ATHLETIC TRUISMS

American athletics have long been a point of attack for foreign and native critics. Disproportionate emphasis, professionalism, limitation of athletics to the few on a "varsity" team or crew, have been the weak points singled out for attack. Since the war, however, there has been at least in the East an encouraging tendency to recognize both the good and bad in American athletics and an attempt to remedy the defects. The "Presidents' Agreement" between Yale, Princeton and Harvard is one example; another is the report of the standing committee of the Board of Overseers on health and athletic sports, published today.

The report is further evidence, if any is needed, that the University is committed to the idea of "athletics for all". "We believe", says the report, "that the program of 'athletics for all', which the University authorities are now developing, is of immense benefit;" as proof of the success of this policy the report cites the increased use of athletic facilities especially in the case of squash racquets and rowing. It has long been a reflection on American athletics that eleven men should be highly trained and organized to "play a game" while 3000 other men should be highly trained and organized to watch the game and cheer. Harvard fortunately is committed to a different policy.

"The chief problem", declares the report in discussing the disproportionate emphasis on athletics and football in particular, "is one of relative values; and it must be met, in our opinion, by following the principle that athletics is an element in the education of the individual to be given its due place but no more than that; the object being the all-round development -- intellectual, physical, and moral--of the student." Only one criticism of this is possible--the idea of athletics as a means rather than an end has become so fixed in all intelligent discussion of the problem at Harvard, that to approve such an idea has become almost a platitude.

Perhaps the most valuable part of the Committee's work is the definition of the relation between the University, the Athletic Committee and the Athletic Association. Pointing out that the Athletic Association "has long since ceased to be an association in anything but name", the committee goes on to state that it is in reality "the athletic department of the University, and its active head, the graduate treasurer, is the executive officer of the Athletic Committee, which is answerable to the Governing Boards," and that "what seems to be an outside organization is in reality, as it should be, an integral part of the University."

The report has made clear the essential relation between the University and the Athletic Association, but it has done more than that--it has advocated (and the Board of Overseers has approved) the "logical action of placing the surplus funds of the Athletic Association in the hands of the treasurer of the University." It was this move which has been interpreted in some quarters as a Crub an athletics and a "big step heaver faculty control." Such an interpretation is quite unwarranted. There will be few to deny that the University has an interest in the development of new athletic facilities and that the placing of surplus funds in the hands of the University treasurer is merely a logical and commendable recognition of an interest and relation which has long existed.

From the rest of the report two points stand out which suggest matters quite aside from athletics. In turning over to the Athletic Association "the general facilities for indoor as well as outdoor sport", the University will effect "a saving of something like $20,000 a year." It is easy to suggest uses for this windfall; but if it is to be turned to academic advantage, it could hardly be used more profitably than for installing the Tutorial System in departments where it has not yet been adopted. And in another significant section, the Committee points out the need for "a large indoor athletic building, . . . not to replace the Hemenway Gymnasium but to supplement it." With the desirability of a gymnasium, a chemical laboratory, and a dormitory so very apparent, it is amazing that the alumni committee for a Harvard War Memorial should have deemed it wise to propose a new chapel.