Varsity Club: Pro

To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I have been following with interest the debate being conducted in your columns over the advisability of blowing a quarter of a million dollars in putting up another Varsity Club. Originally the notion struck me as absurd on its face, but on Thursday last an argument was produced in its favor that seems unanswerable, and I must therefore strike my colors with as good grace as possible.

It appears that twenty-one members of the baseball team have-rightly, as I now perceive-subscribed to a letter endorsing this construction. The manager of the team, explaining their stand, stated that "the Varsity Club is inadequate because it is so far out of the way." To this line of reasoning all must bow.

Bigots and obstructionists will want to claim that since the present Club is next to the Union, at the entrance to the Yard, it is not so remote. But this sophistic reasoning falls apart when we consider that (a) Members of the Club presumably do not go to classes frequently, perhaps do not go at all, and therefore, its proximity to the Yard means nothing; (b) furthermore, the Union itself is inadequate. Dunster, the New Lecture Hall, the Law, Divinity and Dental Schools, the Charles River, the Glass Flowers, the Coop and all the rest of it are inadequate. And as for the Observatory in South Africa...!

Our experiences in the last football season, when the team was continually plagued by injuries, should silence every critic. This walking around is exactly what we want to avoid. Physical exertion and dangerous injuries go hand in hand. Strained ankles, pulled sinews, Charley Horse, water on the knee, scuffed shoes, groin trouble and dislocated hips are the price that the Members pay for our perverse negligence in making them walk from place to place. J. P. C. Train '50