Title is equal to ""I am always a little embarrassed by persons that must be conspicuously clTended and public infantilism by an adult is usually a subject that I would rather ignore. But Mr. Kennedy's letter in the May 28t Daily was so petulant, so excited and so lacking in the usual goocl-humour and tolerance that surrounds Stanford "politics" that it must be answered. Mr. Kennedy must realize that there is no such thing as an "off the record statement" at an open, public meeting. The statements made at Excom meetings are fair game, criticism of such statements are what makes the Stanford democracy work. Mr. Kennedy has extended his definition of "cooperation" to the point where it is nothing less than a plea for slanted, partisan reporting. The Administration at Stanford has always been under attack from student candidates. As a "prewar" Stanford student I was amazed at the over-all delicacy of the candidates at the recent Assembly. The Administration at Stanford is a good one and it continues because on the whole it. is tolerant and meets the needs of the students, but I am certain that no member of the Administration feels that Wally McCall owes anyone an apology for his speech at the Assembly. Criticism, even violent opposition, is part of the Stanford tradition, but political sniping at a defeated candidate is most certainly not! At least several faculty and administration members have expressed disappointment at Kennedy's immoderate attack on McCall. Finally, Mr. Kennedy must realize that in the long run every student official receives just about the degree of cooperation that he works for and earns. The position of student body president carries no automatic privileges. I suspect that Mr. Kennedy is more a victim of his own ineptness than of a political plot by a small group of conscientious girls. In the good, old days which Mr. Kennedy so dearly loives, studentbody presidents were tough-minded and hard-working. They did their best and expected to be judged on what they had done. Never did they feel the necessity for elaborate public apologies and slightly hysterical attacks against normal criticism. I feel that the air would be considerably cleared if Mr. Kennedy were to publicly retract several of his ungracious remarks. âA returned veteran""
Here: https://github.com/TheStanfordDaily/archives-text/blob/master/1946/05/31/MODSMD_ARTICLE38.article.txt
Title is equal to ""I am always a little embarrassed by persons that must be conspicuously clTended and public infantilism by an adult is usually a subject that I would rather ignore. But Mr. Kennedy's letter in the May 28t Daily was so petulant, so excited and so lacking in the usual goocl-humour and tolerance that surrounds Stanford "politics" that it must be answered. Mr. Kennedy must realize that there is no such thing as an "off the record statement" at an open, public meeting. The statements made at Excom meetings are fair game, criticism of such statements are what makes the Stanford democracy work. Mr. Kennedy has extended his definition of "cooperation" to the point where it is nothing less than a plea for slanted, partisan reporting. The Administration at Stanford has always been under attack from student candidates. As a "prewar" Stanford student I was amazed at the over-all delicacy of the candidates at the recent Assembly. The Administration at Stanford is a good one and it continues because on the whole it. is tolerant and meets the needs of the students, but I am certain that no member of the Administration feels that Wally McCall owes anyone an apology for his speech at the Assembly. Criticism, even violent opposition, is part of the Stanford tradition, but political sniping at a defeated candidate is most certainly not! At least several faculty and administration members have expressed disappointment at Kennedy's immoderate attack on McCall. Finally, Mr. Kennedy must realize that in the long run every student official receives just about the degree of cooperation that he works for and earns. The position of student body president carries no automatic privileges. I suspect that Mr. Kennedy is more a victim of his own ineptness than of a political plot by a small group of conscientious girls. In the good, old days which Mr. Kennedy so dearly loives, studentbody presidents were tough-minded and hard-working. They did their best and expected to be judged on what they had done. Never did they feel the necessity for elaborate public apologies and slightly hysterical attacks against normal criticism. I feel that the air would be considerably cleared if Mr. Kennedy were to publicly retract several of his ungracious remarks. âA returned veteran""