(Ed. Note--The Crimson does not necessarily endorse opinions expressed in printed communications. No attention will be paid to anonymous letters and only under special conditions, at the request of the writer, will names be withheld.)

--

To The Editor of the CRIMSON:

To one who has been intimately associated with the Harvard Athletic Association for over three years, the letter you printed in Thursday's issue of the CRIMSON was perfectly ridiculous. The sentiment is typical of the crowd of graduates who cry out at the least sign of athletic weakness and jump on the bandwagon to try to oust the complete coaching staff and the whole personnel of the Association. It is also typical of the undergraduate who thinks that because he has paid his tuition fee and is enrolled as a member of the University he should be admitted free to all contests and the use of all facilities. When he finds out this is not the case, he loses his head and begin shouting "Down with the H.A.A. and Mr. Bingham!"

The football season this year was disastrous. I am not going to stand up for it and try to pretend it was not. But the reason that it was not as good as the Freshman season when the latter was under Casey's control, lies absolutely outside of the fact that the Association has had to meet the depression and curtail its budget. I imagine this is what the writers mean when they refer to the actions of "an athletic administration with absolute authority over finances and publicity." Who should have this authority except an organization in contact not only with the outside world but the sports themselves? Should the coaches direct the finances or the graduates take charge of Harvard's athletic publicity? Neither has the association in any way changed its policy to control the coaching system or "wield the big stick."

Your writers speak of the "mutual benefit to the coaching and the business policy with a separation of powers." If the coaches and players stayed on their fields and the officers of the H.A.A. locked themselves in their offices, how would the latter have any idea of the organization that they are running? The reason Mr. Bingham is so often seen at Soldiers Field is, first, that he wants to see the sports from the boys' and coaches' point of view rather than gather his impressions from erroneous letters to the CRIMSON, and second because of his natural interest in athletics, having been Track Captain among other athletic activities when here at college.

There are two intimately connected points which few people take into account when they criticize the H.A.A. To begin with, the organization exists for the students. Anyone who has had any connection with the administration and management of the Association must realize that it is run to give the students as many athletic opportunities as possible. It has been said that they could exist without an athletic program, but where would the H.A.A. be without the students? This cannot be taken as a criticism; it is a truism, for the organization was started to take care of boys' needs, and has expanded to meet them as well as possible.

The second point is that it is no easy matter, either financially or tactfully to carry out this program. The Athletic Director must meet biased prejudices and petty remarks from everyone, from the youngest freshman to the oldest graduate. He must steer a middle course between those who are continually saying there is too much emphasis on athletics, and those who say there is not enough. He has to be able to overlook most of the unfounded criticism he receives (and naturally criticism is expected); and he has to take whatever good there may be in it and profit by it.

Mr. Bingham fulfills his job as ably as anyone in his position could, and it should mean something to the University, the officers, graduates and undergraduates, that those working in the organization, managers and employees, are solidly behind him. Warren Sturgis '35.