The Birmingham age-herald., 1911-05-02
LETTERS TO EDITOR
Affair at the University

To the Editor of The Age-Herald:
 Tn Sundays issue of your worthy pa- per, there appeared an article headed, University Boys Don't Like Publicity As the article Is not in accordance with many facts in the case, the writer, through the columns of your paper wishes to offer a few main corrections.
 To begin with, the article declares that the senior of the university, whose in- terview is given, blamed the faculty of the institution for giving the matter to the notice of the public in the aspect of a piece of 'rowdyism.' Knowing that The Age-Herald would not knowing ly print that which is false, the writer, a senior at the University of Alabama, wishes to state firmly that the faculty did not give the matter to the notice of the public in the manner stated. In fact, merely the statement by the president to the audience gathered Monday night, that such actions would not be tolerated and that all efforts would be put forward to see that justice be administered, was all that was given to the public by the authorities. At no public meetings has the writer heard any member of the fac ulty refer to the trouble as a piece of rowdyism." True, the writer read a head line in Thursdays Age-Herald which spoke of the guilty parties as ''rowdies. ' But the faculty has used no such terms. In order that no mistake might be made, the writer took the trouble to ask Presi- dent John w. Abercrombie about the matter and he absolutely denied mak- ing any such assertion, though he ac- knowledged that he had referred to the actions of the 'jokers" as conduct that would not pass unnoticed." Furthermore, Dr. Abercrombie said that the authorities had not been responsible for any of the news articles that had appeared in va rious papers of the state, articles tell ing of the affair. Dr. Abercrombie de- clared that the papers had not printed the articles upon incentives coming from the faculty here.
 But the greatest error that one familiar with conditions at the University of Ala bama can find in the article mentioned Is the statement that "the faculty had shuffled off the greater responsibilities of the life within the college to the rep resentative bodies of the students. One Is thus lead to believe that the faculty had been shirking it's duty by putting 1t as a fardel upon the back of the student body. And the situation stands in the present case. the faculty In keeping with the policy of the institution and the wishes of the students, has been eager for student self-government to be put on a firm and settled basis. a government similar to that in practice at Wander bilt. Missouri and possibly other colleges. Hence, when the misconduct during the sophomore contest put the good name of the students in jeopardy, the faculty per mitted the students to vindicate them selves. Accordingly. the settlement of the matter was left in the hands of 'The Inter Class Council" the representative body, with special and full powers dele gated by the students. For four days that council was in charge of the matter, but succeeded in apprehending and pun ishing only one guilty party The fac ulty concurred in the sentence given, and after lending further time to the other guilty parties to "come clean the author ities began the rigid investigation men toned in the article. But the fact re- mains and 1t cannot be put forward too strongly that the faculty allowed the students to act only because the students had so desired and because of the policy of the institution to encourage student self-governmerit. The faculty was unwill- ing to deprive the students of the power to rule themselves. There was no snuff fing-off of responsibilities or shirking of duty. Very respectfully yours
 HERBERT T.. FEIBELMAN.
 University, May 1, 1911.