To the Editors of The Crimson:

I was offended by Charles Kurzman's editorial "Pointing the Big Finger" (Crimson, April 7). Kurzman resorts to hackneyed stereotypes and worn half-truths in order to paint an unfavorable picture of athletes at this University. In launching his diatribe, he merely succeeds in demonstrating that he is not in the least familiar with Harvard athletics, its athletes or the process by which they are recruited. A look at Kurzman's editorial will illuminate its inherent deficiencies as a piece of responsible writing.

Kurzman's editorial purports to deal with the nature of the student-athlete (a term he puts within quotation marks, as if it is either a falsehood or an oxymoron). On what does he base his unfavorable estimation of Harvard athletics? He admits that he "[has] yet to read about Harvard's recruiting and admissions practices for potential big-sport athletes." The story he relates regarding the "anti-intellectual" attitude of Harvard athletes is "undocumented." In the face of the writer's admitted ignorance on the subject, how does he reach his conclusions? Obviously, the source of Kurzman's information is "common knowledge," hardly a basis for responsible writing. Kurzman cannot judge athletes unworthy to attend Harvard on the basis of hearsay. Harvard has maintained, since the turn of the century, more intercollegiate sports than any other Division I school in the country. Despite this apparent heresy, Harvard is still regarded as a great university. According to Kurzman, "It's a shame we can't have our fun and be taken seriously too." I would counter that it's a shame Kurzman can't have fun. No measure of success by our athletic teams can do anything to detract from Harvard's reputation. If nothing else, success such as that enjoyed by the hockey team creates a greater respect for Harvard students. It shows us as individuals who can transcend the stereotypical role of the serious, career-oriented scholar to achieve something of distinction in a non-academic field. The general public is led to regard Harvard students as humans rather than intellectual automatons.

Kurzman, writing with the unparalleled probity and insight of the National Inquirer, breathes the question "Is the rumor true?" regarding the special treatment of athletes at Harvard. Rumor? Kurzman obviously did a lot of legwork researching this editorial. Better meals? The Varsity Club training table abolished in 1969. Athletes eat the same meals as everyone else (although in much greater quantities). Tutoring, another perk Kurzman cites, is available to athletes only through the Study Council, the Writing Center, etc. While the employees of the Athletic Department are predominantly athletes, it also employs other students and senior citizens. Most athletes at Harvard receive financial aid and need to work in order to pay for their education. Or is this perhaps another feature that makes these people unworthy of a Harvard education?

Aside from his distorted view of Harvard athletes, I am most offended by Kurzman's implications regarding the effects of intercollegiate athletics on the Harvard community. He contrasts the "frivolous" support of the student body for our athletic teams to the "non-frivolous" student activities undertaken by the remaining (presumably serious) students at this university. He rests on the unspoken truism that sports do little to enrich the spectator because they do not stimulate the mind. It is very hard to successfully argue the merits of football against ballet, hockey against drama, sweat against culture. I will not attempt to compare a wrestling match to a pas de deux, but I would submit that one who views either activity receives equal parts of intellectual and visceral stimulation.

Aside from the abstract merits of sports, I believe that there is nothing frivolous about students exhibiting enthusiastic support for their teams. Although it seems Kurzman would prefer that students continue to wallow in the self-absorbed reserve that permeates this campus, enthusiasm for athletics provides students with a needed release from the tensions of Harvard life. Damn his notion that such enthusiasm is "frivolous;" we're college students and we'll never have the opportunity to be frivolous again! If Kurzman believes there is no place for frivolity in the life of a serious intellectual then he has obviously never read the works of Oscar Wilde. Although the frivolity of sport obviously addles the athlete's mind so that he or she deviates from Rightthink (to quote: "The houses with the highest percentage of athletes tend to vote the most conservatively--against the campus norm"), I would argue that such activity helps students retain their sanity.

So what has Kurzman said, in inimitable, eloquent style? He has criticized Harvard diversity by questioning the worthiness of athletes to attend this university. He has asserted that athletics are not of such a lofty nature as to deserve the attention of educated people (casting himself in the fold of Socrates dissatisfied). He lacks faith in the University to maintain its standards of integrity in its athletic program. But most importantly, he believes that the general student body is wrong to exhibit enthusiasm and spirit in support of their athletic teams. I, and my roommates who have cosigned this letter, are varsity athletes. Our contact with and participation in Harvard athletics has shown us that Kurzman's allegations have no credence whatsoever. In a publication with the high standards of The Harvard Crimson I would have expected a better documented and researched article. Instead, I have found that Kurzman has chosen to merely vent his spleen. In attempting to illustrate what he feels is wrong with Harvard Athletics, all he has shown us is his ignorance. Kevin M. McGinty '87   Robert L. Graff '87   Kevin G. Midwinter '87