ONE WOULD EXPECT a Times leading article called 'Quis Custodiet?'
to be a rather ponderous exercise in political philosophy, and one called 'Academic Integrity' to be an examination of the issues of principle involved in academic loyalty oaths or in government interference in education. In fact both the articles in question were about the Reading University diamond hoax. I can understand The Times's irritation at being so badly taken in by it, but common prudence if nothing else should have prevented it at one and the same time from living up to its old nickname of 'Auntie,' and from giving the impression that the sort of things it feels strongly about these days are whether or not lies should be told in hoaxes and whether or not pro- fessors should participate in undergraduate rags. The Times's fulminations about 'the dignity—and above all the integrity' of professorial chairs, and admonitions to the governing body of the University to clear up 'this discreditable affair,' have unfortunately obscured from it the central point in the whole business. This, as Mr. Christo- pher Hollis pointed out to me, is whether or not the joke was funny. It was not; but The Times has almost succeded in making it look as if it was.
Previous page
