MOUNTAINS AND MOLEHOLES

"Rumor had it" that Princeton alumni were angry over the disqualification of athletes, and threatened the Dean. On the two following days the Boston and New York papers publish columns of "it is said"s and of interviews from anyone they can reach; strangely enough, it seems difficult to find anything definitely dependable in any of it. Several papers claim that future cooperation between the three colleges will be impossible; another, that it is all rot; one, that alumni will insist on taking control of athletics away from the faculties; a Yale graduate says that faculties are incapable of efficient management anyway--so far as sports are concerned; another paper reports that five Yale alumni urge the reinstatement of the Princeton ineligibles.

Faculty and alumni. Faculty and alumni and undergraduates. Where are the undergraduates in all this furor and excitement? Everyone, somewhat including themselves, seems to forget that they have something to say--for after all they are the ones who are concerned; and supposedly if the students will tolerate subsidized athletics, it is all right. Plainly enough, undergraduates have been at fault, because if they are unwilling to have members of a college play on a team, if aided because of athletic ability, it is probable that no one would receive money for such ability. We fall to see why the Student Councils should not use their authority. If undergraduates do their own policing, it might work out better; Princeton's honor system is reputed to be successful.

But the main trouble is that many, many people are forgetting the fundamental evil: overemphasis. All abhor subsidization and abuses present now; yet few will make any changes to minimize the importance of athletics. The "Times", in an editorial yesterday: "If all college students were 'gentlemen' we should need no rules at all."--a statement true but also common knowledge. And one reason is that colleges are for some absurd reason judged by athletic teams; so that men who are not gentlemen in the best sense go to college to achieve athletic reputations and perhaps a degree; so that alumni may back such men financially.

This abuse has become so widespread that the cause has been looked for--and found. The purpose of doing away with over-emphasis is to eliminate abuses; yet when those who are abusing are penalized, all factions begin to decry the action. Every college ought individually to see that its linen is clean; if one college is certain that another is playing subsidized athletes, there is no rule compelling it to compete. The present excresences betray internal rottenness; to reduce over-emphasis sufficiently would eliminate abuses.

Until definite reduction is made, every man who is receiving money because of athletic ability alone should be declared ineligible; and in the meantime it would do no harm if newspapers, some alumni, and others who thrive on rumor would stop yapping.