Last December, Anderson sent the same account to the new director of athletics at Yale, Delaney Kiphuth, with the following letter, in an attempt to have the boy's name cleared.

"For your own information" he said, "I am enclosing a copy of the story exactly as it happened. The two points I would like to make for the boy are:

(1) He has been punished enough for a sin he had no part in. (2) Brown had trouble with the direct subsidization of boys in college and the penalty was only a year for a more serious offense. Since Terry has been penalized for a year, the Ivy's honor has been upheld and they should be willing to give the boy a break.

The major question to be answered by Eligibility Committee when it met was whether or not McGovern's year at Cheshire was subsidized by an outside group. Theoretically, he had received a scholarship from Cheshire, and Anderson and his friends had only contributed to the school's scholarship fund, or perhaps to send Ralph Tite to the school with McGovern.

Clear Violation Seen

But the Committee ruled unanimously, as Dean Watson, Harvard's member, pointed out, that the action even in McGovern's case was a "clear violation" of the President's code.

Dean Francis B. Godolphin, present chairman of the group said: "As chairman, carrying out of the policies of the Presidents' Policy Committee, I feel the action of the Eligibility Committee was justified by the evidence. As early as 1945, the general policies concerning appropriate support for students who wish to compete in athletics was laid down. The extension to preparatory or postgraduate work was discussed prior to its effective date."

But Dean Nicholas M. McKnight gave perhaps the most cogent reason for declaring the Yale freshman ineligible. It was clearly not the student's fault. He had accepted the scholarship at Cheshire in the faith that he was being treated no dif- ferently than any other scholarship student at the school. But as Dean McKnight, pointed out:

"The student received money from the school, and the school received money from the group of men in Chicago. In the judgment of the" Eligibility Committee there was a direct relationship between the two. The decision of the Committee was based upon that opinion."

Ivy League admissions officials have noted that there is virtually no way of checking on who might indirectly be paying for an applicants final year at prep school. In this case, it was only an application "freak" that brought an apparent violation to light to light.

Further, realizing from this case that many alumni of the Ivy Colleges are apparently ignorant of the subsidization clause, the Eligibility Committee decided to publicize the statement through alumni magazines, and show by this test case action that it clearly meant to enforce the Presidents' Agreement. So stands the case now