ROWING REFORM

On the front page, the CRIMSON prints today a long and sincere discussion of the crew situation at Harvard, written by a graduate and former oarsman, who hopes to precipitate an open forum on rowing at Harvard from which may come advantageous reforms. Mr. Foster's letter, however well-meant it is, is based entirely on a misconception of the part the alumnus is to play in the conduct of college affairs. Further, it assumes what the CRIMSON feels cannot rightly be assumed that rowing conditions at Harvard are at present in a state that demands reforms.

When Mr. Bingham came to Harvard, he set several major tasks for himself. One of these was to get rowing back to a healthy condition, under which the Harvard undergraduates who wished to take exercise on the river might do so with sufficient equipment, sane supervision, and adequate coaching. In all these things, Mr. Bingham has succeeded tolerably well. The fact that rowing today attracts more followers among undergraduates than any other sport is convincing proof that there can be nothing seriously wrong with the present organization of the sport.

The main and very strong objection to Mr. Foster's major proposal--for a graduate committee of fifty to have complete direction of rowing--is that most of the evils that had crept into crew at Harvard were directly traceable to the upsetting influence of the old Graduate Rowing Committee. Few indeed were the compensating benefits for this outside supervision, and no reasons suggest themselves for believing that history would not repeat itself.

The direction of the University, in all its ramifications should be left as far as possible to the officials of the University themselves. If the alumni or the undergraduates feel that there is room for improvement, it is their right and duty to let the University hear their criticism. The final authority should lie irrevocably with the University authorities.

As for the specific and less important suggestions offered by Mr. Foster, they are more controversial matters of training and procedure, on which the CRIMSON is not qualified to pass judgement. It is perfectly possible that better coaching methods might produce more winning crews than Harvard has had in recent years, but victory or defeat at New London is by no means a fair criterion of rowing at Harvard. In the long run, the Crimson standard will gather unto it, its share of victories. As long as the actual conditions are satisfactory from the undergraduate's point of view, there is no cause for widespread reform.