THE NEXT MOVE

Discussion of the CRIMSON'S Football Program has already gone far enough to establish at least one fact beyond all further question. Major Cavanaugh in his speech before the Debating Union asserted with great gusto and assurance that he had heard of no overemphasis of football at New Haven, that no hint of it had come from Princeton, and that any one who mentioned such a thing at Hanover would be shot at dawn. But it seems that the Major was a bit premature.

From New Haven comes word that "the Yale News is in complete sympathy with the CRIMSON'S idea." The Princetonian likewise echoes the CRIMSON with an editorial statement that "the sideshow is seriously threatening to swallow the big show." And the Dartmouth undergraduate paper writes: "We agree with the Harvard CRIMSON. . . Intercollegiate football is a menace in its present form, and steps should be taken to restore it to its properly subordinate position." And the days continue to dawn without any shooting.

When the editorials printed on this subject by the undergraduate papers of Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Dartmouth are placed side by side, one discovers a significant nucleus of agreement between them all. All of them agree that intercollegiate football is overemphasized. All of them point out that this overemphasis manifests itself by setting up false standards of values both within the college and in the world outside. All of them recognize that football has a very necessary and proper place in college life. And all of them submit pleas for restoring it to its proper place.

The four papers do not agree however, in all the details of their plans. It would be very strange if they did. Each has offered its own solution to the common problem. Each has attempted in its own way to be constructive. And every proposal deserves careful consideration. The Crimson, indrafting its suggestions, not only embodied in them the best thought of its editors but obtained also the advice, criticism and approval of several varsity players and football authorities. The Crimson does not know how the other college papers prepared their suggestions, but there is in each plan evidence of careful and constructive thought.

These four papers have now placed the common problem before their respective colleges, and have done what they could to indicate its solution. Everything now points to a conference to work out details of agreement. It is generally conceded that progress in reducing the overemphasis of football must be gradual. No one advocates radical changes at this time. Each college paper realizes that public opinion is not ready for radical changes. But the agreement of all four papers indicates that undergraduate opinion in Harvard, Yale, Princeton and Dartmouth has reached the point where it is ready to support the first constructive step. This is the problem that now confronts the Athletic Committees.