Block · one region of the page, as the scanner read it. It may hold a whole story, part of one, several, or an advertisement; stitching blocks into articles is the next step. Text is supplied OCR.

Page 2 · column 2 of 6 · from the scan, no model involved

The clipping this text was read from
The clipping this text was read from

SENSE AND CENSORS

It is difficult to understand the reasoning of the woman member of the Indiana state textbooks commission in urging a ban on mention of Robin Hood and the Quaker faith in textbooks in that state. She found fault with Robin Hood because of his "legendary activities as a robber of the rich and benefactor of the poor, a philosophy she mistakenly applies to the Communists. Her disapproval Of the Quakers is because “they don’t believe inp fighting wars . . . it’s the same as the Communist crusade for peace—everybody lay down their arms and they’ll take over.”

It is best to dispose of the issue raised about the Quakers first. Quakers played an important part in the history of our country and the state of Pennsylvania was founded and settled by these friendly, gentle people who were among the first in the World to grant religious toleration to faiths other than their own. In our recent history, Herbert Hover who was raised a Quaker, served as President. Many critisisms have been brought against Mr. Hoover but it . has never been suggested that he might be subversive. •

As for Robin Hood, generations of children have read of the outlaw’s adventures with no apparent bad results. The governor of Indiana, commenting on the suggestion that Robin Hood might be ' subversive reading, admitted that it had been a long time since anyone had read him the stories. As the governor of a great state he does not seem to have been damaged by his early exposure to the legends.

In our justifiable concern about Communism is it impossible for us to retain some perspective? Are we to resort to the same stupid approach which has characterized Communism and made it destestable? These questions are more than rhetorical. An

85.9%