hope thatwe can avoid the ultimate catastro¬phe. We stand on the brink of war.But we have not been attacked. 'Theburden of proof rests on those whoclaim we are about to be. We havenot lost the power to decide for peaceor war. We still have a chance tocatch our breath, reflect a little, andtake a last look around before weplunge into the abyss. The Presidentis a democratic leader. One of hisgreatest qualities is his sense of re¬sponsibility to the people. If he ismoving toward war, he must be doingWilliam Spencer. . . democracy in danger it in the conviction that the peoplewant him to. If this is his conviction,he is mistaken.People Given No ChoiceThe people have never had a chanceto express themselves on the issue ofwar or peace. The election gave themno chance. Both parties declared forpeace. Both candidates declared forpeace.No one should know better than Mr.Roosevelt that the newspapers are notalways a reliable index of publicopinion. Even if most of the news¬papers are for war, it is no more sig¬nificant than that only a third ofthem were for Roosevelt in 1936 andonly a fifth of them for him in 1940.The Gallup Poll shows that the peo¬ple are for peace and that they trustMr. Roosevelt to keep them at peace.The Gallup question published tendays ago was, “If you were asked tovote on the question of the UnitedStates entering the war against Ger¬many and Italy, how would you vote—to go into the war or to stay out ofthe war?” Eighty-three per cent ofthose asked said they would vote tostay out. The percentage voting tostay out was higher than it was ayear ago. On the other hand, when thequestion has been, “Do you favor aid¬ing Britain at the risk of war?” themajority of those asked have said yes.We can only infer that the peoplewant peace and that relying on Mr.Roosevelt’s promises of peace theyhave been willing to help Britain atthe risk of war. The risk of war, withMr. Roosevelt at the helm, was tooslight to worry about.People^ Want PeaceThe country wants to defend itself,aid Britain, and stay out of war. Wehave been told over and over againthat we could do just that. During thehearings and debates on the Lease-Lend Bill man after man announcedthat this was a bill to keep the coun¬try out of war. Mr. Willkie said thatwas why he was for it. SenatorGeorge, who led the fight for the bill,said that was why he was for it. Thepassage of this bill gave the Presidentno mandate for war. The people wantpeace.If we go to war, what are we goingto war for? Mr. Roosevelt tells us weare to save “the democracies.” *1110democracies are, presumably, Eng¬land, China, Greece, and possibly Tur¬key. Turkey is a dictatorship. Greeceis a dictatorship. China is a dictator¬ship. As to England, in 1938 Mr.Anthony Eden, now Foreign Secre¬tary, speaking in behalf of a bill ex¬tending the suffrage, felt it necessaryto say to the House of Commons, “Wehave not got democratic governmentin this country today; we never havehad it and I venture to suggest tohon. Members opposite that we shallnever have it. What we have done, inall the progress of reform and evolu¬tion of politics, is to broaden the basisof our oligarchy.”Britain PreferredThere can be no doubt that the peo¬ple of this country prefer the govern¬ment of Britain to the governments ofits allies or its enemies. Britain is aconstitutional state and has been theinspiration of many constitutional(Continued on page two)Page Two THE DAILY MAROON. TUESDAY. APRIL 8. 1941// The Proposition Is Peace"'Ihs OcuLj IflaAotynThe Daily Maroon is the official studentnewspaper of the University of Chicaso, pub¬lished mornings except Saturday, Sunday, andMonday during the Autumn, Winter, andSpring quarters by The Daily Maroon Com¬pany. 68S1 University avenue. Telephones:Hyde Park 922 i and 9222.After d:80 phone in stories to our printers.The Chief Printing Company, 148 West 62ndstreet. Telephones: Wentworth 6128 and 6124.The University of Chicago assumes no re¬sponsibility for any sUtemenU appearing inThe Daily Maroon, or for any contract enteredinto by The Daily Maroon.The Daily Maroon expressly reserves therights of publication of any material appear¬ing in this paper. Subscription rates: $3 ayear: $4 by maiL Single copies: three cents.Entered as second class matter March 18,1908, at the post office at Chicago, Illinois,under the act of March 3, 1879.MemberPissociertGd GollG6icrte PressDivributor ofGc)lle6icite Di6eslBOARD OF CONTROLWILLIAM RANKLA ERNEST LEISERPEARL C. RUBINSJOHN P. STEVENS, ChairmanBnsinessROBERT O’DONNELL, Business ManagerEDITORIAL ASSOCIATESJames Burtle, Robert Lawson, Richard Bimmel,Daniel Meslay, Richard Philbrick, Robert F.D. Reynolds, and Daniel Winograd.BUSINESS ASSOCIATESLynn Tuttle, Chester Smith, Lyle Harper,and Myles Jarrow.Night Editors: Ernest S. andand Pearl C. LeiserIn ExplanationIn consonance with its aim thisyear of presenting as completean analysis as possible of whatthe faculty thinks, the Maroonis publishing today the third ofits supplements.The issue raised in this sup¬plement is a fundamental one,but we feel that an adequateenough analysis has been givenof the two positions stated byPresident Hutchins, so that any¬thing we might add would be re¬dundant. The arguments offeredon each side are the best state¬ments of the case that we haveread. We certainly cannot matchthem.We would like to point out totheir readers, however, the levelon which the arguments are of¬fered. Neither side indulges inpersonalities. The professorswho answered the,President areall either his personal friends orsympathetic to his views on edu¬cation. Their arguments are of¬fered for their validity in them¬selves. We only hope they will beread in the spirit in which theywere offered.In addition, we should like togive credit to the rest of thecommittee, those men who help¬ed organize and prepare thespeeches, as well as to the oneswhose articles are reprinted inthis issue. Professors RonaldCrane, Jacob Viner, Louis Wirth,and committee chairman LloydWarner deserve equal praisewith the radio speakers for thearguments they offered. Thework was done by all of the menworking as a joint committee.And it was a good job.Finally, we would like to pointout to the supplement’s readersthat all these men, includingPresident Hutchins, are speak¬ing as individuals, and that theyrepresent no other group thanthemselves. Speaking as individ¬uals, and at the same time asmembers of the University'sfaculty, they have used well theacademic freedom which theirarguments represent. We areproud of this issue, and of themen whose thinking has made itpossible for us to present such aclear analysis.E. S. L. (Continued from page one)states. We prefer the governments ofChina, Greece, and Turkey to those ofthe Axis. But we cannot use the worddemocracy to describe every countrythat is or may be at war with theAxis. If Russia is attacked by Ger¬many, will she be welcomed into thechoir of the democracies?If we go to war, what are we goingto war for? The British propose todefeat the Axis. What they proposeto do then they do not say. They haverepeatedly refused to say. Yet theUnited States is entitled to know. Arewe to rush to arms every time theBritish Empire is in danger? If so,we are entitled to know what the fu¬ture policy of the British Empire isto be. Are we to put down every ty¬rant that arises in Europe? If so, weare entitled to know what is to bedone to keep each tyrant from beingworse than the last.What Are Our AimsIf we go to war, what are we goingto war for? The only specific state¬ment the President has made on thecourse we are to pursue after the waris found in two sentences in his lastspeech. He said, “We believe that anynationality, no matter how small, hasthe inherent right to its own nation¬hood.” To the same effect he said,“There never has been, there isn’tnow, and there never will be any raceof people fit to serve as masters overtheir fellow men.” Do these state¬ments imply the restoration of pre¬war boundaries in Austria, Czecho¬slovakia, Memel, Danzig, Poland,France, China, and Rumania? Is thisundertaking to be world-wide? If so,how do we induce Russia to restorethe pre-war boundaries of Estonia,Latvia, Lithuania, Finland, and Po¬land?If we s\)cceed in re-establishingthese boundaries, how do we knowthey will last? The boundaries wehelped lay down the last time fellapart in twenty years. And we triedto lay them down on the same princi¬ple that the President proposes now:the principle of self-determination.What of Previous AggressionAnd what do we do about the coun¬tries which were victims of aggressionbefore 1939? Is everybody who stoleanjrthing before that date to keep it,and everybody who stole anythingafter it to give it up? What do we doabout Hong Kong, the Malay States,the Dutch East Indies, French Indo-China, Africa, and, above all, India?If there never has been, isn’t now,and never will be any race of peoplefit to serve as masters over their fel¬low men, how can we tolerate themastery of the white race over ouryellow, brown, arid black fellow menthroughout the world?- If we go to war, what are we goingto war for? We are stirred, but notenlightened, by the great phrase—thefour freedoms—which the Presidenthas used as the general statement ofour aims. Freedom of worship, free¬dom of speech, freedom from want,and freedom from fear—if we go towar, we go to establish these fourfreedoms everywhere.Can’t Fight ForeverThe President cannot literally meanthat we are to fight on till the fourfreedoms ring everywhere. If we areto be responsible for the four free¬doms everywhere, we must have au¬thority everywhere. We must forcethe four freedoms upon people whomight prefer to do without themrather than accept them from thearmed missionaries of the UnitedStates. This new imperialism, this re¬vised conception of the White Man’sBurden, this modem version of Amer¬ica’s Manifest Destiny is a repudia¬tion of the presidential teaching thatthere never has been, isn’t now, andnever will be any race of people fit toserve as masters over their fellowmen.Of course, we must extend the fourfreedoms to our “allies” as well asto our “enemies.” We must see to itthat British possessions throughoutthe world have them. The hopes heldout to India during the last war, dis¬appointed after it, and now held outagain must be fulfilled. China, Greece,and Turkey must reform, too. In theLatin-American countries “we shallhave no easy task. Few of them havethe four freedoms now. From Mexico to Patagonia we must send our legionsto convert our good neighbors byforce of arms.The President cannot mean this, forit is a program of perpetual war, warin Latin-America, war in the FarEast, war in the ^uth Seas, and evenwar with Britain. Mr. Roosevelt mustmean that by defeating the Axis weshall rid the world of those govern¬ments at present most aggressive intheir attack on the four freedoms.During or after the war we shall haveto figure out the next steps; how tobstablish and maintain governmentsthat believe in the four freedoms. Thefirst step is war. Here, then, is thereal issue. Is the path to war the pathto freedom?Face Long WarThis war, if we enter it, will be long,hard, and bloody. We do not have thechoice between a short war abroad anda prolonged period of militarization athome. The “enemy” now controls allof Europe and part of Asia, and isnot yet driven from Africa. We haveno evidence that the totalitarian re¬gimes will fiy to pieces when their op¬ponents get superiority in the air, oreven that superiority can be achieved.Total war for total victory againsttotalitarian states can best be con¬ducted by totalitarian states. Thereason is simple. A totalitarian stateis nothing but a military machine. Atotalitarian state will be more effec¬tive in war than any other kind ofstate. A democratic state is organizedfor the happiness of its citizens. Buttheir happiness cannot be consideredin total war. Every one of them mustbecome a cog in the military machine.If the United States is to proceedthrough total war to total victoryover totalitarian states, it will haveto become totalitarian, too.Is total war, then, the path to free¬dom? We seek freedom from want,and we impoverish ourselves. We seekfreedom from fear, and we terrorizeourselves. We seek freedom of wor¬ship and freedom of speech, and wesuppress them.And when total victory has beenwon, will the totalitarian administra¬tion end? We may find a clue in Eng¬land. A responsible member of theBritish Cabinet, Sir Archibald Sin¬clair, publicly supports a proposalthat there shall be no elections inEngland for three years after thewar. The reason is clear. Poverty anddisillusionment will make democracydangerous.What Is Our FateWhat will be America’s fate aftera long, hard, and bloody war ? In timesof peace we have had ten millionunemployed; we shall have at leastthat many again. We shall have anenormous debt. Repudiation and in¬flation may rid us of that—and atthe same time of the middle class.Having exhausted our resources ingetting guns, we shall have none forbutter, houses, relief, social security,or education. We shall have want andfear, and we may have the main¬tenance of order by a governmentscarcely distinguishable from thosewhich we went forth to fight. We mayhave the kind of freedom proclaimedby one of Napoleon’s marshals to theGerman towns. He said, “My friends,I bring you perfect liberty. But beprudent. I shoot the first man whostirs.”There are those who say, “Ofcourse, if we go to war, we shallhave totalitarianism in this country.But if we try to stay at peace, weshall have all this and Hitler, too.Unless we go over and get Hitler,Hitler will come over and get us.”Lord Halifax on Tuesday said thatHitler could never invade England.If he can never invade England, hecan never conquer the Western Hemi¬sphere. We in America have a chanceto save democracy if we build ourdefenses and stay at peace. If weenter upon total war to total victory,we lose that chance, even if we winthe victory.War Is DespairWar, except in self defense, is acounsel of despair, despair becausethe world is bad, despair becausepeaceful change is too slow and hard.It was the counsel of the nihilists,the Russian revolutionaries describedby Dostoyevsky. They believed inprogress by catastrophe. Our modern American nihilists want catastrophebecause they despair of getting prog¬ress in any other way. They thinkthat everything will be wonderfulafter the war because such thingsas capitalism, which they dislike, willbe destroyed.I think it fairly certain that capi¬talism will not survive American par¬ticipation in this war. And since itis the vehicle of the materialism thathas brought us to our present pass,I am not altogether sure that it de¬serves to. But experience after thelast war in Germany, Italy, and Rus¬sia does not suggest that catastropheis the road to something better.The trouble with the doctrine ofprogress through catastrophe is thatyou can be sure of the catastrophe,but not of the progress. So of waras the path to freedom. You can becertain of the war. The freedom isanother matter. If we enter this war,we shall lose what we have of thefour freedoms. We shall lose thehope of realizing them. What we have,in this country, is hope. War, forthis country, is a counsel of despair.It is a confession of failure. It isnational suicide.America's DestinyWe have far surpassed most othernations in our advance toward thefour freedoms. We and we alone havethe hope of realizing them. We mustbravely and hopefully face the taskof realizing them. We must show theworld a nation which understands,values, and practices the four free¬doms. This is America’s destiny.We cannot run away from our des¬tiny because it is hard. We cannotavoid it by claiming that we musthave the British fleet to protect us.We cannot evade it by pleading fa¬tigue from our futile efforts to meetthe depression, suggesting that wewould like an ocean voyage to recu¬perate. We cannot be like Stendhal’shero, who at the age of sixteen ranaway to join Napoleon to escape fromthe sorrows that were poisoning hislife, especially on Sundays. We muststay here and fight. As Mr. Willkiesaid so truly during the campaign,“America’s battle for liberty is righthere at home.”War is False PathThe path to war is a false pathto freedom. It is a false path to free¬dom for America. It is a false pathto the four freedoms everywhere. Waris not for the sake of peace. The spiritof the peace will be determined by thespirit of the countries which make it.An Englishman, J. Middleton Murry,said of England, “This country, as itis, is incapable of winning a Christianvictory, because it simply is not Chris¬tian.” This general principle is sound.No country can win a democratic vic¬tory unless it is democratic. Onlythose who understand, value, andpractice democracy know what a dem¬ocratic peace would be. Only thosewho understand, value and practicejustice can make a just peace. Onlythose who understand, value, andpractice the four freedoms can makea peace to establish them everywhere.Fear and ignorance wrote the lastpeace: the fear of the French andBritish, the ignorance of all the na¬tions. From this fear and ignorancesprang a peace that made this warinevitable. There is no less fear andcertainly no less ignorance today.Have we the courage and the wisdomto bring the world to a peace thatshall establish the four freedomseverywhere? If we have, we shoulddo it, no matter what the cost in bloodor treasure. We want to serve hu¬manity, and in her cause we shouldbe proud to sacrifice our fortunes andour lives.Ignorance and FearWe cannot seriously believe thatwhat we have of the four freedomswe owe to our courage and our wis¬dom. We owe it rather to the cour¬age and wisdom of our forefatherswho wrote our constitution and to theDivine Providence that placed enor¬mous resources "at our disposal at adistance from the conflicts of the OldWorld. Do not misunderstand me. Wehave accomplished much; but when weappraise our opportunities and ourobligations we see that is is only abeginning. We are fearful and we areignorant. Our fear is the result ofour ignorance. Our fundamental erroris the’overwhelming importance that we attach to material goods. Moneyis the symbol of the things we honor.Only in war can we be united by thecall to sacrifice billions for the wel¬fare of mankind. Only at such a timecould Mr. Jesse Jones say without bit¬ter protest from the taxpayers “Weare preparing for war. When you dothat, you must throw money away.”We are frightened and confused byour inability to use our vast resourcesto obtain a constant flow of moreand better material goods. We aredismayed by the long depression andthe collapse of our attempts to dealwith it. We are easy marks for thosewho tell us that the way out of ourtroubles is to march to Berlin.Don’t Shoot a DoctrineAre we so ignorant that we thinkthe way to defeat a doctrine we hateis to shoot at it? Are we so naivethat we believe that rearrangementsin the material order—land, mines,and waterways—will solve the prob¬lems of the world? Are we so child¬like as to suppose that the overthrowof the Nazis will bring a just and last¬ing peace? Are we so frightened asto think that if only the British Em¬pire can be preserved, all the illsthat have beset us will automaticallydisappear ?But if we go to war, and preservethe British Empire, and crush theGermans, our fundamental problemswill remain. We do not face ourfundamental problems by going towar; we evade them. We do not makea just and lasting peace by writinginto another treaty the fear, ignor¬ance, and confusion that have marredour efforts to build a democratic com¬munity at home. If we would changethe face of the earth we must firstchange our own hearts.Need New OrderHitler was right in holding beforethe German people an ideal higherthan comfort. He knew he could notgive them that. He offered them in¬stead a vision of national grandeurand “racial” supremacy. These arefalse gods. Since they are false, theywill fail in the end. But Hitler washalf right. He was right in what hecondemned, and wrong in what heoffered in its place. It is our taskin this country to realize the trueideals of human life, the true organi¬zation of human society, the truedemocracy. It is our task to work outa new order in America, not, likeHitler’s, based on slavery and degra¬dation, but based on the premise thatsociety exists to promote the happi¬ness of its members and that hap¬piness consist in the development ofthe highest powers of men. The goodlife and the just society—not the lux¬urious life or the powerful state—these are the goals toward whichAmerica must strive.Must Reach GoalsIt is America’s destiny to reachthese goals. It is her duty to theworld to struggle toward them. Thewar to which humanity calls Americais the war against poverty, disease,ignorance, and justice. We must winthis war in America now. We canhardly be content with a society inwhich almost half the people are liv¬ing below the minimum level of sub¬sistence. We cannot be proud tolearn that 250,000 babies were bomlast year without benefit of medicalcare. With one-room school houses,scanty libraries, non-existent art mu¬seums, and undernourished churches,vast stretches of our country arebarren cultural, intellectual, and spir¬itual wastes. And too often Americanjustice is the interest of the strongerwritten into law. We must fight onif we are to win America’s war.To win this war we must havepeace. Edmund Burke said to theHouse of Commons: “Judging of whatyou are by what you ought to be, Ipersuaded myself that you would notreject a reasonable proposition be¬cause it had nothing but its reason torecommend it . . . The proposition ispeace.”The proposition has nothing but itsreason to recommend it. The war tototal victory over poverty, disease,ignorance, and injustice has none ofthe glamor and draws few of thecheers that accompany a war of mu¬tual extermination. But ,thoughtyrants may be put down, t3nrannycannot be destroyed by airplanes andtanks. T3rranny can be destroyed only(Continued on page four)^^Aid Britain To Maintain Freedom^’(Continued from pac^e one)clearly stated, that its main pointsare proved, and that the argumentgives due considerations to presentrealities. For a man who lays suchstore by reason, Mr. Hutchins showsstrange disregard for the meaning ofwords and the accurate statement offacts.Totalitarian DemocracyKnowing that Americans hate dic¬tatorships and totalitarianism, heuses these words, not to make us con¬scious of the menace of Nazi or Fas¬cist tyranny, but to create suspicionsof those very countries'now engagedin fighting aggression. Turkey, Greeceand China, he tells us, are “dictator¬ships.” Because these countries do notmeasure up to his standard of democ¬racy, because they have not declaredwhat kind of peace they desire, Mr.Hutchins apparently regards them asnot worth saving or helping. Andthat too in spite of the fact that ifthey can successfully resist aggres¬sion, they will thereby free the UnitedStates from the same menace. Thisis a conclusion which does not followfrom the premises.According to Mr. Hutchins, “totalwar for total victory against totalitar¬ian states can best be conducted bytotalitarian states.” Here he con¬fuses the issue by punning on thesimilarity of sound between the wordstotal and totalitarian. England iswaging total war in the sense of sub¬ordinating everything to the winningof the war and to achieving total,that is, complete victory. But Eng¬land is not a totalitarian state, andthere is not the slightest evidence thatshe is even moving in that direction.And to say, as Mr. Hutchins does,that should the United States, unhap¬pily, become involved in war, wewould have to go totalitarian, is tomake a wholly gratuitous assumption,unwarranted by history and unsup¬ported by facts or argument.Anthony EdenAs an argument against aidingBritain at the risk of war, Mr. An¬thony Eden, the British foreign secre¬tary is quoted as saying in 1928,when discussing a bill to extend thesuffrage in Great Britain:We have not got democraticgovernment in this country to¬day; we never have had it, and Iventure to suggest.. .that weshall never have it. What wehave done, in all the progress ofreform and evolution of politics,is to broaden the basis of ouroligarchy.On the basis of this single state¬ment, wrenched from its context, weare apparently asked to believe thatEngland is an oligarchy, presumablyin the ordinary sense of the word. Ihave looked up the full text of thisspeech by Mr. Eden in the House ofCommons. Its meaning is very dif¬ferent. Mr. Eden supporting, not op¬posing, an extension of the franchise,was pointing out that democracymeant something more than the pos¬session of the right to vote, that ina successful democratic state “asgreat a portion as possible of thosewho are in that state must take aninterest in the government of thatstate.” In England, he said, “alwaysonly a percentage of those who pos¬sess the vote will exercise it or takean interest in its use,” and he usedthe word “oligarchy,” not in the senseof a corrupt and small clique, but asmeaning incomplete exercise of theirfranchise by those who had the rightto vote. And he went on to say:I do not believe that, in theevolution of government, there isany finality. It may be that wehave reached the final stage in thegranting of the suffrage, but itdoes not by any means followthat we have reached the finalstage in the evolution of demo¬cratic government in this country.Finally, Mr. Hutchins quotes LordHalifax as saying that Hitler cannever invade England, and adds: “Ifhe (Hitler) can never invade Eng¬land, he can never conquer the West¬ern Hemisphere.” This is highly dis¬ingenuous, for in the same speechLord Halifax also said:It is not only with physical in¬vasion that you or I are concern¬ed, but with a spiritual invasionwhich, if permitted, would workgreater havoc than all the tons ofhigh explosive that it is in the.power of the German air force tounload. Jerome Kerwin. . . Friends of HutchinsFurthermore, Hitler may conquerEngland without invading her—hemay starve her into submission, andEngland fears that much more thana direct attack. Is Mr. Hutchins pre¬pared to assert that if Eng’and fallsand Hitler conquers Europe, there isno serious danger that he will try toextend his conquests to the WesternHemisphere as well?Mr. Hutchins asks if we are torush to arms every time the BritishEmpire is in danger. The war of1812, when the United States attack¬ed England when she was beset byother enemies, provides one answer,but, quite apart from that, the pur¬pose of helping Britain today is notto preserve the British Empire, but todefeat Hitler and thus to save our¬selves.No EvidenceWe are also asked to believe thatbecause President Roosevelt has de¬clared that “any nationality, howeversmall, has the inherent right to itsown nationhood,” the United States isbeing committed to what Mr. Hutch¬ins calls “the restoration of pre-warboundaries in Austria, Czechoslovak¬ia, Memel, Danzig, Poland, France,China, and Rumania.” This is an¬other gratuitous assumption, totallyunsupported by evidence.Mr. Hutchins is sincerely and pas¬sionately devoted to reason and truth.I must suppose, therefore, that heuses such arguments because he is aperfectionist. He thinks that unlessand until we have attained a perfectpolitical and social order in theUnited States, we should do nothing tohelp a suffering world which involvesus in any risk. But where do hisarguments lead him ? Throughout hisaddress there was a note of impliedcriticism of almost everything thePresident of the United States hasdone or is proposing to do. On theother hand, Mr. Hutchins declaredthat Hitler is at least half right, andmakes our potential friends seem al¬most worse than our declared enemies.In the end, he reached the conclusionthat no people can oppose the evil ofHitlerism by force without succumb¬ing to it and that therefore it wouldbe better not to oppose it. This is acounsel of despair—God forbid thatthe American people should follow it.By RICHARD P. McKEON(Professor of Philosophy, Dean ofthe Humanities)The proposition which we have metto discuss, we are told, has only rea¬son to recommend it. Two questionsare of fundamental importance in anappeal of reason such as Mr. Hutch¬ins makes: first, how does rationalpersuasion operate in a democracy?Second, how does reason apply in thediscussion of political problems?The practical use of reason has itsstrength and its weakness, its ad¬vantages and its disadvantages. De¬mocracy depends on discussion andpersuasion to an extent which isneither necessary nor feasible in anyother form of government; reasonserves as a check and supplies astandard for such persuasion. Bymeans of it we can hope to arrive atdecisions which reflect, not factionalinterest or partisan passion, but thatbalance of interests by which a maxi¬mum common good might be achieved.By the same token, arguments ad¬vanced in the name of reason, whichrationalize an impracticable hope orwhich fail to recognize an actual situ¬ation constitute at once a grave dan¬ ger to democracy and a pertinentcause for the distrust of reason. Thestrength of democracy does not lie inthe efficiency with which it can insti¬tute or pursue a course of action.Democracy is basically self-govern¬ment, and it must balance the ineffi¬ciency and indecision of its initial dis¬cussions, on which dictatorships count,by an equity and wisdom of decisionwhich will unite men in action andpreserve the state from the spectacu¬lar errors and miscalculations towhich dictatorships are prone. De¬mocracies have never achieved theperfection of freedom, but it is well toremember that the alternatives to thedemocratic way toward freedom to¬tally exclude all vestige of freedom.Aristotle^ How then is reason applicable toa practical political question? Sincethe question is practical, its solutionmust consist in a practicable courseof action. As long ago as Aristotle,political philosophers recognized thatthe purpose of moral and political in¬quiry was not to set up definitions ofvirtues, actions, and political insti¬tutions, but rather to lead men to per¬form just actions and to establishjust social organizations. Since apractical question involves many fac¬tors and many contingencies, the solu¬tions cannot have the rigor of amathematical formula.The discussion of a practical ques¬tion involves, first, the statement ofthe alternatives, second, the determ¬ination of the preferable alternative,third, action calculated to realizethat preferable alternative.The reasons by which Mr. Hutchinssupports his proposition seem to usdefective on such standards of prac¬tical reasoning. The alternatives arenot peace as opposed to war. We areall, as is the vast majority of Amer¬icans, in favor of peace and opposedto war. But in the last two yearsthe democracies of the world werenot given the privilege of deciding be¬tween those alternatives: in all casesit was Hitler who decided. We shallnot achieve peace by announcing ouropposition to war. Conversely we arenot concerned to oppose war at thecost of all that our national lifestands for and all that our individuallives achieve. Our problem is thepreservation of freedom, and freedomcan be preserved now, as at othercritical moments of our history, onlyby accepting the risk of war. Butwe are also convinced that the de¬termination to preserve our institu¬tions even at the risk of war is in thepresent conjuncture the best means ofpreventing war.Proposition Is FreedomThe alternatives are not the solu¬tion of our own domestic problems asopposed to the quixotic abandonmentof them to engage in a crusade todefend the British Empire. No nationlives in a vacuum, and the solution ofinternal political, social, and economicproblems cannot be divorced from theworld situation. When Mr. Hutchinsasks, “If we are going to war, whatare we going to war for?” and im¬plies in that question that we mightinstead quietly devote ourselves tothe solution of the problems of in¬fant mortality, housing, poverty, edu¬cation, social injustice, and culturalstagnation, he is posing a rhetoricalquestion. The proposition is not war,nor is the proposition peace. It is thepreservation of our freedom so that inthat freedom we may seek the solu¬tions to problems that have arisen inour national life. But so stated theproposition requires the recognitionthat national problems are involvedin international dangers and affectedby international forces.The alternatives are not rationalcertainty as opposed to the forces offear and ignorance. Mr. Hutchins ex¬presses certainty on a great manypoints: he says that ignorance andfear made this war inevitable; he iscertain of the consequences of anydeviation from the principles heenunciates; he is emphatic in hisstatement of America’s destiny. Theopposition is rather one of probabili¬ties. We are convinced that it ishighly improbable that the UnitedStates will be able to pursue any ofthe ideals of internal readjustment,which we share with Mr. Hutchins, ifthe Axis powers succeed in dominat¬ing Europe and Asia and Africa. Alist of questions might be drawn upto balance those to which Mr. Hutch¬ins finds no answer except fear andignorance. What kind of educationwill we plan for our children if Hit- McKeonPresident's reasoning wrongler wins in Europe? What progresswill be made in the solution of oureconomic and social problems? Whatdirection will research in the sciencestake in America? What will happento the cultivation of the arts andletters ?False AlternativesMr. Hutchins has stated the prob¬lem in terms of false alternatives.He does not address himself to aproblem which can be stated as genu¬ine alternatives among which theAmerican people can choose. This isapparent in the fact that his solutioncannot be stated in terms of a courseof action: he opposes an obvious evil,but he does not aid us in the choicebetween evils; he turns from an in¬ternational crisis which affects ourinternal goods and securities to advo¬cate the solution, in times of stress,of problems to which we have beeninadequate in times of leisure. Hisproposition is unrelated to the factsof the case, and the reasons by whichhe supports his proposition are un¬suited to the solution of a practicalproblem.By PAUL H. DOUGLAS(Professor of Economics)What, then, are the facts of thecase upon which our decision must de¬pend?Mr. Hutchins in his speech almostcompletely ignored the danger to theUnited States which a Hitler victoryover England would bring. Havingminimized this danger, he then argu¬ed that the United States had every¬thing to lose and nothing to gain bygiving all out aid to Britain and herallies in the struggle against Hitler.Were his basic assumption correct, wemight agree with his conclusion. Butthe truth of the matter is that with¬out our aid Britain would almost cer¬tainly be conquered and that if shewere to be conquered our own futurewould be placed in tremendous peril.Had it not been for the help we havealready given Britain in the form offood, guns, ammunition, ships, de¬stroyers, and airplanes, she mighthave been forced before now to giveup. Similarly, the passage of ourlease-lend bill has already been ef¬fective in stiffening the backs ofGreece, Jugoslavia, Turkey, and Brit¬ain itself, and will shortly provide aflow of materials to help them. Un¬less we continue to aid Great Britainand her allies in large measure, how¬ever, they will almost surely godown to defeat. And although theisolationists sometimes say they arein favor of njoderate aid to Britain,they always minimize the need forthis aid and actually oppose anymethod of making it really effective.America's DangerThe central truth upon whichAmerican policy is now based is thatthe United States would be placed interrific danger were Great Britain per¬mitted to go down. I am not in anysense of the word a military expert,but there are certain elementary facts a layman can grasp even though theisolationists ignore them. Accordingto Secretary of the Navy Knox, thestrengfth of the American navy is ap¬proximately one and a quarter milliontons, while the combined strength ofthe German, Italian, French, andJapanese navies is approximately2,145,000 tons, or nearly twice asmuch. As I understand it, the Brit¬ish have about two million tons offighting ships. Therefore, as long asthe British navy is intact and opposesHitler, we are relatively safe with acombined naval superiority in aboutthe ratio of three to two. But if Eng¬land were to be taken and the Britishnavy were to be sunk or neutralized,then we would lose the control overboth the Atlantic and the PacificOceans. Moreover, if the Germanstook England they might very well getcontrol over the British fleet by hold¬ing the families of the sailors andnaval officers as hostages and bythreatening to destroy key cities. Ifthis were to happen, then Hitler andhis allies would have four million tonsor more of naval vessels, or morethan three times our strength. More¬over, it seems apparent that Hitlernow has six times as many airplanesas we, and at least eight to ten timesas many trained soldiers.If Hitler WinsIt is folly to ignore the implicationsof these facts and to gamble with oursafety by assuming that Hitler willbe beaten. For if he wins we wouldnot only be hemmed in from the eastand the west, but Hitler would alsobe able to take over most of Lat¬in America and would threaten usfrom the south. America would haveto become a gigantic armed camp. Wewould not have the opportunity tolive in the spirit of peace and progresswhich we all desire and our very na¬tional survival would be in danger.Moreover, with Hitler in control ofthe world outside of us, he could re¬fuse to accept our goods unless wegave up our democracy. With hiscombined military and economic pow¬er and with the aid of the appeasers,fifth-columnists, Nazis, Communistsand perfectionists from within, ourposition would be greatly weakened.Under these conditions war wouldcertainly come to the United States,but it would be war in our home ter¬ritory and on terms disadvantageousto ourselves. It is for this reasonthat it is simple prudence to giveGreat Britain effective aid so that shecan keep Hitler off our necks and thewar away from American shores.Neither America nor England is per¬fect, but we are a much better so¬ciety than wo would be were weforced to live in a state of continuoussiege and to fight alone and with ourbacks to the wall. No father ormother in this country wants his chil¬dren to grow up under such conditionsas that. If we are to preserve whatwe have and get the chance to becomebetter, we should therefore help todefeat Hitler. That is the real issuebefore the American people.By WILLIAM H. SPENCER(Dean of the Business School, Pro-* fessor of Business Law)We have engaged in debate withMr. Hutchins because we and he dif¬fer on a major issue. On most issueswe gladly accept his leadership. Onthis issue, we are convinced he isvrrong.Mr. Hutchins presents this issuebefore the American people as if itwere a choice between the pursuit ofthe millenium, on the one hand, andunnecessary entrance into a foreignwar, on the other. Would that hewere right! But the millenium, un¬fortunately, is not imminent, whereasthe menace of Hitler is.Why War?“If we are going to war, what arewe going to war for?” asks Mr.Hutchins. Mr. Coolidge's minister wasagainst sin. Mr. Hutchins, all creditto him, is against war. So are we all,all good Americans. But Mr. Hitlerand Mr. Mussolini and the Japanese,unfortunately, are not against war.Except for advocates of passive resist¬ance, or of passive submission, war isan activity which, while it involvestwo parties, can be started by onealone. “If we are going to war, whatare we going to war for?” I^t mesuggest a revision of this question,so that it reads: “If we aid Britain((^ntinued on page four)liKFour THE DAILY MAROON. TUESDAY.* APRIL 8. 1941 mt safe^^Hutchins Mistakes Issue’^Maintains Faeulty Group(Ccmtinued from page three)even at the risk of war, what are weaiding Britain for?” It is not becausewe love or admire Britain. Some of usdo, and some of us don’t. It is not be¬cause Britain is a democracy, and Ger¬many and Italy are dictetorships.Some of us may think it is our dutyor our interest to help democracieswhenever attacked by dictators. Someof us may not. It is not because weare anxious to preserve the BritishEmpire. Some of think it is worthpreserving. Some of us don’t. It isnot because we like war for its ownsake. None of us do, any more thandoes Mr. Hutchins. We are for aid toBritain even at the risk of war be¬cause we believe that the dictatorsTHEPRESIDENTANDTHEPROFESSORSSpeakON THE WARCopies ofSupplementtMvailable atUniversity BookstoreInformation OfficeCoffee ShopQuadrangle ClubIda NoyesorDaily Maroon BusinessOffices, Room I5BLEXINGTON HALL17,500COPIESTHIS ISSUE. are menacing the democratic way oflife wherever it exists, and in what¬ever degree it exists. We are for aidto Britain because we believe that ex¬cept for us Britain is the last strong¬hold of democracy; because we be¬lieve that without our aid Britain can¬not stand; and because we believethat if that stronghold is overcome wewill find the menace to our own de¬mocracy right at our own doorstep,and so formidable that our power toresist it will not be beyond question.Mr. Hutchins suggests that thosewho wish aid to Britain even at therisk of war contemplate forcing the“four freedoms” upon people every¬where, even if they don’t want them.No one in this country, and certainlynot Mr. Roosevelt, has challenged theright of any people to adopt or evento submit to non-democratic forms ofgovernment if they please to do so.We are for aid to democracies whowish to remain democracies. We arefor aid to victims of wanton aggres¬sion even if their democracy fallsshort of the American standard. Andwe are for such aid because in aworld in which aggression goes un¬rebuked our own democracy is indanger. In aiding Britain, or Greece,or China, we are aiding American de¬mocracy.The Answer Is NoMr. Hutchins asks: “Are we sofrightened as to think that if only theBritish Empire can be preserved, ifonly the Germans can be crushed, allthe ills which have beset us will au¬tomatically disappear?” He shouldhave asked, “Are we so sanguine?”not “Are we so frightened?” and the proper answer would be “no.” Per¬fection is not of this earth, but thepursuit of it is man’s noblest activ¬ity. But all things in their time. Aprairie fire has attacked our neigh¬bor’s house, and ours is next in line.Mr. Hutchins would have us refrainfrom going to aid of our neighbor un¬til we had perfected the architectureof our own house. Let it be admittedthat defeat of Hitler would not solveall the world’s ills by any means. Itwould solve, however, the single mostpressing ill of the moment. If it isreasonable to oppose effective aid toBritain because we would still havesome problems unsolved, it would beequally reasonable to oppose a curefor cancer, or higher education, or po¬litical or economic reform on the sameground. The most immediate andportentous evil is the menace of thedictators to our security. The mosteffective remedy is aid to Britain.Whether that involves war or not, Hit¬ler, and not we, will decide.Students—(Continued from page one)Hutchins—(Continued from Page 2)by creating a civilization in which peo¬ple will not suffer so much that theywill trade their liberties for the piti¬ful security which the tyrant offers.The war to create this civilization isour war. We must take advantage ofevery day we have left to build ademocracy which will command thefaith of our people, and which, by thelight of its example, will restore thedemocratic faith to the people of theworld.America has been called the arsenalof democracy. It has been called thelarder of democracy. Let us make itthe home of democracy. This isAmerica’s destiny. professors” was the response of Vir¬ginia Oancea. Mary Louise Collinsdefended the professors as “intelligentand correct”.Opposes SpencerStrongest opponents of the profes¬sors was Bill Starke who said, “Pro¬fessor Spencer’s answer to Dr. Hutch¬ins is not consistent with his intent inkeeping America out of total war. Hissupport and approving of convoys willwithout a doubt lead to anotherA.E.F. Convoys mean shooting andshooting means war”.“Their attitude is of greater prac¬ticality, a more real contemplation ofthe present and future” was the com¬ment of Leonard Turovlin, junior inhistory.4 moNTw TWTENsnre cotytstPOR COLLEGE STUDENTS AND CRADUATBS*' 'I*'** yv*.'**'^*; «moserBUSINESS COLLEGEPAUL MOSER. J.O«PN.t.sAmT SfW AA waf aaek tmontk. Adammemi Comnm atarimma Uomday, Day amd Baiting. BtmtmCcmnn opm it man,no S. Michigan Avn., Chicago, Sandeiph 4S47m■ 1NEW FICTIONJust PublishedWE RECOMMEND:CITY OF ILLUSIONVARDIS HSHER 2.50RECKON WITH THE RIVERCLARK McMEEKIN 2.50UPATTHEVILLAW. SOMMERSET MAUGHAM 1.75THE EARTH IS OURSVILHELM MOBERG 2.75THE SNOW GOOSEPAUL GALLICO ’ 1.00U.ofC Bookstore5802 Ellis Avenue ' THECHIEF PRINTINGCO.148 WMt 62nd StreetCHICAGOPBOITEBS BT APPOOITIIEMTTO THE DAILY MABOOllGOOD FOOD, WELL OOOKiDA DltMT wtrtfe • |i,M—svtiy siflit for Tit.TMi|bV-Rtast Ih of taBbTitsdty—Chiskss pitfHONi HTN PAUC 5124 Errore Humanuiii EstHad I but served my God half gowell as I served my King, He wouldnot have Irft me aI<Hie in my grayhairs ....Cardinal WolseyCOLLEQE WOMENWANTED!^txni women, with goodwh^ttonal bnek^unds pluspr^ORSioi^ McretaiialouMnm tniiUng, are in de-mmdJot Important positionsmvestigate now The Careermsumte 1 modem methodsttiet lead to interesting busi-MM and pnrfcssional careers., BMMRXADON DAmSmeaiB QoAam . . . Join 30Taxa. Qoaataa Saet. aWflls for Free Booklet^ ^ “Cereet*"INSTITUTEcaiww.ALL THE NEWBOOKSARE HERENEW..TEXT BOOKS..USEDBIOGRAPHY NON-FICTIONDICTIONARIES POETRYJUVENILES TRAVELOld and Modern ClassicsMAGAZINESUniversity JewelryPersonal StationeryU. of C. Bookstore5802 Hits AvenueCiCFOURSOME'JACKET . WAISTCOAT • TROUSERS • SLACKS35COMPLETESMART • PRACTICAL • ECONOMICALStykd by Finchley in the Iw-isk and gracefulmaumer essential to garments destined for cor¬rect but vigorous week-end and country usageor rugged campus wear. TTie jacket, trousersand waistcoat can be had in fine, durable,handsome tweed or Shetland, in hwringbone,diagonal or mixed patterns. Browns, tans,blues, lovat green and odier cheerful, newtones. The slacks are made of gabardine toharmonize or to contrast with the other units.19 East Jackson Boulevard, Chicago564 Fifth Avenue, New York • Phipps Plaza. Palm BeachOpenAlumniWeekRound Table Initiates Weekto 1200 Alumni in Mandel.The greatest educational show onearth opened Sunday, when 1200alumni and friends of the Universitycame to Mandel Hall to witness thefirst public broadcast of the ten yearold University of Chicago Round Ta¬ble which was part of the Universityweek celebration. The Mandel Hallstage lined with black velvet drops,housed a control booth with a largeNBC sign over it. The Round Table,in it’s full triangular glory was poisedfor the broadcast.Down the center aisle swept themore elite of the University benefac¬tors; mink coaU, chinchilla capes, andFlorida suntans. Walking down a lineright up to the stage were the radiodepartment; Sherman Dryer, his as¬sistant who handles the manipulationof the Round Table speakers, Bar¬bara Monser, the secretary, BrownleeHaydon, press relations man, andStan Reynolds, control man.Discuss Balkan SituationFollowing this array were theRound Table speakers themselves.Due to the change in the Balkan situa¬tion, the scheduled topic and speak¬ers were canceled, and Irving Pflaum,foreign editor of the Chicago DailyTimes, Hugh Cole, instructor in His¬tory, and Louis Gottschalk, professorof .Modem History took the stand anddi'cussed Hitler’s lightning move intoJugo-slavia.From the broadcast, 460 alumniattended a luncheon in the Commons,where George Ranney announced thequarter of a million dollar Rosenwaldgift.University week continued yester¬day with physical science day andguided tours through University labo¬ratories and a physical science dem¬onstration in Mandel which combinea Houdini technique with the scientificmethod to produce spectacular ex¬periments with radium.Last night Ales Hrdlicka spoke toa large Mandel Hall audience on “Thephysical characteristics of the Alas¬kan and Siberian Peoples. Hrdlicka ischief of Physical Anthropolgy of theUnited States National Museum inWashington. —Today is Biological Science day asUniversity week, the greatest educa¬tional show on earth, continues.Hold TenebraeIn Chapel TonightThe ancient Lenten Service of theTenebrae will be held tonight inRockefeller Chapel. This is the sec¬ond year the service has been held oncampus. Monsignor Mahoney andFather Hoover of the Quigley Acad¬emy have again contributed their helpand advice, and Carl Smith and Wil-i'fBirch will serve as acolytes. TheUniversity Choir will accompany theservice with the traditional music.Formerly the service was sung inme dark, but noW it takes place bycandlelight. ’The lights are extinguish¬ed one by one, first those in the back,''^presenting the prophets and disci¬ples, then the six on the altar itself,ynly one central candle is left burn-it is carried out in token of theCrucifixion, and is later brought back,n symbol of the Resurrection.\; The first four candidates to be offi¬cially entered in the Cap and GownKing and Queen of the Fiftieth Anni¬versary Contest were announced to¬day by Cap and Gown business man¬ager Jack Crane. Pictured L. to R.above: Doris Daniels, the candidatefor Esoteric, Richard Wilson for DeltaUpsilon, Betty Jane Nelson for Mor¬tar Board contest, manager Crane, and Ruth Mortenson, candidate forWyvem. As other candidates areentered in the contest. Cap and Gownwin release their jrictures to the Ma¬roon.The trip offered to the king andqueen will include transportation toMexico City by super-charged Grey¬hound Bus, rooms at the Hotel Gillow,one of the finest hotels in Mexico City, free meals, including lunch at San-born’s, most famous restaurant in allMexico, entertainment, including eve¬nings at three or four night clubs andthe bull fight.Salesmen may vote for their candi¬dates as soon as they turn in subscrip¬tion money. Each subscription is val¬ued as one vote. Salesmen are asked toturn in their money as soon as possible.Vol. 41. No. 88 Z-149 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHICAGO. TUESDAY. APRIL 8. 1941 Price Three CentsAdmit 29 NewMen To SkullAnd CrescentTwenty-nine new members wereelected to Skull and Crescent, sopho¬more men’s honorary fraternity, atthe Psi Upsilon Fraternity House,Friday evening. All members werechosen on the basis of their recordin athletics, scholarship, and studentactivities. Each fraternity was al¬lowed at least one member and in ad¬dition two independents were selected.Delta Kappa Epsilon contributedfour men, more than any other frater¬nity while Alpha Delta Phi and DeltaUpsilon followed with three.The list of newly elected membersis as follows:Delta Kappa Epsilon: Marty Han¬son, Bud Lauerman, Craig Leman,Bud Tozer; Alpha Delta Phi: BobDille, Howard Husom, Bob Smidl;Delta Upsilon; Ed Cooperider, GeneGleason, Harry Tully; Phi Sigma Del¬ta: Mike Garrasch, Lennie Fisher;Sigma Chi; John Bauman, Connie Con-tos.Phi PsiPhi Kappa Psi: Bill Bell, Dick Reyn¬olds; Beta Theta Pi: Jack Berger, DickLieber; Phi Delta Theta: Dick Blake-man. Bob Oakley; Psi Upsilon: HalHarwood, Bob Murray; Kappa Sigma:Eric Erickson; Pi Lambda Phi: Jim(Continued on Page 2) Senior MustachesGet GruellingTest in ContestFor the next two weeks startingFriday, the Senior Class is going toresemble a counter full of FullerBrushes.Reason: The annual Senior Mus¬tache Race, staged by Blackfriars.Friday noon Seniors meet at the “C’’bench to be shaved. In two weeks theymeet again, to be judged by Brad,Reynolds Club barber. Most virile con¬testant gets a loving cup and plaque;man with the baldest upper lip gets abottle of hair tonic. Both go into theBotany Pond.Abbott Salzmann announces thattickets to Blackfriars go on sale to¬day in the Mandel corridor Box Of¬fice. Prices range from $.39 to $2.20.Evening performances will be Fridayand Saturday, April 25 and 26 andMay 2 and 3.All prospective ticket salesmen areurged to attend a meeting at 3:30 to¬day in the Blackfriars office or to seeFrank Brunner. A free ticket goes toany man who sells ten.FLASH!At press time, the office of thevice - president denied the rumorthat M illiam Benton would go onthe air Sunday to answer the pro¬fessors who refuted PresidentHutchins war position. Moulton SpeaksAs WalgreenLecturerTonightHarold G. Moulton, internationallyfamous statistical economist will de¬liver the fourth Walgreen Foundationlecture tonight in Mandel at 8:30.His speech, Economic Essentials forNational Unity, will demonstrate thephases of the present internationalembroglio that usually appear decadesafter a war in the history books un¬der the heading “Cause of the War’’.Brookings InstituteFrom his post as President of theBrookings Institute in Washington,Moulton has been in a position to seethe forces that have been brought toplay on the economic sytsem by therise of various differing nationaleconomies and political states.^He graduated from the Universityin 1907 and became a member of thefaculty two years later, serving as aprofessor of political economy in 1922.He later accepted the post of Direc¬tor of the Institute of economy, whicheventually became the Brookings In¬stitute in 1928.Walgreen LectureThis speech, the fourth of a seriesof six sponsored by the WalgreenFoundation for the Study of Amer¬ican Institutions admits the audiencefree. Tickets may be obtained at theinformation office.Ckfttschalk Denies That The WarWill Be Decided In The Balkans/By MARK FISHERDespite last weekend’s scream head¬lines, Louis Gottschalk, Professor ofModern History, yesterday voiced theopinion that the war would still bewon or lost in the North Atlanticrather than in the Balkans. He did ad¬mit, however, that an Axis victoryon the new front would bring them agreat deal closer to success in starv¬ing out Britain.Forced to InvadeThe Germans, according to Gott¬schalk, did not want to use force inJugo Slavia. The armed invasion wasnecessary because the recent JugoSlav change in sentiment forced onthem a diplomatic retreat whichweakened both their strategic posi¬tion and their prestige. It must beremembered, however, that they care¬fully considered their chances at vic¬tory and indeed “stand a good chanceof success in the endeavor.’’Planes NeededThe mountainous terrain throughwhich they are fighting stated Gott¬schalk, will make matters more dif¬ficult for the Germans but cannot becounted on to bring about their down¬fall. The decisive factor in the Balkanfighting he continued will be how LOUIS GOTTSCHALKmuch aid, particularly airplanes, theAllies can send to the Greeks andJugo Slavs. If America and Englandcan get enough planes in the area toprevent a complete German masteryof the air the fighting may very wellsettle down to a long drawn out “warof position.’’ Professor Gottschalkadded that one result of such a rela¬ tively even battle might be that theAllies for the first time since the fallof France would have use for largenumbers of men and it might verywell call on America to enter the warin order to supply them.Three PossibilitiesIn summing up the possibilities ofthe future Gottschalk stated that thefirst and most likely occurrence wasthat the Axis would succeed in driv¬ing England from the Balkans andforce Jugo Sldvia and Greece to sub¬mit. This would not only give theGermans powerful material aid in theform of food and minerals but wouldalso bring them into a position wherethey could either destroy or dominatethe Suez Canal. The second possibil¬ity, that of a stalemate, has been de¬scribed above.The third and last possible outcome,and one which according to Gott¬schalk cannot be completely disre¬garded, is that the Allies will succeedin bringing enough men and materialsto first stop the Germans and latertake the offensive. They would thendrive into Bulgaria from whence theywould be in a position to threatenGermany’s all important oil suppliesin Roumania. University.Receives$250,000Gift from Rosenwald FamilyFirst of Alumni Week.An initial gift of $250,000 by theRosenwald Family association to theUniversity was announced last Sun¬day by George A. Ranney, chairmanof the Citizens Board of Sponsors ofthe University’s fiftieth anniversarycelebration.The announcement was made byRanney at a luncheon meeting givenby the Citizens Board in Hutchinsoncommons, to guests attending theopening events of University Weekon the Quadrangles. The CitizensBoard campaign is designed to raise$1,500,000 in ninety days toward thefiftieth anniversary fund of $12,000,-000. More than four hundred Chi¬cagoans were guests of Mr. Ranney atthe luncheon.Gift is ConditionalThe gift by the Rosenwald Familyis a conditional grant, requiring theraising of substantial additional con¬tributions, to be used without restric¬tions in the operating expenses of theUniversity.Mr. Ranney also announced threeanonymous gifts amounting to $135,-000 which have been received and willbe applied toward matching the Ros¬enwald gift.The Citizens Board campaign for$1,600,000 in April, May and Junecommemorates the famous $1,000,000-in-ninety-days campaign among Chi¬cagoans in 1892, which was responsi¬ble in large measure for the earlysuccess of the University.Chapel To HoldSpecial HolyWeek ServicesParalleling the campus conferenceon religion and the social order, thechapel offers several services thisweek that are traditionally connectedwith Holy Week celebration on theuniversity quadrangles.First of these observations comestonight at 7:30, when RockefellerChapel will be entirely lighted by can¬dles for the Tenebrae service. Thisancient service will be sung by theChapel Choir and acolytes from theChurch of the Redeemer will takepart.Gilkey LeadsThursday at 4:30 Dean Gilkey willlead a communion service for thosestudents who make the chapel theirchurch. Every year students partic¬ipate in this Holy Week observation.A male choir will provide the music.At noon on Good Friday the annualcommunity celebration for that daywill begin. Douglas Steere will givethe address and special music will beprepared by the Chapel choir. Univer¬sity pupils and members of the sur¬rounding community always partic¬ipate in this service.Easter ServicesTwo services mark the arrival of,Easter Sunday. The Easter Sunriseservice is scheduled for 6:30 and willbe planned and presented tfy Univer¬sity students and members of neigh-boring churches. Officially closing theconference is the 11 o’clock Easterservice, with Dean Gilkey speakingin the Chapel and the choir furnishingspecial music for the occasion.Page Two THE DAILY MAROON. TUESDAY. APRIL 8, 1941The Daily MaroonFOUNDED IN 1902The Daily Ma«oon is the official student newspaper of the Unifersity of ChisaKO, published mornings except Saturday, Sunday,and Monday during the Autumn, Winter, and Spring annrters byThe Daily Maroon Company, 6831 University avenue. Telephones:Hyde Park 9221 and 9222.After 6:30 phone in stories to our printers. The Chief PrintingCompany, 148 West 62nd street Telephones: Wmtworth 6123and 6124.The University of Chicago assumes no respon:>ibUity for anystatements appearing >n The Daily Maroon, or for any contractentered into by The Daily Maroon.The Daily Maroon expressly reserves the rights of publication ofany material appearing in this paper. Subscription rates: $3 a year;$4 by mail. Single copies: three cents.Entered as second class matter March 18. 1908, at the post officeat Ch’^ago. Illinois, under the act of March 8, 1^9.MemberAssociated Collegiate PressDistributor ofCollegiate Digest, BOARD OF CONTROLEditorialWILLIAM HANKLA PEARL C. RUBINSERNEST S. LEISER JOHN P. STEVENS. ChairmanBasineaaRobert P. O'Donnell. Business ManagerEDITORIAL ASSOCUTE8lames Burtle, Mark Fisher. Cheater Hand. Richard Himmel, DanielMezlay. Richard Pbilbrick. Robert D. F. Reynolds, and DanielWinograd.BUSINESS ASSOCIATESLyle Harper, Myles Jarrow, Lynn Tuttle. Chester SmithEllen Tuttle, Office ManagerChester Smith, Circulation ManagerNight Editors: Ernest S. & Pearl C. LeiserStick To SportsThat “old so-and-so,” Herb Grafiis, a column¬ist of the Daily Times, has been exercising hisperogative as an “analyst extraordinary of na¬tional affairs” again, this time to criticise Pres¬ident Hutchins and several faculty membersfor arguing loudly and publicly “about what thecountry should do.”It seems that Mr. Graffis, “humorist, racon¬teur, gold authority and analyst extraordinaryof national affairs,” thinks that professorsshould teach and not preach. Or, in other words,Mr. Hutchins should not deliver sermons aboutinternational affairs.Liberty vs. LicenseSays the noted humorist, “Of course all thepopping off does exhibit freedom of expressiondespite the traditional restrictions of campuspolitics. But these exercises of freedom ofspeech strike some sound people as being ex¬amples of the practice of mistaking liberty forlicense.”And then Mr. Graffis, that famed sportswriter continues, “ ... I have my private doubtsthat it does much for the kids or lays any firmfoundation for national unity when the skullheavyweights step out in public and tradepunches.”Professors had their chance, Mr. Graffis de¬clares, “to develop students as straight-think¬ing, powerful leaders, and by pointing the fingerat somebody else, college professors cannot di¬vert public attention from what colleges haven’tdone to make American Youth a force of dy¬namic and foresighted leadership.”“Talked in Circles”“What he (Hitler) has done with the muscleand the sneak to establish a national uriity alsoseems to be something that should disturb thosewho honestly believe we can talk ourselves outof a world-wide mess. Germany is in the driver’sseat now because the earnest intellectuals ofother nations talked in circles too long.”It is truly an extraordinary analysis. As weunderstand Mr. Graffis, intellectuals should notdiscuss national policy in public because theyunnecessarily arouse controversy about nationalissues. There should never be any disagreementabout public policies because that destroys na¬tional unity. Discussion in a democracy, prepos¬terous !Professors Not QualifiedCollege professors are not qualified to talk,anyway, because of what they have not done tomake American youth good leaders, and whenthey do talk they mistake liberty for license.There is also a beautiful passage which seemsto be about fox hunting in the essay.Mr. Graffis in his roles as humorist, racon¬teur, and analyst extraordinary of national af¬fairs is intriguing. We eagerly await his nextarticle on golf. R, B. P.S And C—(Continued from page 1)•Frankel; Chi Psi: Mel Smith; PhiGamma Delta: Hartley Pfeil; ZetaHeta Tau: Stan Warsaw; Independ¬ents: Dan Fogel, Bob Landry.The first meeting of the new mem¬bers will be in the Reynolds Club,Lounge A, Wednesday at 1:00. ClassifiedMARCONIPHONE Radlo-PhonoKrapli Combi¬nation with automatic changer built intobrown calfskin suitcase. Cost $165. Com¬pact and extremely smart. $40. Call Missvon Noe. Local 505.BOOK CASES—SHELVES & TABLES—Cus¬tom-built. Bob Brown Carpenter Shop,6888 Lake Park Ave. Hyde Park 2894.Best Cracks of the Week Dept.:. . . Betsy Kuh about Mike Todd’s Theatre Cafe: “It jwas the first time I’d ever seen a strip tease. I was soembarrassed. We stayed for two shows. (That’s gettingover a complex.). . . Margaret Peacock, as she watched a Classics Classempty of rather odd looking people, and somebody askedher what class was in there: “I dunno. Must be Nar¬cotics, 202.’’Mysterious Story of the Week Dept.:. . . Who was it, as though we didn’t know but won’ttell, who woke up Foster Hall at 6:30 Sunday morningserenading. The quartet was accompanied by a slightcase of grain alcohol. They also woke up the Deke Annexand tried to steal a model boat off the Alpha Delt fire¬place. .. . Spring and those strange noises in the breastagain.Seasick. . . Were the Phi Sigs when they had their annual for¬mal at the Columbia Yacht Club. It seems the boat wasa little rocky that night. But Milt Weiss managed tostay on his feet for the evening with Jean Robin for¬merly of the ZBT House . . . Marjorie Lippart andLarry Cohen ^ . . Mush Blomenthal who was seasickanyway from rehearsing Blackfriars. He appears inevery scene on roller skates. He is taking off campussalesman number one, John Emmanuel Bex. Mush MCedthe brawl ... In the steady and practically steady de¬partment, Bill Bartman and Norma Berkson ... WernerBaum and Shirley Bowman (imported).Puzzle of the Week Dept.. .'. Helen Pearce has repledged Quad. You figure it out.I’m confused.Suggestion. . . Although the policies of these columns is usuallyto patronize Maroon advertisers, I have to cheat asmutch and recommend that you take in Lionel Hampdenat the Grand Terrace. He’s the lad that used to do spe¬cialities with Benny Goodman’s ork on the drums andvibraphone. He’s terrific. It was old home week thereSaturday night. B. J. Dunlap on the dance floor . . .Grant Atkinson and his woman . . . Mike Rathje andan imported male . . . Sybil Farriter and Dave Martin.Hanleys. . . Was jammed Friday night, and you couldn’t tellone person from the next. Saturday night was notablebecause Ned Rosenheim was rosenheimin’ all over theplace prior to leaving for the army. He was conductingone of his inimitable song orgies in the back room . . .Donna CuIIiton and Lou Miller ... B. J. Nelson and JimAnderson . . . Sinbad Sills sticking close to the bar. Itwas rocky out where we were sitting. . . . C-bel Gross-man smiling at the mutitude. Noise. Heaven.Maroons Came!SoDidTheRainsPrior to last Friday the state of Kentucky had notseen any rain for two months. But the rains came withthe Maroon nine and the three practice games scheduledhad to be cancelled. The Chicago players are mad aboutthe whole thing. This was the first major trip the teamhad been granted in years and all sixteen members ofthe traveling squad were anxious to start a string ofvictories.The team left Chicago early Thursday morning andran into rain after 100 miles. The Millikan diamond inDecatur was flooded and the first cancellation resulted.It was then decided to go on toward Murray, Kentucky.By Thursday evening the team reached Paducah and ar¬rived at Murray on Friday morning.Spring’s BeautyFriday morning was beautiful in Kentucky. Afterlunch both teams had batting and fielding practice. Chi-cago’s men were more anxious than ever to get startedbut—with game time came the rains again, and the sec¬ond game had to be cancelled. The rain did not let upFriday night and the game with Western KentuckyState Teacher’s College was also called off. Kyle Ander¬son feels assured that the next time Kentucky has atwo months drought the Chicago baseball team will becalled to cure the situation.• Thia afternoon the Maroon nine will engage ChicagoTeacher’s College in a game not announced on the of¬ficial schedule recently published. The game will be onGreenwood Field at 3:30. No admission will be charged.Good SquadThe probable starting lineup for Chicago will in¬clude: Lopatka, P.; Basich C.; Oostenburg IB.; Hirsch-berg 2B.; E. Shanken SS.; Fons 3B.; R. C. Miller L. F.;Paresi C. F.; Manders R. F. According to reports comingfrom Chicago’s Teachers, their squad is the best in manyyears.With only a little more than a week till the openingof the Big Ten season, the Maroons are anxious to scoresome victories and, in their opinion, today is as good aday as any other. GOOD FOOD IN A HURRYSPICnSPAIS1321 EAST 57thLEARN TO DANCE CORRECTLYT«k« a Faw Privata LauoniTERESA DOLAN1545 E. 53 naar Stony Island Ava.Hours 10 A.M. to 10 P.M.—Sundays I to 9Tal. Hyda Park 3060Life Member of the Chicago Associationof Dancing Masters.SIGHT OF THE WEEK DEPT.:Allan Cranston sitting at MikeTodd’s Theatre Cafe watchinghis date powder her face andthose accompanying jobs like lip¬stick n' things. Right in themiddle of this act he pulled outone of those match box sizerazors and started shaving andturned the right halfof Mike Todd’s intoan uproar. It's just anew twist to the oldfire hydrant's re-'venge gag. Theselittle shavers, theyVestpoks, are really terrific. Theyneed no electricity, no soap, nowater, in fact no nothing but abeard. They're perfect for lastminute shaves when you can'tget home long enough to getout all your shaving stuff in timefor a date. No more beardedladdies . . . They sell for $1.75.If you can't get down-town to¬day to buy one, call the HUB,Wabash 3500, and have onesent out. The last shipmentlasted only a day, so do your^ Christmas shoppingearly, boy chicks.There's a new hatthat's a newspaper¬man's dream. It'scalled a "Rounder"and it's really a nifty idea. I'malways sitting on my hats, andwhen I put them on it looks likesomebody sat on me. But thesehats are made for rough campuswear. You can do practicallyanything to them and they comeup smiling. Besides that theylook good. The HUB, as usual,has them. They sell for $6.50and will outlast any three otherhats for normal campus wear.Come over and sit on minesometime, only remind me totake my head out of it.the I HubStatic iiml Jachson, CHltACt) I# piy 47Hi-Kimbork■ m Kenwood 50C0 I5c■ 6:30♦o 2Sc:30 Aft*Tu«s., W«cl., Apr. 8, 9ERROL FLYNN and OLIVIA DE HAVILLANOIn"SANTA FE TRAIL"aLEW AYRES, LIONEL 8ARRYMORELARAINE DAY, ROBERT YOUNG"DR. KILDARE'S CRISIS"SKYLINE in FLUORESCENT—Free ParkingTYPEWRITERRental RatesONE MONTH $3.00THREE MONTHS $7,50Standard and PortableMachinesALL LATE MODELSA-l CONDITIONU. of C. Bookstore5802 Ellis AvenueCHICKENand RIBSMEET AT THEPiccanniimyBorbecue1411 E. 53rd St.We DeliverHyd* Park 5300STUDENT SPECIALSMonday thru Thursday9 to 6LEMON CASTILLE SHAMPOOAND FINGER WAVE .40cLATHERING OIL SHAMPOOAND FINGER WAVE .50cELLEN JANEBEAUTY SALON1155 E. 55th St.Mid. 0307HOWEVER YOUSTANDREAD THE LATEST WAR ROOKS!-Suggesfions-Ambassador Dodd's Diary $3.50STERNBERG—Fivefold Aid to Britain 1.50MAJOR NASON—Approach to Battle 1.50STREIT—Union Now with Britain 2.00ROBERTSON—I Saw England 2.00MUIR—War without Music 2.00VERA BRITTAIN—England's Hour 2.50RIPPY—Caribbean Danger Zone 3 00MAJOR WILLIAMS—Air Power 3.50NICHOLSON—Battleshleld of Republic 1.50KRAUS—Winston Churchill 3.OOWILLIAMS—War by Revolution |.50DORSHA HAYES—American Primer 1.50VALTIN—Out of the Night , 3.50NOEL MONKS—Squadrons Up. R.A.F 2.50Basic Works of ARISTOTLEEdit, with Intro, by McKean — Price $4.00inOOOUIORTH’SBOOK STORE1311 E. 57th St. — Store Open Evenings.a'.:"/