It must seem to some observers that the present cudgeling over the question of cheer leading rests less upon an absolute opposition than upon a failure to separate the various issues involved. One batallion urges the retention of the present system, in the name of "indifference"; its opponents urge the competitive system in the expectation that it will aid in the restoration of Harvard's athletic prowess. Are these two slogans really incompatible?

For those who insist upon every man's right to "indifference", there is no horror greater than the meaningless bombast of college yells. Those chaotic confusions of trills, barks, and sensless syllables arouse, and justly, the disgust of those who hope that college is a breeding ground of intelligent manhood. But is there in the recommendation of the Council any suggestion that such idiocies are to be perpetrated? The present cheer, when efficiently and enthusiastically supported by the stands, resounds majestically within the Stadium and the Bowl. There is no threat against the dignity and strength of the traditional cheer.

The "indifferents" might justly revolt against the introduction of collegiate barbarisms, but the issue is not of changing the cheer, but of securing a maximum of volume and rhythm in the present cheer. A system of competition is to be established. But the crowd at a game is singularly averse to experiments in cheering, since vocal enthusiasm is only a by-product of interest in the game; and "chamber-expositions" of cheering are hardly a satisfactory test of merit in the field. Any group of vigorous and agile young men, who attack the problem with sufficient intelligence, numbers, and zest, can swing a favorable crowd into their own enthusiasm. The present corps of captains has in general, these qualifications, with the added advantages of undergraduate respect and actual experience of playing. It is extremely doubtful that any competitive system, however well planned, has greater potentialities than the present arrangement.