Bald Facts

(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld.)

To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

In my letter of December 7, I refuted the writers who discuss "big stick control" and "the tying of Eddie Casey's hands" by stating the bald and true fact that this was not correct in any detail. I did not commend the poor football season or decry the inevitable change in the coaching system; but I went behind this obvious cause to give other reasons why many ignorant people criticize the H.A.A., and to show what little foundation these reasons have Casey's own statement on Sunday made it plain that Harvard's policy has remained firm and unchangeable in the last years. It cannot be described as "tying the hands" of the coach, because his team is slated to play college with whom we have had long-standing friendships and contracts, and the loss of whom from our schedule would occasion more outcry than there has already been. If we should change our policy, as Casey suggests, and either merely play colleges up to our standards or else "go professional" ourselves, that is a future matter for the University to decide, and not up to one coach.

Mr. Donham followed up my letter and again stated the case correctly. We have answered as completely as possible the letter of December 6, which is itself a mass of vague and indefinite statements. It includes such obvious absurdities as: "An athletic administration with absolute authority over finances and publicity has completely estranged all active and enthusiastic alumni interests and support in the creation and maintenance of good football at Harvard." There has not been one proof brought up to fortify the allegation of "administrative dictatorship"; yet the writers expect more facts to answer an accusation which they have thoroughly veiled in obscure generalities. You cannot support a case with facts against an opposition which has not even brought a tangible case against you!

If Messrs. McCabe and Pattee represent, as they seem to think, the "average Harvard opinion," this opinion should either be proved correct and steps be taken to alleviate the situation they describe, or it should be shown up as false and be dismissed once and for all. To start with, let them read over Mr. Donham's letter again, if mine is too long for them. Let them remember that this contains truth gained from first-hand observation, personal contacts, and that word which means so little to them, "experience." Let them consider well if their original statements were not gathered from erroneous newspaper articles, remarks of disgrunted graduates and third hand stories, coupled with their own prejudiced opinions. If this is not the case, then, realizing the seriousness of such a charge, let them bring up their accusations against whom soever they will backed by proof, and devoid of the previous ambignous inferences.

The CRIMSON and the College would welcome such a statement. They are tired of underhand methods and backstage whispering. Warren Sturgis '35.