(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. Only letters under 400 words can be printed because of space limitations.)

To the Editor of the Crimson:

The present controversy over Hemenway Gymnasium emphasizes a situation in the athletic program which has existed here for some time. Concentrators in the sciences like chemistry, biology or physics, students doing part-time work, and members of the Graduate Schools who spend their afternoons in study, find that they must either forego exercise entirely, or disrupt their daily schedule in order to get some needed physical relaxation. Such a situation occurs because the H.A.A. limits the hours at which the gym is available and, during available hours, facilities are often monopolized by varsity squads.

Other colleges experience the same problem, but remedy it by keeping their athletic plants open during hours when students are not pressed by other college duties. Yale, Tufts, and Columbia have gym facilities available for students on Sundays and holidays. New York University maintains evening use of its equipment for its students. We ask the H.A.A. why some such system cannot be adopted here?

If it is a question of attendants, the college could kill two birds with one stone by giving these Sunday jobs to needy students under the Temporary Students Employment Plan. The Indoor Athletic Building could be easily manned by a skeleton crew of four or five men to distribute towels, see to equipment and lights, and close up the building. As for the pool, there are many qualified Red Cross Examiners in college who would be only too glad to earn some extra money by acting as lifeguards while the regular staff is off.

We propose this plan to the H.A.A. as one means of broadening their "athletics for all" program. Possibly there are some considerations which may have prevented the Association from adopting such a plan in the past. If so, we and the college would be only too glad to hear about them. If not, we respectfully suggest that Mr. Bingham and his associates give this plan their consideration. Sincerely,   Sherman M. Tonkonow '40,   James M. Banghart '40,   Richard F. Story '40.