To the Editors of The Crimson:

I think it is time for someone to point out the obvious contradiction between the "official" policy of the Harvard Department of Athletics and their actual practice. This "official" policy, as voiced by track coach William McCurdy and football coach Joe Restic in the registraion issue of The Crimson, is one of "participation for all."

In the same Crimson article from which the above quote was taken there was a great deal of moaning and wailing voiced by Mr. Restic about the fact that he was only allowed by recent NCAA legislation to suit up 60 football players for a home game instead of his usual 80. It is statistically trivial to see that whether 60 people (1 per cent of the undergraduate student body) or 80 people (1.3 per cent) play in that football game has nothing whatsover to do with participation for all.

In a recent Independent (Nov. 6-12, 1975), Associate Director of Athletics Baaron Pittenger was quoted as saying: "You've got to have new intercollegieate buildings before you can start providing new areas for recreation." This priority ranking of intercollegiate over recreational athletics can be seen even more clearly in his later statement: "Originally we thought that there would have to be a swimming pool up a Radcliffe, but now that the women's team practices at the IAB we're not so sure." Mr Pittenger seems to be operating under the strange delusion that the only people who enjoy swimming are varsity athletes!

At a more practical level the department's policy can be seen in that fact that both the IAB gym and swimming pool are closed for varsity practice in the afternoon, a time when undergraduates would be most likely to use them. This is presumably to avoid "inconveniencing" the varsity teams by forcing them to practice in the evening. I am sure that other casual athletes could come up with many more examples of these kinds of priorities with regard to use of facilities.

It is clear that the actual policy of the Department of Athletics is not in any way "participation for all." Unless, of course, we take "all" to mean first and foremost all those who wish to compete at the intercollegiate level (and have the necessary ability), secondly all those who wish to compete at an organized intramural level, and leave to the bottom of the ladder all those who would like to be able to go for an occasional swim or play a pick-up game of basketball.

The department's policy has at times been justified by the fact that the major contributors of funds for the construction of athletic facilities are alumni who wish to see these funds spent on intercollegiate athletics. This is probably in fact the case. But then let us not hide it behind the platitude of "participation for all." Douglas Gordon '77