The Student Council made a bad mistake Monday night when it approved without dissent the report of its committee on athletics. This repot was supposed to present solutions to problems that were making athletes "resentful" and "bitter" toward the University; while it contains many constructive suggestions, its basic approach is one that would only create more problems in the long run.

Since the committee chose to divide its recommendations into four parts, it is convenient to examine them in that way.

First, the committee proposed that a room fund be set up through alumni donations to pay the room rents of the fourteen students now living rent free in the Varsity Club and Weld Boat House and the forty others living out in "rooms for service." The objective of getting all students into Houses, regardless of their grades, is a good one, but it is hard to see how this proposal "would not affect the Group IV rank list scholarship requirement." Money raised for this purpose would mean less money for scholarships, because the appeal for funds in both cases would be based on the same grounds (unless the appeal would be specifically for the non resident athletes, in which case it would be an even worse injustice). Once standards for obtaining financial aid are established they should not be undermined for the benefit of any particular group.

Second, the committee proposed certain changes to make freshman football more attractive both to the players and to spectators. Most of these changes are small, and should be workd out in cooperation with the H.A.A. One, calling for a freshman training table in the Union, does not specify whether there would be special food or not. If there would, then the idea is a poor one, since it would disgruntle the other freshmen; if not, there is no need for a Council vote just to permit freshman football players to eat together.

Third, the committee suggested an expanded program of upperclass advising for freshmen, and upperclass tutoring for freshmen in academic trouble. Upperclass advising has been tried twice before, and has always collapsed through lack of interest on both sides. Under the tutoring program, as envisioned in the committee report, "a freshman worried about a particular examination would contact . . . and upperclassman. . . (who) will then meet with the freshman and discuss with him problems of the course, e.g. the principal ideas of the course. . . etc." This could easily degenerate into official and organized note-cribbing, and would be an in unnecessary addition to the present study ad program at the College. The way to "halt the recurrent ineligibility of key sophomores" for the football team is to admit only good students, not to provide intramural tutoring schools.

Fourth, the committee recommended a shakeup in the admissions department to attract a better student body to the College. But her too there are dangerous provisions. The committee wants the "alumni representative in this new setup. . . (to) be in general control of all recruiting work," and it believes that "the so-called 'all-around boy' is what Harvard wants most." With alumni in charge of the recruiting, beating the bushes for "all-around boys," there would be a great danger of the College's following admission policies unbalanced in favor of athletes. Harvard is a scholastic institution, and that must remain the primary criterion in admissions.

Much of what the committee has proposed in the way of general reorganization of admissions is sound, however, and this points out the key to the whole problem of athletes' "resentment" and "bitterness." If all students were given adequate information about scholarship and job opportunities before coming here, if all students were given careful screening before they were admitted to make sure they could fulfill their academic requirements, if the advising program for all students could be sensibly improved, then there is no reason why athletes should be annoyed or why the football team should lose all its games.

If athletics are intrinsically incompatible with a successful college career, then no grants of special privilege will improve the situation. We believe that athletics are not incompatible with college, and that the Student Council was off the track in believing that restricted actions will solve any long-range problems.