Segregation and the H.A.A.

The basketball team gained national publicity for the first time in many years last week, and while the occasion was probably not as exciting to sports fans as a report of a long winning streak or a tournament bid, for the University and the nation it was of considerably greater significance.

For behind the words "Faculty Committee on Athletics" and "control of eligibility" lay a certain, resolute position--that Harvard University cannot accept the principle of segregation and will not be a party to its practice on the athletic field any more than in ordinary educational procedures.

In the past, the University was given no alternative but refusing to take part in a track meet where one of its members would have been barred because of race. But this season the basketball team could have played Loyola of New Orleans and Georgia Tech without infringing any local laws or regulations, or even enraging the less civilized elements of the populace. There are no Negroes on the basketball squad this year, and the question of race could have been ignored.

Such a moral stand is the best sort of influence that can be exerted upon the reactionary elements of the South. It does not imply force or blatantly demand a change of customs which are deeply believed in; it says that Harvard cannot associate itself with the application of these customs.

The position was well-taken, but a minor reservation arises as to the manner of its presentation to the public. It would appear that the Department of Athletics tried to keep the story quiet. Releases were mailed to only a part of the regular mailing list, and there was careful wording to avoid the mention of the word "Negro," and to stress the word "eligibility." Furthermore, the issue was released during the World Series, when it could normally expect little notice on sports pages.

Of course, the World Series was rained out, and word of the release spread among various correspondents at Harvard. The publicity was extensive, and the University's point of view was clearly and accurately explained to the country.

Because no individual would have been subjected to embarrassment, it might be supposed that the University could issue a statement equal in forthrightness to the wisdom of its stand. Yet in the final analysis, little or no harm was done by the chosen approach, and the most important conclusion is that the University rates commendation for its action.