ATHLETIC FINANCIAL POLICY

Before the season comes to a close it seems worth while to make a fresh attempt to explain the financial policy of the Athletic Committee during the past year and to answer some of the criticisms which its action has provoked. To begin with, let me try to clear away a few persistent errors.

The policy of the Committee has not been one of discrimination against the so-called minor sports. As football and baseball are self-supporting, it appears superfluous to have the undergraduates subscribe to them, as was formerly necessary, but both the crew and track team have to raise the money for a portion of their own expenses. It is true that they also receive aid from the general funds, but even so, the amount they have to get for themselves is larger than that of any of the minor teams, and, if we take the two, larger than those of all the minor sports put together. The difference between the major and minor sports, it may be noted, consists chiefly in the interest the University takes in them. There may be as many candidates for the handball team as for the crew, and its enthusiasts may think it superior as a form of exercise, but the students, as a whole, follow its fortunes with less attention, and it is for this broad democratic reason that the crew and the track team are granted their subsidies.

It is likewise incorrect to state, as is so often done, that all "support" has been withdrawn from the minor sports. This year Hockey, Cricket, Basketball, Handball and the Gymnastic team have all received financial aid for "permanent equipment," which term has been liberally interpreted. In the case of Hockey the sum alloted by the Committee has been considerable.

The question of the selection of managers is one in which the Committee has carefully refrained from meddling, as it has believed that all such matters should be left to the undergraduates themselves. The captain of a team hands in the name of a man he has nominated for manager. The appointment is then approved by the Graduate Treasurer and by the Committee; but this ratification is in most cases a formality, and a mere safeguard against any manifestly improper choice. The Committee does not concern itself with the question of how the captain arrived at his selection, whether by competition or promotion or because he preferred a certain candidate. It has not felt that such things lay within its province. In the same way it has nothing to do with creating a "winning system" or "policy" in any branch of sport. This is a matter for the contestants themselves, aided by their expert advisers. Of course if a serious case of "fake" competition for a managership were brought to the Committee's notice it might feel called upon to annual the captain's action; but it believes in having as little paternal interference of this kind as possible.

What has been said about the manager applies in general to assistant managers, whose names are usually presented by the managers.

As for the much discussed question of subscriptions the trouble at bottom is a pretty simple one. We most of us are glad to have our expenses for us when this can be decently arranged. It is often a wrench to subscribed, and it is annoying to be dunned for objects for which we do not intend to give anything. This is a thing which pursues us through life, and the more a man gives the more he is applied to. About the only people who are left alone are those who are notoriously mean.

What has happened at Harvard is that the large football surplus has in time, naturally enough, demoralized public sentiment on the question. The student body, as a whole, is much less ready to give money to support the teams than it was twenty, or even ten years ago, although the actual burden has grown steadily lighter. Under the circumstances such a state of feeling is not to be wondered at, and it has borne hard on the managers, for the unwilling subscriber has now a convenient fence to hide behind; indeed he can even display indignation that such an appeal is made to him. This feeling that it is an "outrage" and an "intolerable nuisance" that the undergraduates should be called upon for subscriptions to support their own athletics is particularly unfortunate.

It is perhaps worth noticing that most of the arguments recently used against the present system would apply just as well to the attempt now being made to raise among the graduates a large sum for the permanent endowment of the University. Where would Harvard be if its graduates were to take the tone--"The subscription business, however, has become a nuisance"? Is it a fatal objection to the contributions now being made to the general fund that they are "unevenly distributed," and many men of small means give relatively more than some of their richer brethren? Would it not be fairer to raise the price of tution for those who are actually to profit by it, instead of appealing to the generosity of those who are long out of College? If, as has sometimes been said, it is humiliating to a student to solicit money from another for any purpose, what can we say of the conduct of Bishop Lawrence, Mr. Higginson, Mr. Bacon and others?

The Committee has to settle the question of how best to apportion a large annual income and equally heavy expenses. For a time there was a great surplus and under its influence there was a natural tendency to taking things easily in many ways. The finances were not always as economically managed as they might have been, subscriptions went down steadily, and one minor team after another was given irregular assistance, though some of them which now regard aid as almost indispensable existed for many years before such a thing was thought of.

About a year ago the Committee was called upon to face a new situation. It is a futile waste of time to discuss now the wisdom of building the Stadium. Few, at least of the undergraduates, would maintain that the gift of the class of '79 should have been refused by the Committee, not to say the Corporation, on account of the additional expense it has entailed. Thanks to this expense, and to the feeling of the Committee that one of its first duties is to pay its debts as rapidly as is well possible, our surplus has practically disappeared. At the same time, expenses of all kinds are going steadily up, and there is no end to them in sight. Some of these expenses I have enumerated in a previous letter. It also became necessary to adopt some settled policy in regard to the minor sports, as their number was increasing (three new ones have come into existence this year) and experience has shown that the money assistance granted to them in a somewhat haphazard fashion was growing rapidly in amount.

Various suggestions have been made as to how we can best eat our cake, and have it too, that is to say spend more and ask for less. The most obvious of these is "for the debts to be paid off more gradually and "for the improvements to be made under borrowed money, if necessary." This proposal to lay our burdens on the future, will hardly appeal to any one who believes in a conservative management of our finances. If our present debt were to be spread over ten years, it would at that rate, take twenty years or more before the Stadium was completed. Suppose that the interest in football died out in the meantime or that free admission were insisted on by the University authorities, or that the game were forbidden by legislation as has happened in some western states. None of these contingencies is impossible.

The suggestion that the price of the H. A. A. ticket should be raised to seven or eight dollars is open to two serious objections. It would be hard on the men of small means, and would thereby be contrary to the policy of the Committee which has steadily been in favor of making the entrance to games as cheap as possible for all undergraduates, trusting to the generosity and public spirit of those who can afford to subscribe, and lightening the burden of those who must count every dollar. In the second place it is quite doubtful whether the raising of the price of the H. A. A. tickets would accomplish its object as there would probably be a diminution in the sales sufficient to counterbalance the increase in the price. In point of fact it is likely that the athletic funds as a whole would be better off if there were no H. A. A. tickets. University athletics are not a business enterprise to be conducted on the principle of making all that you can, which is that of the argument "assuming that the cost is greater, why not increase prices."

As for general exhortations to economy though they serve to remind us of a duty which we must never forget, and which it is a constant fight to enforce in detail, still they are of no great aid unless accompanied by suggestions of a more specific nature.

To sum up, then, the policy of the present. Athletic Committee is:

1. To pay off our debts as fast as we reasonably can.

2. To give as liberally as the finances allow to permanent improvement and equipment whether of the field or the boat houses, or of the teams large and small.

3. While leaving to the undergraduates an average burden of less than two dollars a head for the maintenance of the minor sports, and for contributions to the cost of the track team, and the crew, at the same time to make up the rest of the expenses of these two teams in view of the general interest felt in them.

In this policy the Committee believes that it has acted in the interest, not only of our sports, but of Harvard as a whole and it feels that it should have the support of public opinion among undergraduates.  ARCHIHALD CARY COOLIDGE.  Chairman

What has happened at Harvard is that the large football surplus has in time, naturally enough, demoralized public sentiment on the question. The student body, as a whole, is much less ready to give money to support the teams than it was twenty, or even ten years ago, although the actual burden has grown steadily lighter. Under the circumstances such a state of feeling is not to be wondered at, and it has borne hard on the managers, for the unwilling subscriber has now a convenient fence to hide behind; indeed he can even display indignation that such an appeal is made to him. This feeling that it is an "outrage" and an "intolerable nuisance" that the undergraduates should be called upon for subscriptions to support their own athletics is particularly unfortunate.

It is perhaps worth noticing that most of the arguments recently used against the present system would apply just as well to the attempt now being made to raise among the graduates a large sum for the permanent endowment of the University. Where would Harvard be if its graduates were to take the tone--"The subscription business, however, has become a nuisance"? Is it a fatal objection to the contributions now being made to the general fund that they are "unevenly distributed," and many men of small means give relatively more than some of their richer brethren? Would it not be fairer to raise the price of tution for those who are actually to profit by it, instead of appealing to the generosity of those who are long out of College? If, as has sometimes been said, it is humiliating to a student to solicit money from another for any purpose, what can we say of the conduct of Bishop Lawrence, Mr. Higginson, Mr. Bacon and others?

The Committee has to settle the question of how best to apportion a large annual income and equally heavy expenses. For a time there was a great surplus and under its influence there was a natural tendency to taking things easily in many ways. The finances were not always as economically managed as they might have been, subscriptions went down steadily, and one minor team after another was given irregular assistance, though some of them which now regard aid as almost indispensable existed for many years before such a thing was thought of.

About a year ago the Committee was called upon to face a new situation. It is a futile waste of time to discuss now the wisdom of building the Stadium. Few, at least of the undergraduates, would maintain that the gift of the class of '79 should have been refused by the Committee, not to say the Corporation, on account of the additional expense it has entailed. Thanks to this expense, and to the feeling of the Committee that one of its first duties is to pay its debts as rapidly as is well possible, our surplus has practically disappeared. At the same time, expenses of all kinds are going steadily up, and there is no end to them in sight. Some of these expenses I have enumerated in a previous letter. It also became necessary to adopt some settled policy in regard to the minor sports, as their number was increasing (three new ones have come into existence this year) and experience has shown that the money assistance granted to them in a somewhat haphazard fashion was growing rapidly in amount.

Various suggestions have been made as to how we can best eat our cake, and have it too, that is to say spend more and ask for less. The most obvious of these is "for the debts to be paid off more gradually and "for the improvements to be made under borrowed money, if necessary." This proposal to lay our burdens on the future, will hardly appeal to any one who believes in a conservative management of our finances. If our present debt were to be spread over ten years, it would at that rate, take twenty years or more before the Stadium was completed. Suppose that the interest in football died out in the meantime or that free admission were insisted on by the University authorities, or that the game were forbidden by legislation as has happened in some western states. None of these contingencies is impossible.

The suggestion that the price of the H. A. A. ticket should be raised to seven or eight dollars is open to two serious objections. It would be hard on the men of small means, and would thereby be contrary to the policy of the Committee which has steadily been in favor of making the entrance to games as cheap as possible for all undergraduates, trusting to the generosity and public spirit of those who can afford to subscribe, and lightening the burden of those who must count every dollar. In the second place it is quite doubtful whether the raising of the price of the H. A. A. tickets would accomplish its object as there would probably be a diminution in the sales sufficient to counterbalance the increase in the price. In point of fact it is likely that the athletic funds as a whole would be better off if there were no H. A. A. tickets. University athletics are not a business enterprise to be conducted on the principle of making all that you can, which is that of the argument "assuming that the cost is greater, why not increase prices."

As for general exhortations to economy though they serve to remind us of a duty which we must never forget, and which it is a constant fight to enforce in detail, still they are of no great aid unless accompanied by suggestions of a more specific nature.

To sum up, then, the policy of the present. Athletic Committee is:

1. To pay off our debts as fast as we reasonably can.

2. To give as liberally as the finances allow to permanent improvement and equipment whether of the field or the boat houses, or of the teams large and small.

3. While leaving to the undergraduates an average burden of less than two dollars a head for the maintenance of the minor sports, and for contributions to the cost of the track team, and the crew, at the same time to make up the rest of the expenses of these two teams in view of the general interest felt in them.

In this policy the Committee believes that it has acted in the interest, not only of our sports, but of Harvard as a whole and it feels that it should have the support of public opinion among undergraduates.  ARCHIHALD CARY COOLIDGE.  Chairman