The CRIMSON has asked a number of men prominent in Harvard athletics to give their opinions concerning the advisability and value of organized cheering both in regard to its effect on the teams and upon the University as a whole. The opinions follows:

Professor H. S. White '73.

In reply to your request for an expression of opinion on the subject of applause at games, let me say that my answer to the question whether to cheer or not to cheer would be in the affirmative. The difficulty in the matter seems to me to be not so much with reference to the existence of applause, as to the kind of applause and its application. The elaborate system of cheering which is now carried to its logical conclusion by the complete division of the rival camps of spectators into consecutive or continuous vocal bands, is only one illustration of the national tendency to do nothing by halves, which has resulted in many highly organized enterprises in business, politics and education. This ingenious mechanism of special cheering-sections, including elaborate rehearsals of songs and cries, appeals to the spectacular instinct in us and contributes to the unthinking enjoyment of the general audience. The objectionable features are a lack of spontaneity, the perfunctory punctuation of proceedings on the field by mechanical manifestations of approval or disapproval, and the risk that occasionally such well-meaning hordes of heelers, with their hectic cheers exceeding all bounds of legitimate applause, may drift into intentional preparations to secure victory by vociferation,--a poor way to lose the contest, to be sure, but a worse way to win it. This is the real mischief of the business,--not in the act itself, but in the exaggeration and ill-directed utilization. Such occurrences as the explosive demonstrations by yachts aligned upon the last mile of boat races, demonstrations strictly forbidden by the course-regulations, and which render any communications in the boats themselves impossible; or the noisy attempts of crowds to disconcert a player who is essaying a place kick, or to rattle a pitcher at a critical moment, or of players themselves, who imitate the tactics of cheap professional teams with hysterical cacklings on and off the diamond,--these are sad signs of a decadent sportsmanship. To be sure, the true athlete will keep his eye on the ball rather than on the bleachers, and his thoughts on the game rather than on the outside gamesters; taking his cue from the captain instead of the crowd; but even the steadiest players are not always fire proof.

Our athletic contests have sometimes been called "war." Possibly they may partake of the nature of war, but we should not forget that after all it is a mimic war, and that the players themselves are perhaps more conscious of this difference than the spectators. Too much is the athlete regarded as a fighter in a great cause, whose efforts must be supported both on and off the field in every possible way. A cloud of witnesses around the grounds, holding his every action in full survey, seems to be regarded as a legitimate division of the army, which has its own necessary function to perform and the athlete in the arena is applauded to the fatal end, like Tennyson's warrior:

"Whose eyes are dim with glorious tears,

When soiled with noble dust he hears

His country's war song thrill his ears;

Then dying with a mortal stroke

What time the foreman's line is broke,

And all the war is rolled in smoke!"

One great objection to our athletics at the present time is this demoralization of the non-athletic masses, who often treat the stranger within our gates not only as a stranger, but, in the good old classical sense, as an enemy too.

Is it not the business of those who have these matters in charge,--the cheerers as well as the cheered,--to see that intercollegiate contests shall not become detrimental to both participants and spectators? Without abating one jot of spirited emulation in testing one another's mettle, may we not pursue these contests in a spirit of fair dealing and mutual concession, without the loss of chivalrous temper, and with the cultivation of cordial relations and of a common esprit de corps?

Not suppression of applause is my conclusion, then, nor even repression; but only a sensible control and direction of it. A control which may make it the vehicle of a cordial expression of generous appreciation of every neat performance, whether by the friends we love or by the foes we ought to cherish. Let all allowances be made for excusable and inoffensive partisanship,--barring the unmelodious horn of cracked tin,--but in our partisan enthusiasm let us not overstep the boundaries of courtesy. Even among the ancient Hebrews, whose code demanded eye for eye and tooth for tooth, the stranger who was in their camp, within their gates, was to be left unvexed and unoppressed.

Dr. E. H. Nichols '86.

No one who has ever participated in any public athletic contest will deny that spontaneous applause for a good performance is an encouraging and inspiring evidence of sympathy. The most efficient cheer in the world is the sudden hush followed by the outburst which follows a really good play. To enable a large crowd to express its sympathy a certain amount of organization may be necessary, but in my opinion the good effect of organized cheering is greatly exaggerated. If there is to be organized cheering there are one or two essentials. In the first place there must be dash, enthusiasm, and speed to the cheer. Nothing is more depressing than a slow drawling cheer from one's own adherents, especially if the opponents cheer with confidence and enthusiasm. In the second place, continuous cheering a team that is believed to be beaten is almost always detrimental. The players always realize more than the spectators the task that is before them, and continual cheering of a nearly beaten team is quite likely to make the players feel that the spectators are losing confidence, and that feeling is very likely to be transmitted to the players.