ECONOMICS and athletics have long had a close relationship at Harvard; certainly, the Ec Jock is far more suited to the four letter epithet than his Gov counterpart. Finally, the mythical link between Kirkland House and the Economics Department has been made public.

Last week Professor Kala Krishna proved that capitalists subsidize athletes just as much as steroid wielding communists do by destroying the schedules of 160 students to accommodate the dedication of 40 sports enthusiasts. Originally scheduled from 2:30 p.m. to 4 p.m., Ec 1011a, a required honors course, now meets at 8:30 a.m. to avoid conflict with the athletes' practice time. A 20 percent minority was given preference over the 80 percent of the class that lacks athletic stature.

"Anyone who wants to do sports and economics should not be penalized," said Krishna. True, but neither should Harvard cater to the athlete's every whim. That classes will occassionally run into practice time should be a given at an institution that intends to be a university, not a training camp. The fault lies not with the athletes, but with a department that fawns over them.

Krishna claims that the schedule change served the best interests of a larger portion of students. What she bases this assertion on is not clear--certainly not on the actual response of her students. Morning conflicts were not considered in this decision. For instance how many in the class work Dorm Crew? Students who have to work should hardly be penalized.

POSSIBILITIES other than completely uprooting the class were also ignored. A special section could have been scheduled, giving the 40 athletes a lucky option. They would get to practice, and the other 160 students would have gotten the class the department promised. Instead, the entire class was given to the athletes. So a secondary section, now a necessity, has been dumped on the preemptorily displaced majority.

The scheduling decision that Krishna and the Ec Department made is blatantly unfair. Foisting the desires of a small group of students on an unfortunate majority is clearly indefensible. Juggling academics around extracurriculars, rather than vice versa, perverts a university's purpose. And lastly, there is the Economic Department's dubious policy toward athletes. According to Krishna, the department tries to meet the athletes' needs as much as possible.

Respecting the student in a jock strap is one thing; outright favoritism is another. Restructuring an entire course to save 45 minutes of football practice for a handful of students can be called nothing else. The Ec Department needs to rethink its committment to all of its students, rather than rolling a red carpet towards the playing field.