Nile or Denial?

THE HARVARD CREW will race in Egypt during Christmas vacation. With a tense Mideast situation, one would expect there to have been open deliberation over the moral and political implications of such a trip among the parties involved in the decision--the Administrative Board, the Standing Committee on Athletics, and the Harvard crew. In fact, there was none.

The crew has participated in the event, a reenactment of an ancient Nile competition, twice before. Last year, the regatta was cancelled because of the Mideast war.

In its short history, the event has never been open or competitive. Only Harvard, Yale, Oxford and Cambridge--certainly not the ancient entries--have been invited to race the Cairo police and two Egyptian university crews. Harvard, with a makeshift crew, has always won. Coach Harry Parker recently admitted, "It's difficult to take the racing too seriously. We have to use borrowed boats and, because it is during the winter, there is no extensive preparation."

Though Harvard's invitation comes from the Egyptian Rowing Federation, Egypt's Ministry of Tourism foots most of the bill. Crew members pay only their airfare to London. Part of a larger Nile festival, the actual racing will occupy a small part of the eight days the crew will spend in Egypt. Most of the time will be spent touring the country.

The crew thinks of the trip as a good will mission. Yet, no one ever considered the pressing question as to whether Egypt deserves their goodwill. In the past Egypt has had the most conciliating policies toward Israel among the Arab nations.

However, in recent weeks, it has compromised its original peacemaking intentions. Israel claims that Egypt has violated their disengagement agreement. Egypt has upped the ante on the Suez Canal, requiring Isreal to make yet another withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula before Egypt will open the canal--a clear sign of bad faith.

More importantly, at Rabat, Egypt joined with the other Arab nations in endorsing the PLO, the blanket Palestinian terrorist organization committed to the liquidation of the Jewish state of Isreal. The PLO's past achievements are all too familiar. The murders of the children in Maalot, the diplomats at Khartoum and the 11 Israeli athletes at the Munich Olympic games are merely the first that come to mind.

In representing Harvard, the crew lends a certain degree of respectability to the Egyptian government. And in the past, Egypt has received a lot of press concerning the event. Yet, this year, the Harvard administration chose not to confront the issue of its tacit support for Egypt.

Head of Athletics Robert Watson explained that in the Standing Committee on Athletics, which approved the trip, "The issue was not discussed at any length. We simply made reference to it."

Dudley House Senior Tutor John Marquand said that he didn't recall any discussion of the matter in the Administrative Board, which gave permission to the crew to miss school. "There was some on previous occasions," he said, "but that was mainly concerned with the crew's safety."

IT IS NOT true that anytime a team travels to a country, it is condoning that country's policies. But when a nation's policies are highly controversial, the trip may possibly be interpreted as an act of approval. This same question would arise if the team decided to go to Isreal. Members of the Harvard community would feel strongly both for and against such a trip. In all fairness, therefore, the administration should at some point consider both poles of sentiment in reaching a decision about the trip to Egypt.

Ideally, international sports competition would be apolitical--there would be no national teams. Each athlete or team would compete for the sake of individual or collective satisfaction and not to further a nation's glory and all of its self-interested policies. Since international competition is politicized, an athlete or a team must consider carefully whether competing in a particular event will help break down or further enforce deeply entrenched nationalistic interests in the international sports arena. If Harvard is not willing to make this kind of decision, it is up to the individuals on the Harvard crew. But the oarsmen's response has been apathetic.

On crew member confessed, "I know there are moral implications involved, but I'd rather not think about them. I'd just like to go to Egypt because I think it would be a fun trip. I think everyone on the crew feels that way."

Said another oarsman, "Yes, I think everyone on the crew does feel that way."

Said another, "For me, it's just another race."

The Harvard crew, representing the United States at the 1968 Mexico City Olympics, faced a similar dilemma. Their response was to act. On July 24th, five of its members became the first group of competing white athletes to publicly support the Olympic Project for Human Rights, an organization planning to boycott the games in support of black solidarity. On October 20th, after much internal deliberation, the crew did row in the finals. But, as one of the Harvard Athletic Office officials said at the time, "They are Harvard men; you just couldn't expect them to go to the Olympics and ignore this."

AT SOME POINT, the members of the Harvard crew will have to consider issues more serious than the "fun" that will be derived from their competition. They owe it to themselves--and ultimately to all those who compete internationally in the future--to at least consider the moral and political implications of their cruise down the Nile this Christmas.