THERE'S THE RUB

College athletics are again under fire. During vacation, a minor barrage has been set off by various groups of collegiate authorities in congress assembled, who are fearful that the present tendency of over-emphasis on "big" athletics will make college sports professional in spirit even though amateur in letter. The Boston Herald comments editorially at some length. It is feared that "Victories may come to cost more than they are worth, more in money and more also in the dulling of the fine edge of moral sensitiveness that makes the charm of so many college boys today..... The great end is to keep the game and at the same time to keep from the violation not only of the letter but of the spirit of the rules that are intended to lift college sport above suspicion."

The emphasis placed on football can be justified at Harvard in two ways. Its financial success makes possible all the other forms of athletics, activities that are not self-supporting, so that men who desire physical development of any sort whatever are able to secure it with the best coaches and equipment. And athletics themselves as a mode of exercise need no defense. Secondly, the big football games, with their publicity, the enthusiasm they arouse, and the universal interest in them, are the greatest unifying influence in the University. Harvard, more than any other college, is known for the individualism of its members. This lack of uniformity we need not regret, as long as there is one strong tie to bind us together; but if the major teams and all that they imply did not exist individualism would be almost entirely unrestricted; the small group would be the order of the day and the term "Harvard" as applied to its members would be entirely robbed of any significance whatever.

Nevertheless the fear that athletics are superseding studies as the reason d'etre of college is not easily dismissed. The problem is how to overcome the difficulty without taking away the advantages enumerated above. The false emphasis cannot be adjusted by eliminating athletics, or even by artificially decreasing their present popularity. Less emphasis on their importance, less expense for coaching and equipment, would lead directly from victory to defeat. Losing teams would mean a slackening of student interest with a corresponding decline in "spirit"; and smaller gate receipts, leading to a decrease in facilities for all-round physical development. Such a proceeding would be entirely destructive; it might indeed rob athletics of much of their present importance but it would not result in any transference of interest from the field of sport to the class room. The obstacles to a general intellectual awakening would still exist.

We come inevitably to the old question--how to make students take up study for its own sake. We find again that the solution of nearly every difficulty which confronts the administrators of the college would be made possible if this one problem could be solved. In the case of athletics, particularly, it becomes evident that if studies held a more general interest for the student there would be no occasion for anxiety on the score of the undue prominence of the former.