1870] Incidents at Cornell 



"mock program/' a disreputable document setting The 

 forth (in obscene fashion) the alleged peculiarities mock 

 of the different participants in an approaching public * rogram 

 performance. This poster was the work of one or 

 two sophomores, and its purpose was to slur the 

 freshmen. Having failed to detect the individual wholesome 

 culprits, the president suspended all the officers of disci P line 

 the class, although he was fully assured that as a 

 whole they had had no share in the affair itself. 

 As I remember, the students generally knew who 

 wrote the poster; he was, in fact, one of the men 

 actually suspended. 



White's action stirred up opposition among the 

 students, and as a contributor to the Cornell Era 

 the college daily I was asked to write an editorial 

 protesting against the punishment of innocent indi- 

 viduals for the sins of somebody else over whom 

 they had no actual control. I wrote, but not what 

 had been requested. My effort (somewhat vigorous, 

 I thought) denounced the vulgar performance and 

 all connected with it, and supported the president 

 in his efforts to make it clear that public indecency 

 would not be tolerated. The editor declined to 

 publish what I turned in, but White's vigorous 

 action put an end to that kind of performance. 



The other case was distinctly unique. A student, A student 

 Philip H. Clark, mature-looking and bearded after P rank 

 the fashion of his time, came before the faculty on 

 the charge of impersonating a professor in a lecture 

 given by him in Dundee, Yates County. Clark 

 replied: "I did give a lecture in Dundee. I do not 

 know what other people said, but I did not call 

 myself a professor." And the faculty was obliged 

 to let it go at that. But we boys knew that the 



C653 



