REFORMERS AND ATHLETES

The curtailment of the 1932 football schedule and the decision to allow spring football to continue are both moderate solutions of differences of opinion. The athletic council has not indicated its reasons for the moves, but it is safe to say that there were two primary considerations, the demands of those interested in reform and the desires of the athletes.

In refusing to curtail spring practice the wishes of the players have won out over the demands of the reformers. It is well known that the players desire spring practice. Only those who want it need participate. Consequently it makes little difference whether or not the associations of athletic officials condemn spring practice.

In curtailing the football schedule the athletic council has probably conceded to the demands of both reformers and players. The players desire more time before the schedule opens. This has been shown to be necessary by the number of injuries suffered in opening contests last fall. Because of the large public interest in football, the reformers are probably justified in urging whatever means are possible for removing over-emphasis. Whether or not the augmented interest in the remaining games will please the reformers, or the cutting of a minor game will aid the bodily welfare of the players cannot be answered.

Neither of these decisions on Harvard's part are broadly influential. They take cognizance of the variety of forces bearing on the whole athletic situation. No one would dare affirm that Harvard sports are simon pure. The privileges given to players and the care bestowed on first string men are are too well known. But in the gradual attempt to put sports on the mythical healthy basis, the combined and sometimes dissociated efforts of players, athletic heads, and faculty officials produce a continual advance in building up a sane athletic program.