The brief dismissal given Radcliffe's abolition of PT by the mentors of Harvard's Freshman year is aggravating and unenlightened: aggravating because it is based on reasons so poor that blind conservatism seems the real motivation, unenlightened because the PT policy is annoying, inconvenient, insulting, and expensive.

It is one thing to argue that the PT requirement is the heart of the intramural system. This is merely improbable and close to being demonstrably wrong--a vast majority of freshmen have either been in compulsory programs in school or have participated voluntarily, and it is almost incredible that an additional year should either convince them of the beauty of athletics or show, them some new and more attractive way of exercising. One might think that Harvard would get farther by suggesting that sports need not be a compulsory nuisance.

But it is quite another matter to oppose any changes at all. This argues the same blindness which fought reform of the advising system and introduction of houses in the Yard. President Bunting explained that the new Radcliffe policy "reflects a belief that even freshmen should be treated as adults." This ridiculous notion has never had the slightest appeal for those who direct Harvard's freshmen.

The PT requirement is an aggravation not because it demands exercise but because it requires adherence to a group of rules which are inconvenient and annoying. It represents the same kind of paternalism as compulsory chapel and censorship, and the fruit of that singular reasoning which believes that everything right about the College is the result and justification of the things that are wrong.

In addition, the PT requirement loads facilities with people who do not wish to participate at the expense of those who do--a trivial point unless one believes that the function of the athletic department is to serve the students rather than enforce discipline. A Faculty which contributes several million a year to support athletics may have its reservations about forcing the commodity on those who do not want it.

The only remotely plausible arguments for PT are that it provides a social milieu for those who do not have the comradeship of prep school associations and that it may provide a compulsory break in study for those who drive themselves to overwork. It certainly seems a curious sort of year-long social mixer, and an equally curious way of protecting people from themselves. Perhaps there is something to this kind of defense, but even if proven, it would only have begun to justify the requirement. As it is, PT is nasty, brutish, and nowhere near short enough.