To the Editor of the CRIMSON:

Why do you proceed to insult West Point immediately after one of the most sportsmanlike, most brilliant, and most interesting games that Harvard has ever played against any college? Is it in the same spirit that made Harvard sever relations with Princeton? For since that time, to many of us Army has filled the gap left vacant in the "Big Three."

You speak of "an absence of interests common to Harvard men and the United States Military Machine." In this another manifestation of last year's pacifist policy, or are you writing without prejudice and pour le sport? Harvard has certainly as much in common with the cadets as it has with the teams from Texas, Michigan, Florida, or any of those "regional" universities which over-enthusiastic graduates living in the provinces are said to demand. For one thing, a long series of contests with West Point has created a common interest; and for another, when we entertain them here, they are the best behaved and most decently sober crowd that ever fill the Stadium.

It isn't fair to say that Harvard has lost interest in the game just because most of the student body couldn't afford to make the trip this year: no other rival so far from Cambridge would have drawn a larger number. If Harvard is going to choose its football opponents by their similarity of "interests", then let the Varsity play the Second Team and the House Plan Champions! That would create the closest harmony not rivalry, . . . and the spectators would be about as numerous and excited as the indifferent handful that now watch afternoon scrimmages.

And my answer to your other objection, that West Point has no three-year eligibility rule, is this; in spite of it, how many times have they managed to beat us in recent years? Yours truly,   Eugene Du Bois '33.