To the Editors of the CRIMSON:

I write in reply to Michael S. Lottman's article of Friday, Dec. 1, concerning the Ivy League.

I have never before written in this vein, although I have naturally disagreed with the CRIMSON'S views on occasion during my coaching career.

I have been active in and an observer of Ivy athletics for some thirty years. I think I know a little of what I am talking about. I seriously question whether Mr. Lottman has anything more behind his views than a penchant for destructive cynicism plus a habit of self-indulgence in this direction, minus a sense of responsibility in making use of our much heralded freedom of the press To back this up:

First, he says the Ivy League is a dying concern. This just plainly is not true. The fact is that most people in athletics admire Harvard's "Athletics For All," and the athletic picture at more and more schools is trending toward the Ivy type: intramural provision for all the students plus, at the top of each sport, an intercollegiate team that grows from and represents the normal student body as contrasted with the big time team which is always composed of a special group financed by athletic money, not educational money.

The Ivy League, based on this thinking, is to be judged not by the standard of top-notch performance in the stadia, but by the question "Does this type of program contribute more or less to the educational process?" Quite obviously it contributes more: because at an ivy college, anyone with reasonable ability and the will to work at a sport can go out for that sport and will be given a chance and some coaching. At any college where top-notch performance is guaranteed continually by "athletic scholarships" (what a contradiction those two words make anyway!) the student body as a whole is automatically excluded from the inter-collegiate program. Leaving aside the irrelevant consideration that the Ivy League performance sometimes falls short of pleasing "true football fan" Lottman, which type of program makes sense, educationally, for the students?

It is a fact that in the minds of thoughtful people everywhere, the benefits of our program are more than worth the loss in N.C.A.A. prestige and also justify the fact that not all games are superlative entertainment.

Second, he says we cheat. We claim not to recruit, but do; claim not to practice, but do. I say, let him cite chapter and verse and back up that dirty crack with specific proof, or let him publicly retract what he said--and on the front page in large type. Over several centuries, Harvard has stood for one thing if for nothing else--integrity. I, for one, consider this sort of mud slinging to be inexcusable and unworthy of any representative of Harvard. I also think it marks the lowest ebb in my experiences in CRIMSON editorial responsibility. Let every officer of the CRIMSON bear in mind that tolerance of such greasy practices reflects on them as well as on Lottman. When does freedom of expression become license? When will the CRIMSON regain its proper status as being a reasonable representation of Harvard student opinion?

What are facts? Harvard could--easily and quickly--have a "great" foot-ball team if it wished to make this the objective. This is so obvious--with Harvard's prestige and money--that it can stand as a statement of fact. Why don't we? Because it would mean compromising more important educational values.

It is true we try to interest football players in Harvard, provided they qualify in general as satisfactory Harvard prospects. We also go after out-standing boys who do all sorts of other things--debaters, musicians, etc. It is a fact (not a speculation) that we lose many football players because we won't offer them a lot of extra financial in centive. Are we so poor? No--Harvard gives more financial aid annually than any other college. We merely refuse to set the athlete on a special financial pedestal. To equate our normal search for talent of all sorts with the usual meaning of the word "recruit" is such a distortion of the truth that Lottman's use of the worse--or is he really that ignorant of the subject concerning which he does not hesitate to damn and dogmatise?

My teams at Harvard are not recruited. They are legitimate members of the student body. Sometimes they commit the awful crime of playing below the level of Australian tennis and Pakistanian squash--but we still consider our activities moderately worthwhile. Some people even like to watch. Looking objectively at football, I personally submit the suggestion that captain Pete Hart, who I am told began at 165 pounds and worked like a dog to build himself up to become a regular, then captain--this boy got as much or more out of football at Harvard than any paid athlete anywhere anytime. I even got a kick out of it myself. This is the true and proper function of college athletics--beneficial experience for student participants. Any bored spectators have the privilege of staying away, from the games, from the dinners, and from unconstructive criticism that hurts some and helps none.  John M. Barnaby '32  Coach--Tennis and Squas