A TWO-SPORT RULE AT HARVARD?

In the last year or so, the sport pages have, as have the undergraduates themselves, taken an increasingly sane attitude about college athletics. Grantland Rice's paragraphs, reprinted in an adjoining column and typical of this happy change, deserve consideration here at Harvard. Moreover, if all of Mr. Rice's facts are true, more than mere consideration is demanded.

Statistics on what happens to athletes after their graduation from college are not lacking, but the accuracy and value of these compilations have frequently been called into question. Since, obviously, most statistics must deal with men who sweated on the turf or cinders at least a quarter of a century ago, it is difficult to estimate what changes have been effected by the increased supervision and more efficient medical attention of today. At any rate, it would be worth any effort expended to determine the opinion of leading medical authorities as regards the effects of excessive competition in athletics.

Whatever the outcome of these findings it would still remain a dubious question whether Harvard should adopt the two-sport rule of the Southern Conference. Undergraduates generally prefer their liberty, even if it might mean their death. It is certain, however, that if real justification is found for the rule now enforced among Southern institutions, it is the duty of the University at least to give adequate warning to participators in three or four sports and to offer such men more frequent and more thorough medical examinations than they might ordinarily receive.