News

The Path to Public Service at SEAS

News

Should Supreme Court Justices Have Term Limits? That ‘Would Be Fine,’ Breyer Says at Harvard IOP Forum

News

Harvard Right to Life Hosts Anti-Abortion Event With Students For Life President

News

Harvard Researchers Debunk Popular Sleep Myths in New Study

News

Journalists Discuss Trump’s Effect on the GOP at Harvard IOP Forum

THE HARVRD UNION.

NO WRITER ATTRIBUTED

The meeting of the Union Thursday evening to discuss the interference of the Harvard faculty in athletics was one of the most interesting of the year. The question for debate read, Resolved, "That the interference of the Harvrd faculty in athletics is justifiable." On the secret ballot on the merits of the question the faculty were sustained by a vote of 35 to 21. Mr. A. G. Webster, '85, then opened the debate in the affirmative, claiming that the game of foot-ball had degenerated greatly of late, and to sustain his position quoted from a New York newspaper in its account of the Harvard-Yale game. He also declared it well known that the Harvard eleven had gone to Princeton, determined to disable a prominent player if necessary to win the game. Mr. J. H. McIntosh, '84, opened for the negative. He drew an elaborate simile between the government of a state and the government of a faculty, and said that athletics were out of the control of the faculty, whose only duty was to aid the university in the promotion of its one aim-science. Mr. E. L. Conandt, '84, in approving the action of the faculty showed how the river and Jarvis field, which should be for the use of all, had been given up to a few men, and said that athletics had extended beyond their proper sphere and needed due oversight and regulation. The debate of the regular disputants was closed by Mr. S. E. Winslow, '85, who argued that the faculty had not right to interfere simply because football or base-ball were played somewhat differently from the time when they (the faculty) were in college. Improvements had taken place in these sports as in everything else. He failed to see ho9w college men would be contaminated by instructions from, or a few games with, professionals.

Mr. W. A. Halbert, '85, from the floor, declared for non-interference and said the whole tendency of the college administration was away from the theory of paternal government. Mr. John Codman, '85, defended the Harvard eleven from the charge of the affirmative that they had gone to Princeton with blood-thirsty intentions. The only violent talk comes from a few men not on the eleven nor truly in sympathy with it. Mr. C. R. Saunders, '84, pointed out the essential difference between civil and faculty government in the simile brought up by he negative. The faculty were not trying to hamper legitimate athletics, but simply to do away with "legalized ruffianism" and put the game of football on a higher plane than at present. The game, with the proposed modifications in the rules, would be just as attractive to all, and much more gentlemanly. The vote on the arguments of the regular dispubants showed 21 for the affirmative and 31 for the negative. The entire debate was decided 17 to 15 for the negative. The selection of the question for the next debate was left to the executive committee and the meeting then adjourned.

Want to keep up with breaking news? Subscribe to our email newsletter.

Tags