THE AURA of incompetence surrounding the selection of the University's new athletic director has proved an embarrassment to the administration. It has been several months since Robert B. Watson '37 announced his retirement effective this summer, and as of yet no replacement has been found. The blame for such an inexcusable delay lies not with a few individuals, but rather in the attitude with which the whole affair has been approached.
The composition of the search committee stands as a striking example of this attitude. Far too much emphasis, as nearly 40 athletes and many influential alumni have protested, has been given to graduate schools and far too little to the College itself. The mainstay of the University's athletic program is its undergraduate intercollegiate schedule, not the time allotted for graduate students to play. Unless the athletic office emphasizes an intercollegiate program, something the departed applicant Robert Peck apparently would not have favored, athletics may not receive the funds necessary to run a good intramural program. And the search committee, with the majority of its members having primary interests outside of the College, seem terribly ignorant of this fact.
Moreover, the advisability of choosing an athletic director from within the University is another facet of the selection process which the search committee has apparently overlooked. Although the pressure politics surrounding Peck's withdrawal created an ugly incident for all involved, the whole affair might have been avoided if the committee had considered more than their personal whims to begin with.
In John P. Reardon '60 and Baaron Pittenger, the search committee has two outstanding candidates who also come from within the University. The decision that has to be made involves the leadership of the entire University's athletic program. It is time to put aside the rhetoric, politics and innuendo and evaluate these candidates now on the basis of the right considerations.