No Mans Land

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—I protest. If one is going to play the knight-errant why not be consistent? Why should "Checked Up," who rushes so enthusiastically to the defence of the history department, who questions so searchingly the qualifications of its attacker, and who vigorously denounces the habit of "mud slinging," why should this same "Checked Up" blandly remark that political science as at present taught is "divorced from reality and sometimes from accuracy."

The statement is ridiculous and very nearly libellous.

There are many departments in this college, and particularly in the Arts Faculty, which teach subjects divorced from reality. To study Latin, Greek, Pure Maths, even at times History itself, is to study subjects far removed from our present lives. But to study the political makeup of our own and other countries, to understand the workings of fascism, communism and democracy, to attempt to discover the causes of the wars and depressions of our own times, the calamities which form the woof of our lives—is this to study a subject divorced from reality?

As to the second accusation, that of inaccuracy, this can obviously refer to one section of the department only, as both lecturer and students in the C.P.I. section are aware that they must constantly search for reliable statements through the mazes of propaganda and have consequently learned to mistrust statements not backed by reliable authority.

If "Checked Up" wishes to attack the Political Science Department let him at least remember that this department is divided into two sections and refrain from incriminating the innocent with the guilty