In an article entitled "Probation--A Benefit or Burden" appearing in the current number of the H. A. A. News and reprinted in today's CRIMSON, Mr. H. W. Clark attempts to prove that probation is an institution which has no place as a disciplinary or scholastic measure in an "intellectual institution" such as Harvard. The arguments which Mr. Clark adduces to make his point are numerous, but his most important indictments of probation are (1) that it has the effect of inculcating laziness in the average student athlete by fixing a minimum standard above which there is no incentive for him to keep his average; (2) that by taking intercollegiate competition away from the athlete it takes away all desire to compete at all; and (3) that its abolition and the more frequent substitution of dismissal would make room for more worthy students who, as it is now, are not given a chance. Mr. Clark ignores or declines to admit the possibility of benefits in probation.

In regard to point (1): even admitting that probation has the effect of establishing a standard of satisfaction which is likely to prove the limit of the average athlete's ambition, what effect would the abolition of probation have? In the absence of any other check there is every reason to suppose that the same athlete would allow himself to slip even lower than the standard established by probation. If it were proposed to dismiss him, still there must be some criterion on which to judge and he must in all fairness be warned. Probation requirements, subject to the elastic judgment of the authorities, supply the criterion and probation itself constitutes the warning. There may be a more successful method of accomplishing this end, but if there is Mr. Clark has not suggested it.

In regard to point (2): if it is true that intercollegiate competition is the chief impetus to athletics, then the athletics-for-all policy, Harvard's extensive intra-mural program, and President Lowell's theory of the Greek as opposed to the Roman ideal of athletic competition may all just as well be relegated to the scrap basket. Furthermore the figures on the number of men engaged in intercollegiate sports and those engaged in frankly intramural competition are so convincing on this point that it need scarcely be considered further. In dealing with the class of men to whom only extra-mural athletics count, one is dealing with such a small minority of the college that their interests must of necessity be sacrificed to the greatest number.

In regard to point (3): as pointed out above, even in the case of dismissal, some standard must be set and some warning must be given. It may well be argued that more frequent dismissal would be desirable, that the period of probation accorded now is often too long. But how this can constitute a conclusive indictment of probation is difficult to perceive.

Finally there are at least two advantages which probation offers which Mr. Clark does not consider. In the first place the restriction of the privilege to engage in extra-curricular activities resulting from probation acts as a check upon those students who are unable to engage in them without detriment to their academic pursuits. Probation unquestionably concentrates the faltering student's faculties upon his work more than any warning could, and it is not always the inferior student who needs this help from above. And lastly punishment has from time immemorial been an influence on the lives of men. There will always be a certain class in all social and intellectual strata which can learn only by punishment. For this class it is difficult to see what will take the place of probation.