‘he is naturally dependent for sup- ~with regard to the implication of this statement, the matter shall be referred to the executive committee of the conference for de-. . cision. 22 at least one’ eye half open admits that there is some proselytizing in the present picture—but no one does anything /about it, anything helpful. But something needs dofng because this malignant lesion, this hypo- critical parcelling out of sinecure jobs, is devitalizing many of our best-athletes. Surreptitiously pay a boy more to play football in college than he can earn on the outside in honest employment and you leave a scar on him which he’ll carry far beyond the campus halls. Hav- ing grown used to the feel of this so-called “easy money” during his days of eligibility, he often turns to profes- sional football when his college days are over. You have, in fact, only to study the roster of the professional foot- ball leagues of the United States and note the players’ college affiliations to learn where proselytizing is domi- nant. Now you can’t get rid of this great straight-faced sub- terfuge by talking about it. That has been tried. I doubt if you can get rid of it at all. But you can dignify it—by recognition. You can bring it out into the fresh air of public intelligence, agree on principles, establish a few simple, businesslike procedures—and so achieve scrupulous honesty in the athletic department of an in- stitution dedicated to honest thinking, the college. Talking, I have just said, has been tried. Three years ago the Committee on Student Group Life drew up some Stand- ards of Athletic Eligibility. The National Association of State Universities endorsed them. Ar- ticle III of these Standards pro- vides that: The faculty committee on eligi- bility shall, in advance of compe- tition, require of each candidate for competition in any sport a detailed statement in writing of the amounts and sources of his finan- cial earnings and income received, or to be received during the college year and the previous Summer, from others than those upon whom port. In case any question arises If the above unfair discriminatory regulation does not produce mass perjury, then pass judgment upon the fol- lowing edict from the same Standards of Athletic Eligi- bility: Every candidate for an athletic team must, after a Soskal explanation of all the eligibility regulations and their impli- cations of honor, by the faculty committee on athletics, de- -clare orally to the committee and in writing upon his honor his eligibility or ineligibility under each separate regulation. Each member of the athletic staff, physical-education depart- ment, athletic council, and faculty committee on athletics Shall upon his honor in writing certify his own adherence to all the athletic regulations and to the best of his knowledge Photo: International News Preaek 4 ma | REVISE Nov. the eligibility or ineligibility of eyéty member of the team: that represents the institution. There is no admission si(omtestion here stated that the majority of/athletes are/receiving secret subsidies, but the very one this ac immediately gives it the spirit of the inquisition, and/then the crime results in getting caught. This scheme/above mentioned was in operation a decade ago concerfling Summer baseball for collegians, and it faite d dismally. It is working no better today. Openj/honest s subsidy i is the only answer. But by sub- sidizing I do not mean the hiring of athletes merely for playing ability, at a salary based on skill. We have that_‘ sort of thing now in the tramp athlete, the youth who seeks to bartér his physical prowess not in-exchange for an earnestly desired education, but only for an attractive monetary /consideration. I am velfemently. opposed to him andyhis kind, asy I am certain, most college coaches AY are. Ta n irrevocably against professionalism of ort®— BL. in college athieties+— gt tt But if subsidizing means “to furnish aid with a sub- sidy,” or to give the athlete an even break with other students, then my answer is Yes! And why not? Today is the age of subsidizing. James Bryant Co- nant, president of Harvard, stated recently that Harvard would subsidize the best young brains of the United States at his institution. Students pre- paring for law, medicine, engineering, the ministry, and all the professions have been and are subsidized through scholarships and fellowships. Why exclude physical education and ath- letics? “Without discrimination for or against the athlete” has long been the slogan of the present purity col- legiate eligibility rules committee. There has been much talk but little action to shift that principle into gear. Byron (“Whizzer”) White, superb football player from Colorado, is to be subsidized in England with a Rhodes Scholarship. Yet if the English prac- tice of subsidizing Rhodes Scholars were applied to our American college athletes, all would be declared ineligi- ble by our own eligibility committees. One of the requirements of the Rhodes Scholarship is, in fact, that the applicant be outstanding in at least one sport. English education, in other words, encourages physical skill, while American education looks upon that kind of skill with suspicion. The athlete, I repeat, is already and many times dis- criminated against. Just why should the finger of sus- picion be pointed at a healthy, husky American boy be- cause he wants to play a game in which he excels? Why should he be hailed into an academic court, lectured to, and cht caused to sign papers and also to declare orally that he——~~ is without stain of professional guilt any more than the rotund and dappered campus luminary with a Carus voice ae sells his talent ee , te [Continued c on page 3