1.112
New Odors, Harvest Queen, May Bloom at RAYMOND & Co.'s.
The Weekly University Courier.
The Largest College Journal Circulation the United States.
Published Every Friday Morning by the COURIER COMPANY For Kansas University Students.
O.B. TAYLOR,
President, | DENT HOGEROM,
Secretary
EDITORIAL STAFF:
JOHN A. PRESCOTT, EDITOR-IN-CHEIFE
ASSOCIATES:
CHAS. JOHSON, V. L. KELLOGG,
E. Y. ANNIE LOVE,
A. C. CUNKLE, TELLA CHADMAN,
FRED. LIDKEDE, MAY HAIR,
HARRY BUCKINGHAM, MAY CHURCHILL
BUSINESS MANAGERS:
WILL. A. JACKSON,  S. T. GILMORE.
From the Press of P. T. FOLEY.
Entered at the post-office at Lawrence, Kansas,
as second-class matter.
It seems that when some editors of fourth or fifth class newspapers are at their wit's end for subject matter, they are in the habit of venting their spleen in watery effusions concerning the State University, or some of its professors.
Recently the Troy Chief tried to inaugurate a kick against Prof. J. H. Canfield, because he dares to express his Free Trade views; and after hashing up a lot of nonsensical bosh, its feeble effort expired in the statement that it was in favor of a man for governor who will pledge himself to appoint a board of regents for the State University, who will promise to give Prof. J. H. Canfield his walking papers instantly. The direct incentive to this little kick is that Prof. J. H. Canfield is claimed to have written some articles for the Abilene Gazette on British Free Trade theories.
Suppose the Professor did write these articles. Why should his connection with the State University make it heresy for him to express his opinions on any open question, in any paper, in the same manner as any other citizen? Because the majority of this State favor protection it does not follow that any of its citizens, even in the capacity of public teachers, should keep silent their own convictions on the question, and none but narrow-minded partisans would demand it. It is well known that in nearly every State University in this country the professors of Political Economy are Free Traders, notwithstanding the fact that the public sentiment is generally in favor of protection. Besides, Professor Canfield does not urge his own views upon his students, as the Troy Chief is inclined to suppose; but fairly sets forth both sides of the question and leaves his pupils to draw their own conclusions, as every good teacher in Economics should do. Surely, there is nothing censurable in this. It is to be hoped that the day is far distant when the State University will be deprived of his influence. These chronic whiners can do little
harm, but it would be a credit to them to be sure they have something to whine about before they offend the good sense of the public.
PERSONALITY, CRITICISM AND SOME OTHER THINGS.
To the Editor of The Courier:
Do I believe in personality in journalism? Of course I do. I believe in it just as I believe in honesty and courage in the press. In fact, personality is the product of courage and honesty. Impersonality is the result of cowardice. An editor who lacks stamina and trucks to everybody and everything will invariably produce an impersonal paper—a milk and water paper. A man who is culpable or timorous, and a woman who is super-sensitive and affected, will, invariably, protest against personal journalism.
Mind you, I am talking about things American. In Russia or Germany, I think, if I could be induced to publish a paper, it would be impersonal—very impersonal. I'd write about the weather and the stars; and if I had anything to say about the Czar, I'd do it in just the nicest sort of way my knowledge of the language would allow. But here in America we are different. We want things spicy; we want them to the point; we want our news fresh; we want things called by their right names. That is, the public does. But the few goody-goody, supersanctimonious, (I might add, super-silly) people, will protest against it. Every time one of these folk has his foibles pricked by the reporter's pencil, he straightway wails against personal journalism. And the editors of those papers which never assert an opinion upon which there can be any dispute, or give a bit of news in a decisive way—they are continually lamenting the taste that craves personality.
There are many misdemeanors of which newspapers can be guilty. The capital crime, however, is stupidity. Ask any newspaper manager what element of a newspaper contributes most to its popularity and brings to the counting room the most dollars. He will tell you, personality.
The impersonal paper is not only stupid and cowardly, but it is noxious. By generalizing instead of particularizing it will cast a suspicion on the many and remove guilt from the culprit. Instead of saying: "Smith', a student from Lawrence, was, last Monday, caught pilfering handkerchiefs and gloves from overcoats in the corridors of the university," it will say, "a student in one of the higher classes of the State University and the son of very respectable parents, was discovered purloining various articles from garments hung in the corridors, a short time since." Now this indefinite way of putting it simply casts suspicion on every upper-classman who may be of respectable parentage. Or, if circumstances are sufficiently well known to bring the guilt within the range of half a dozen, then five fellows are unjustly suspected.
Another thing—criticism. Of course those who protest against personality protest against criticism. Nine times out of ten they do not know what they are talking about when they protest against either.
I go to an opera. The next morning I review the performance in the paper. I tell you the libretto was a dull lot of stuff, the music a wretched composition, the setting of the piece shabby and the singing terrific. You recognize my statements as being the truth and praise me for writing them. Next evening I drop in at Mr. X—'s pretty residence for a chat. In the next issue of the paper I tell you how execrable was the music I heard, what daubs he has on his walls to palm off as choice paintings, how he has had an agent stock his library with valuable works of whose contents he has not the faintest idea, and what a fearful bore he himself is in conversation. This is the reverse of the truth. But suppose it were true and I should publish it? Mr. X— would boot me black and blue, and you would clap your hands while he was doing it.
Here it is, where nine out of ten who protest against "personal journalism" do not know what they are talking about. They confuse personality and criticism with privacy.
Now, why is it proper for me to injure an opera and its singers by exposing their faults, and so wrong to hurt Mr. X—by exposing his sham pretenses? Simply this: One is a public, the other this private matter.
If Mr. X— puts his pictures up for general exhibition and charges admission fees, it is my privilege and duty to say what I think about them. As long as they remain a private household collection, I must keep my hands off, my pen quiet.
When she appeared on a public platform to sing, however, she invited public criticism; and the fact that she had not practiced made her effort the more reprehensible.
Those who ought to do not always understand this distinction, let me illustrate: A few years ago a state oratorical contest was held at Topeka, as most of my readers will remember. It was a public exhibition and the public paid to hear it. In the program was a song by a quartette of ladies from Washburn College. Now they may have been very estimable young ladies, but they did not know any more about singing than a hog does about the transit of Venus. Of all the hideous, see-saw out of tune and out of joint singing you ever heard, that was the worst. It was so awfully bad as to be right funny. In writing up the contest I told what sort of singing we had And, what do you think! The Washburn paper went frantic over my criticism. It did not deny the truth of my assertions. Oh, no! It simply said that the young ladies did not pretend to be professionals; that they hadn't had much practice; and the fact that they were ladies would have prevented anyone with the first instincts of a gentleman from criticising them.
The editor who wrote that didn't understand the first principles of journalism. He couldn't distinguish between publicity and privacy. Had I been calling on any of the four ladies in question, and she had inflicted as vicious singing on me as she had on the public, I should have borne it with fortitude and silence.
Right here, let me say another thing. Whoever claims for woman, exemption from criticism on account of her sex, does her a gross injustice. He virtually asserts her inferiority to man, and need of sympathy. It is false Woman is in every way the equal of man—in capability and performance.. Where he excels her in one direction she surpasses him in some other. She is, therefore, competent to stand on her own merits and receive criticism on the same standard that it is adjudged to him. Yet here was a paper, representing a co-educational institution built on the equality of the sexes, claiming for their ladies immunity from criticism, because, forsooth, they were ladies!
Everything public is a subject for press personality and press criticism. Public officials, public acts, public entertainments, public institutions. A man "runs for office." As a candidate before the people, everything that touches the performance of the office he seeks, directly or indirectly, is open to public comment. The acts and habits which were heretofore veiled by privacy are now open for inspection. The man who cannot stand this test, should not seek public service.
SMITH.
I believe college papers have the same rights and are subject to the same restrictions as other papers. In private institutions of learning, teachers are private individuals, and a college newspaper is an imposibility. In State Universities and institutions of a public character, as Harvard, Yale and Cornell, professors, presidents and regents are public representatives subject to public criticism. The college papers of such institutions will be bright and vigorous, just as far as they are personal, free and honest in their criticism. When a professor seeks immunity from student criticism, or endeavors to suppress student sentiment as expressed in their college journals, he confesses thereby his own unfitness for the position he holds. And whenever a college editor resigns the right to speak freely his honest thoughts, he thereby condemns his paper to failure.
Recently a correspondent contributed to the Courier an article on chapel attendance. From statistical figures it is very evident that chapel attendance in this institution is very much on the decline; and he, therefore, set forth the idea that students should take the matter into their own hands, as is done in many of the eastern colleges. He also stated that if they did not show more interest in this matter, chapel attendance would have to be made compulsory.
are reasons why matter pertains to chapel exercises are as they
Now this is all very well. Christ ian students ought to feel it their duty to make the chapel services more interesting by their regular attendance. But it seems that there
The writer of that article is probably acquainted with a certain professor whom we all very much admire for his splendid energies. We believe that the decline which has laments is in no small degree due to certain innovations which that professor has succeeded in introducing Chapel was formerly much more largely attended because there were more attractions. Not least among them were the chapel rhetoricals for which that professor substituted an arrangement far superior. (?] Formerly all students recited in the forenoon; now many recite in the afternoon. There is also more study required than formerly. So the fact that chapel services are now poorly attended does not argue that the students are essentially unchristian, which was indirectly intimated in the writer's communication. As to making attendance in chapel compulsory we believe that the faculty and regents are too well acquainted with the spirit of the students to attempt that. Under the present management it would be unjust. And what moral good would it do to compel the attendance of those who are unwilling or may be weak in the faith? And then, you know, that professor wanted to have purely devotional exercises attended by willing worshippers. Surely the two or three professors and the dozen students who attend afford favorable conditions for purely devotional worship. By the way, it strikes us that the faculty might set the students a good example in attending also, for they are not more busy than most of the students. Evidently the present arrangement, in securing good chapel attendance, is a failure.
The Cornell Club, of Buffalo, dined at the same place as the Harvard Club, the other evening, and, in the course of the dinner, sent in this communication: "The youngest to the oldest university; compliments and best wishes from Cornell." To which the following reply was made: "Your thoughtful salutation is gratefully received and heartily reciprocated by us all, including the president of Harvard University."
AN UNPUBLISHED LETTER. B.M. ALLISON.
B. M. ALLISON.
We met; I thought her grand, yet cold,
And sighed, "I'll always call her Miss."
But then, 'twas scarce a week, when bold
I grew. Now matters stand like this:
The gladest words of tongue or pen—"Please call me by my first name, Ben;"
Or, just as sweet, to tell the truth,
"I shall not mind if you say Ruth."
A month or more has passed since then,
And here's a note: "My darling Ben;"
Why tell the rest? I knew the truth,
She signs herself, "Your loving Ruth."
And sighed, "I'll always call her Miss."
We met; I thought her grand, yet cold,
But then, 'twas scarce a week, when bold
I grew. Now matters stand like this:
The gladest words of tongue or pen— "Please call me by my first name, Ben;"
Or, just as sweet, to tell the truth,
"I shall not mind if you say Ruth."
A month or more has passed since then,
And here's a note: "My darling Ben;"
Why tell the rest? I knew the truth. She signs herself, "Your loving Ruth."
- Harvard Lampoon.
Co
$1
me
tion
wi
Silks, Dress Goods and Carrots are Leading off in Fine Shape. We do the