ATHLETES TURNED PRO

Last year the Dean's Office ruled that men on probation were ineligible to play on the winning House football team against Yale. This question has again been reopened by the recent recommendation of the Interhouse Athletic Committee that the rules be changed so as to permit men on probation to play against Yale.

The Committee has pointed out that due to the informal nature of the games men playing in them can hardly be said to be participating in a public performance, and, consequently, should not be subject to the rule forbidding men on probation to take part in such activities. Another part of the same rule states that men on probation shall not "represent the University in athletics or otherwise." The most cogent argument against this is that these men are not representing the University at all, but are representing their respective Houses. If the University is to be consistent in its policy of giving to the Houses a certain measure of autonomy, it surely cannot persist in regarding what is purely a House team, chosen through intramural competition, as a University team. This is, in fact, the crux of the matter, and once University Hall confesses to this attitude the whole business can be left to the Houses where it properly belongs. Inasmuch as the House Masters have expressed their willingness to permit men on probation to play in the Yale game, the problem would then be settled with ease and speed.

Thus far, the only argument which the Dean's office has opposed to the suggestion has been simply to point to the rule that no man on probation may represent the University in athletics. No other objection has been advanced. But that objection is only a technical one, and the Interhouse Athletic Committee has suggested a plausible, and fair way of putting it at rest. The only other complication which could possibly result would come from Yale itself. Should any such complication arise, the winning House would have to carry on negotiations with the Yale House in question, and make definite arrangements, including eligibility rules, for the contest. This type of negotiation is only what will be increasingly necessary as the Yale plan develops, and contacts between Yale and Harvard Houses become more frequent. It is also a policy falling directly in line with the intention to develop the Houses into individual, autonomous units, making their own rules and establishing their own connections. The proposal of the Interhouse Athletic Committee might be seconded if on no other ground than this.

In view of the fact that a contest with Yale is due in the near future, it is hoped that University Hall will take immediate action on this suggestion, and inform the Houses as to just what scholastic leeway it will permit to the House athletes.