O'ER THE STANDS THE BATTLE RAGES

Today, according to reports, the Corporation will take definite action on the Stadium enlargement problem, for some years under discussion, and this year, by the action of the Boston Building Commissioners, made of immediate moment.

Already it would seem there are two factions among Harvard men, both undergraduate and graduate--those supporting the proposal of Director of Athletics William J. Bingham and the Athletic Committee for a Stadium to seat 80,000, and those opposing any alteration in the present structure which would materially increase its accommodations for spectators.

Building proposals have before this caused a sharp split. One need only name the War Memorial controversy which is still raging or the objections raised a few years ago when the new Business Schoool group was undertaken. Ordinarily, perhaps, the raising of a new building is purely a practical matter: a need exists for a building, say a new lecture hall, and the building is put up without dissent. It is when the practical clashes with an ideal, or with that immaterial substance known as sentiment that there arises disagreement, and sometimes bitter controversy.

What are the arguments set forth by the proponents of a greatly enlarged Stadium? And how are they being answered by those who are loath to see any radical alteration of the present amphitheatre?

The first group points out that the Stadium has never been large enough it contains only 22,000 non-temporary seats; that even had the Stadium been large enough for the Harvard of 1903, it certainly is not large enough for the present Harvard--enrollment has practically doubled, so has the number of graduates and the teaching staff, while the resources of the University have been multiplied five times, and the expenses of the Athletic Association have increased ten-fold; that intercollegiate athletics are now thoroughly endorsed by the Faculty; that the backbone of every endowed educational institution is its long-suffering alumni body, and that the graduates are therefore entitled to consideration; that we are lacking in generosity not only to our own graduates but to those of Yale in providing them with fewer seats for the Cambridge games than the Yale authorities provide our graduates for Bowl games; that a larger Stadium would not attract a larger "public" crowd; and finally that the cost of enlarging the Stadium could easily be paid for out of the excess profits within a period of ten years without in any way changing the present "athletics-for-all" policy.

Those opposing any radical enlargement of the Stadium contend that it would put Harvard football on a professional basis--people would not come to see Harvard play, but to see football played, and with this change in purpose would come all the other disadvantages of professional athletics; that to pay for the Stadium would make this general invitation to the public necessary at all but the Yale game; that this marks a definite shift from "athletics-for-all" to "a chance to see athletics-for-all"--that Harvard needs a golf course and other equipment for active use more than a Stadium which would be filled at most twice a year; that the present Stadium, architecturally, is unrivalled, and that the proposed enlargement would make it a monstrosity, also unrivalled; that intercollegiate football is primarily for the undergraduates, not for the graduates; and that larger stadia place the emphasis on bigger and better athletics and so overshadow the main and essential function of a college education.

If it be admitted that the graduates are entitled to two seats to the Yale game, there seems to be no way of denying that a Stadium of 50,000 capacity is inadequate. Harvard's College graduates alone number some 25,000, and Yale's graduates must also be invited if Harvard's graduates are to see the games more often than every other year. This alone, when the undergraduates of the two institutions are included in the total, renders the present Stadium or even one with the open end closed, seating 50,000 or so, inadequate. Nor does there seem to be any good reason why graduates of the graduate schools--law, business, medicine--should be limited to one seat, the number which they are forced, very much against their will, to accept now. These men are asked to contribute to the various drives of the University, they are eligible and energetic workers at the many Harvard Clubs, and if they do root for the opposing team, do so only in the few cases where this team happens to be also their alma mater or when they are piqued at having to attend the game, unlike the Harvard College graduate, alone.

Whether one likes it or not, there seems to be no gainsaying the fact that Harvard depends for her existence and development upon the support of her graduates, both those of the College and those of the professional schools, come impossible, to give these men two seats for the Yale game. Perhaps they With a Stadium seating less than 80,000 it is now impossible or will soon be-are unreasonable, perhaps they should forego their desires for the sake of saving a beautiful structure and for the sake of rendering football at Harvard wholly beyond the reach of even possible professionalism. Perhaps they should sacrifice themselves for the sake of the ideals set forth by the opponents of a bigger and better Stadium.

But even should they remain adamant in their demand for tickets, there does not seem to be any reason why a large Stadium must inevitably prove an evil, though it must be admitted that the evils feared by the opponents of any change will be made more readily possible with an 80,000 capacity structure. In regard to the "professional" fear it should be remembered that there is even now, with the small Stadium, an open sale of tickets to all the games but those against Dartmouth and Yale, and that the "outside", undesirable element does not even under these conditions till the present structure. Why, then, should they be any more eager to see Harvard play merely because the size of the Stadium has been increased? The architectural argument won't hold water either, for any closing in of the open end of the Stadium other than the present wooden structure, will ruin the colonnade and the two towers. And if properly administered, the enlargement can be paid for without affecting the "athletics-for-all" policy of the Association.

Despite all this, however, there is no denying that there are many who, reason or no reason, do not like the idea of a larger Stadium. Even those who must confess that the claims of the Athletic Association are just, somehow wish that it might be otherwise. It is to this class that the CRIMSON belongs. Figures, charts, statistics, the practical is undoubtedly on the side of those desiring an enlarged Stadium. Sentiment, tradition, perhaps even a sort of foolish idealism seems no less certainly on the side of those opposing the proposed change.