By: Louis Werfel  | 

In the Editor’s Mail Box (Vol. 2, Issue 6)

To the Editor of The Commentator,

Dear Sir: In last week’s Commentator this column carried a letter from Hoi Polloi in which the author protected against the fancied injustice hidden in the story of Gordon’s resignation from the editorship of The Masmid; added emphasis to his protest by comparing the present editor unfavorably to Gordon, the ex-editor; and climaxed the affair by insulting two members of the Executive Committee with such asinine charges as “raw deal” and “clique politics.”

What is the truth of the matter?

My dear hare-brained “crusader for justice,” Monsieur H. Polloi, don’t you know that previous editors of The Masmid have not been selected exclusively on the basis of years of service—but rather on the basis of capabilities? (Mr. Simon Noveck ’36, editor of last year’s Masmid, is an example of such selection.) This being so, what pertinence have Senor Polloi’s characterizations of an “experienced” Gordon and an “inexperienced” (forgetting his services on last year’s Masmid) present editor!

Anyone but a prejudiced half-wit might have discovered with minimum of effort that before Gordon’s resignation, he and the present editor enjoyed the same official status as editors-in-chief of their respective magazines (or as co-editors of The Masmid)—a fact to which Gordon will testify. Why, then, did Signor Hoi Polloi write in such a sneaky, underhand fashion, creating the impression that less Majeste had been committed by favoring a subordinate with an invitation to a seat in Council, while “persecuting” a superior by denying him this honor?

Why, then, was one man selected over the other to sit in Council, if both men were officially equals? The answer is this: Any person not expressly granted membership in council by the student constitution (this includes the editor of the Masmid) may attend Council meetings only at the express invitation of the president. Issued under presidential prerogative, and governed exclusively by the president’s personal desires, the “why and wherefores” of these invitations are a private matter, over which even Student Council has no jurisdiction. And even the Honourable Hoi Polloi should have the decency to keep his nose out of something which is none of his business.

This lengthy letter had been written to repudiate the dirty attack against the student administration—made before giving us an opportunity to refute these charges in private without all this attendant publicity. Frankly, the tone of this letter, as well as its aim, is to “squish” any more inane claptrap which some scatter-brained nincompoop may concoct in order to get his literary masterpieces into print.

Respectfully yours,

Louis Werfel