Backs '48 Nominations

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

As a member of the Temporary Class Committee, and the Nominating Committee, I very much disapproved of your headline, story, and editorial in Tuesday's issue which you devoted to criticism of the nominating procedure and the slate arrived at. For the past two days I have been in contact with a number of men of the class of '48, and have heard virtually no adverse comment. From my experience, and the experience of several of my friends, most men in the class seem quite content that the ballot represents an equitable and capable cross-section of the class. It seems to me that the "popular criticism" which you mentioned in the headline is not in keeping with the facts, and the reference to the "snag in the election machinery" is completely unfounded inasmuch as the slate has been accepted and the election is to be held as originally scheduled. It seems that the Crimson was guilty of inaccurate and consequently misleading reporting.

In reply to the criticism directed against some of the men nominated, let me state that work done for the class was an extremely important factor in determining the men to be placed on the ballot, but not the only factor. Nor was more intellectual capacity the only criterion. As in all considerations for representatives of a class, class prominence, popularity, and congeniality are very significant factors. Some men were nominated primarily for one reason, others for somewhat different reasons. The nominees as a whole present an excellent cross-section of the class, all factors taken into consideration. It is granted that the names of some deserving men may have been omitted, but the nominating committee does not claim infallibility. The unlimited petition policy was instituted to compensate for that shortcoming.

I would also like to correct an error in your front page article, which stated that the Temporary Class Committee was appointed. They were popularly elected. As a result of the class popularity and prominence of these men at the time, and the work they have subsequently done for the class, they were deserving of a place on the ballot, with few exceptions.

I fail to see the validity of your criticism of the men on the ballot or the manner in which they were nominated. I also object to the questionable reporting which would tend to confuse and mislead the members of the class of '48. Paul G. Haskell '48