When Harvard boycotted the NCAA hockey tournament a year ago, it justified its position in terms of the high standards associated with the Ivy League Athletic program.

In its 1962 policy statement, the Family Committee on Athletic Sports maintained that Western hockey encouraged precisely those circumstances that the Ivy League colleges...banded together to avoid." The Committee's condemnations of the West went on to conclude that the NCAA tournament in question has no virtue as a natural climax or goal for the Ivy League."

Accepting this conscious framework of Ivy ethics, it is hard to understand the FCAS's apparent disinterest in encouraging other schools to adopt a similar position. During its four year abstention from tournament play, Harvard has made absolutely no attempt to convince other eastern schools that its NCAA stand is a valid one--worthy of their consideration.

In light of the Committee's inactivity, it is not a t all surprising that Harvard stands alone in its current boycott. Cornell, Princeton, and Yale all proclaimed their availability for last year's tournament festivities.

Brown, a 1963 E.C.A.C. crown contender, has also signified its interest in an NCAA bid. This trend is not likely to change as long as Cambridge remains silent except for annual and monotonous declarations of disengagement.

Significantly, Harvard's dramatic withdrawal of its hockey team accomplishes very little unless other schools create additional pressure and publicity by following the Crimson's lead. As long as the varsity in the only team kept off the ice, Western coaches like Denver's Murray Armstrong can continue to say "We couldn't care less about Harvard's position and whether or not it competes in the NCAA tourney."

If the FCAS followed a more active policy seeking converts among the Eastern colleges, there are a number of specific reform measures that might be introduced collectively. Much of the Western hockey problem stems from the fact that current practices of dubious value to college athletics are permitted under NCAA rulings.

Denver Athletic Director "Tad" Wieman indicates the nature of the problem when he said "I defy anyone to find any instance in which we have played a Canadian in violation of NCAA rulings."

Any serious reform attempt must resolve this problem of extensive Canadian recruitment by Western schools. In addition, revision of rules allowing financial aid on a strictly athletic basis (Article 3, section 4b of NCAA constitution), and permitting other financial aid irregularities should be considered.

It is unfortunate that even reform of a much less spectacular nature would require a degree of publicity and active pressure that the Faculty Committee is just not willing to provide at the present time. Reform in college hockey is a necessity and the FCAS's use of the tournament boycott was a valid tool toward this end.

But by restricting itself to this one single measure, Harvard's Committee on Athletics accomplishes very little except to register its own official dissatisfaction and to deprive a very fine hockey team of its right to participate in a national sporting event