AN ATHLETE SPEAKS

From out of the Middle West comes what is without doubt the soundest indictment of the present condition of college athletics yet to reach the public. A brief biography of the author makes clear that he possesses the outward qualifications at least to discuss the question intelligently.

Jefferson D. Burrus is a Senior at the University of Wisconsin. For three years he has played football at end for his university, and this year captains the Wisconsin crew. Moreover he has recently been elected Rhodes Scholar from the State of Wisconsin, which conveys the impression that his scholarly achievements approach his athletic record in excellence. Backed by the Wisconsin Union, Burrus writes on "The Present Intercollegiate Athletic System". After an exhaustive study of the situation he writes, "I have tried to present what I believe is the predominate attitude toward college athletics of four closely interested classes, the student's, the student-athlete's, the faculty's, and the coaches'."

Briefly his objections to the present scheme of things are: (1) Athletics are too intense for a few. (2) The majority lacks opportunity for athletic participation. (3) Varsity athletes are too much in the limelight. (4) Cut throat competition is forced on the coaches by the football public. (5) Students and faculty have too little control of athletics.

Going ahead logically to point out a remedy for each fault enumerated, Burrus makes the following suggestions as steps to cure the specific evils: (1) Replace Freshman and Sophomore gymnasium with two years of compulsory sports. (2) Limit intercollegiate competition to Juniors and Seniors or to Sophomores and Juniors. (3) Limit each sport to its season. (4) Limit daily practice for each sport. (5) Limit each student to participation in one intercollegiate sport, or prohibition of participation in successive sports. (6) Give students and faculty greater control of athletics.

It is perhaps too early to predict any results to come out of the Burrus survey. The law on diminishing utility seems to work in the world of athletic panaceas and to date this report which parallels in some ways the plan proposed recently by President Hopkins of Dartmouth, has failed to stir up the looked for storm of discussion. And yet the suggestions are sound, the changes practical in the extreme. Now that the excitement and novelty of the first cries for athletic reform in the colleges has died down, the general attitude seems to be one of mild approval in theory and of indifferent tolerance in practice.

In regard to the actual suggestions, the first alone seems to have no particular virtue. Organized sports are preferable to compulsory gymnasium exercise, but the cure is not in substituting one compulsion for another. The alternative of the fifth proposal, prohibition of participation in successive sports, seems more practical than that of limiting a man to one sport. It eliminates the evil of continuous training, without depriving the versatile athlete unnecessarily of a real enjoyment which he may find in intercollegiate athletic competition. The remaining points merit serious consideration. Harvard might well lead the East in acting along the lines suggested by the Middle West.