We invite all members of the University to con tribute to this column, but we are not responsible for the sentiments expressed. Every communication must be accompanied by the name of the writer.
To the Editors of the Crimson:
In response to certain inquiries regarding the distribution of Yale game tickets the management published a statement in the CRIMSON of November 26. Although this statement not only fails to give the information requested, but is moreover in itself misleading, more than a week has elapsed without any amendment or correction of the report. The report says:
"The distribution of Yale game tickets to applicants is printed below and the applications were filled in the order given: C. H. SCHWEPPE." The report adds that 673 tickets remained and were put on sale to graduates and undergraduates. The report accounts, therefore, for 673 plus 32, 739, namely, 33, 412 seats. Before the game it was generally supposed and indeed but was stated at the office of the management that there were to be more than 35,000 seats in the field. A rough count of the seats gave the same figure. It would be interesting to learn why so many less tickets were distributed than had been intended. According to the statement, "the applications were filled in the order given." A naive person would interpret this to mean, for example, that the Graduate Athletic Association was given precedence over other graduates, or that the New York Harvard Club received the worst tickets in the field. Neither is true. Of those represented in the last five classes of the list, most, although not quite all, had precedence over the majority of undergraduates. For instance, the New York Harvard Club received 884 tickets ahead of all undergraduates except H. A. A. members. The report gives no information concerning the distribution of tickets which were bought and returned. None of them were sold at the general sale, but they were all distributed to individual applicants, without any method whatever. It is unfortunately obvious that any analysis of the situation must be made without much help from the official figures. Let us consider, nevertheless, as well as we may the distribution of seats in the south stand. I am told by Mr. Schweppe that in this section there were more than 11,500 seats. Some of the very worst seats in the corners of this section were drawn upon regular undergraduate applications. Now the to all number of seats assigned to under graduates may be found by adding items, three, four, five and six in the above report, and is 7,949. Assuming that all these seats were on the south stand, still it is evident that at least 11;500 seats were given out before all undergraduate applications had been filled. In other words more than 3,500 other applications were filled before or during the assignment to undergraduates. Of this number only 1,565 are accounted for in the report in the item, "Players' and Coaches' applications;" and I learn from one who is in a position to know all the facts that this figure represents the tickets given not merely to players and coaches, but also to a large number of men to whom tradition has given the privilege of early application. Whatever criticism there may be in the presentation of these figurer is directed not against the present management, which has in some respects improved the methods of its predecessors, but against the system which has been handed down to it. Not the system as published, but the system as practised--a system under which one man is given the responsibility of distributing outside of and at the same time with the regular distribution, several thousand tickets according to his discretion. These tickets are given out in all parts of the field; the position depending upon the strength of the applicant's claim. Is it surprising that under the stress of such a responsibility the management finds itself unable to distribute the other tickets according to schedule, that, for instance, H. A. A. members, contrary to agreement, were assigned seats on or behind the goal lines, while ordinary undergraduate applications were filled with better seats? The management cannot deeds each case on its merits and depends largely on precedent. So for instance the Harvard Club of New York receives 884 preferred seats while Philadelphia graduates or Boston graduates or Cambridge graduates, members of our Faculty, sit at the end of the field. Can it be claimed that New York graduates are willing to do or have done more for the University than other graduates? Even if it were so, let us believe that a Harvard alumnus serves his Alma Mater out of love, and without thought of such rewards. If the management gave recognition to every graduate, rich or poor, who has done what he could to serve the University there would be few tickets left for undergraduates. There are some, undoubtedly, to whom honorary privileges should be given,--distinguished visitors, high officials, men whom the whole. University loves for their love to the University,--but to prune down the present wholesale discrimination in the distribution of tickets would mean no injustice to any one, but greater justice to all. To criticize an old system is easier than to construct a new one, and the reconstruction must be done by those familiar with the whole situation. Perhaps, however, of the following suggestions, gathered from various sources, one or two may prove of value. Let the athletic manager be a man experienced in business affairs. Let him distribute the tickets according to definite rules made by the Athletic Committee and applied without discrimination or exception. Let the committee itself reserve in the centre of the field a block of seats, not to exceed 1200, for the players, coaches, invited guests and other privileged persons. Let the committee or a subcommittee decide who may apply in this section, and for how many seats. Let all other tickets be put in the hands of the manager and distributed according to the system decided upon. The following system would present some advantages: Let all applicants be divided into three classes: First, students and all others officially connected with the University, in other words, all whose names appear in the University directory; second, graduates; third, all others. In view of the success of the undergraduate cheering section, I suggest the formation of a graduate cheering section. Those who remember the cheering of the graduates under Mr. Wendell's leadership at the old Tree exercises will realize what an addition this would be to organized enthusiasm. To these two cheering sections respectively the members of the first two classes would be entitled to one ticket apiece. Tickets would be non-transferable. Men taking advantage of the, privilege of applying for these seats should not be entitled to further application. The order of assignment would then be: (1) Tickets reserved by the committee. (2) Cheering section for applican's of the first class. (3) Graduate cheering section. (4) To members of class one, holding H. A. A. or season tickets. (5) To other members of class one. (6) To graduates holding season tickets. And so on as at present. The selling of tickets to speculators and the accumulation by one person of a number of signed undergraduate applications, are evils which cannot be wholly suppressed, but might be lessened by a rule requiring all applicants of the first class to apply in person at the manager's office and there sign his application together with an agreement not to sell his tickets for more than cost price, nor in any case to men known to be speculators. Whether these suggestions or others are finally judged most advantageous, the system selected should fulfill two requirements. First, fairness to all present and past members of the University; second, such simplicity that the system may be carried out rigorously and without confusion. GILBERT N. LEWIS
Read more in News
PRIZES AND SCHOLARSHIPS.
