Equalizing Athletes

When the varsity swimming team defeated Yale in 1938, College students circulated a petition asking that swimming be elevated from a minor to a major sport. This was done and swimming has retained its "major" status ever since. Though no discredit to swimming, this incident illustrates the unfortunate arbitrariness of the present athletic letter system. A varsity letter shod primarily be a personal token of recognition which the College gives to a player. Only as a secondary function should a letter distinguish a player from the rest of the student body. But the policy of the Athletic Association has made the secondary purpose that primary one. It has distinguished between major and minor sports, on the basis of outside popularity rather than that of participant contribution. This emphasis upon the spectator contradicts the College's overall policy, implicit in its intramural program, that if sport not for sport's sake, it is at least for the benefit of its participants.

No one will deny that some sports are more popular than others. A football game will always draw larger crowds than a fencing match. Yet from the player's point of view outside popularity is arbitrary. Baseball has declined considerably since the twenties, and though spectator appeal sustains basketball and hockey, track and crew depend upon tradition for their headlines and their "major" status. The H.A.A. has faithfully tried to reflect the student body's interest, as in 1938. It has never, however, elevated a sport primarily for the players. This de-emphasis of the individual player is evident in the present organization of the undergraduate Athletic Council, where the seven major sports have one representative each while the twelve minor sports share only three members between them. Obviously a sport's outside popularity determines its representation.

From the point of view of the actual participant, however, one sport is as athletic as another. A wrestler, or a soccer or tennis player for example, works just as hard as a basketball player, even though the H.A.A. designates him as "minor." Indeed, the same track runner who receives a major letter in the spring probably received a minor letter in the fall for cross country. In reality, however, few athletes even consider the status of a sport when they tryout for it. Instead of being a personal token from the College, a major letter thus becomes an arbitrary distinction, awarded by outside popularity t the athlete who was on the right team. Clearly then, all letters should have the same value. An equal amount of effort deserves equal recognition.

The members of specialized, non-physical sports, however, such as riflery and sailing, do not exert the same athletic effort as does a football player. Thus they do not deserve the same recognition. These presently minor sports would have to forfeit this status and remain organized as clubs. Already several actual sports, such as cricket and rugby, are, because of their limited nature, only clubs. In return for this sacrifice, the H.A.A. should continue its services to these activities, such as scheduling their meets. The physical sports which are still "minor" should in turn raise their letter-awarding requirements to equal the standards of the big sports; they will thus not harm the major sports by comparison.

"Minor" and "major" has long differentiated not only sports but players. But several years ago Princeton did away with this distinction, and Yale students have also agitated for its abolition. The Undergraduate Athletic Council should study this problem, and should recommend to the Faculty that the "major" and "minor" distinction be abolished. If sport for sport's sake is the aim of athletes, then equalized awards--sport for players--should be the goal of the H.A.A.