The reason why Harvard athletic authorities have chosen to abandon the non-scouting system is not, as one might suppose from a perusal of the Yale News' editorial on the subject, because they were naturally distrustful of the plan. Certainly preconceived antipathies might have been entertained by Harvard, but in entering into a non-scouting agreement those antipathies were laid aside; the system was given a fair trial--a trial based on the actual merits of the plan, not on prejudices either for or against its success. The result has been that as far as Harvard is concerned, non-scouting has proved unsatisfactory.

The CRIMSON has already tried to analyze the local failure of the non-scouting plan: Information which although unsought is nevertheless difficult toward off, daily reports from metropolitan sports writers, unfounded but disturbing rumors--these are the dangers faced by Harvard when it enters into a non-scouting entente. True. Yale faces them, too--that is, with the exception of the daily battery of omniscient newspaper men and their--tell-tale cameras. But, as the News admits, "in Boston it looks different". Harvard, realizing that the situation not-only looks but is different, has very wisely decided not to enter on further similar agreements.

It is possible that the News is correct in saying that "with the passing of time, and a broadening of experience" non-scouting may give rise to less suspicion and distrust. Until then Harvard prefers to yield up potential benefits rather than submit to present evils. What the News suggestively defines as a "possible change in perspective" has nothing whatsoever to do with Harvard's future attitude toward non-scouting. The perspective will remain as it is now--and as it must remain until the difficulties perceived are removed from the horizon.