The Washington times., 1906-06-21
Bad for Georgetown.

n year ago Georgetown COLLEGE
took so resolute a stand in behalf
of honest collegiate athletics that
The Times published a hearty COM
mendation of it under the editorial
caption of "Good for Georgetown"
The special thing the local college
had done was to disbar from partic-
ipation in its amateur athletic con-
tests and membership on its anna
teur athletic teams all of its
students who had played summer
ball"
The employment of college men
on minor professional baseball
teams during vacations has been for
years the most serious abuse of
amateur athletics and the hardest
athletic problem colleges have had
to solve. Most of the men play un-
der assumed names, pretend to per-
form a service for some public
spirited baseball 'fan," and take
the pay Ostensibly as bell boys or
drivers of delivery wagons which
they earn as pitchers or shOrtstops.
They spend the summer under an
alias and go back to college in the
fall as conscious cheats.
That such practices on the part
of college men are altogether blame
worthy is not to be questioned.
That all colleges have suffered from
them does not make them a whit
less evil. When Georgetown took so
determined a stand, therefore, to
discover those of her boys who had
been hot weather professionals and
compel them to seem whau they
were, The Times and all ot1Ier low
ers of honest sport were extremely
gratifed.
To the same degree, or further,
The Times and all other lovers Of
honest sport must regret the step
which the Georgetown athletic man
agement now proposes. 1t is in #
feet a complete abandonment of hoc
stand for purely amateur athletics,
and the authorization of precisely
the Offense which she condemned so
heartily a year ago. The reasons as
signed are that other colleges have
not been able TO prevent the sum
mer BALI abuse and that poor
students should be allowed to earn
what they can during vacations.
What other colleges have been
able to do, OF even what other col
leges have attempted to do, cannot
govern the conscience of George
town students. Their duty is to keep
every phase of their college life
free from fraud. The responsibility
of their alma mater is to produce
men, not athletic victories. The rec
ognition of that responsibility was
the finest thing in Georgetown's
stand last year. The sacrifice of it
now is an extremely sad thing.
And the poor student argument
ioes not help matters. There is no
reason why poor students should
not play baseball for money. But if
they do so they should do so openly,
not in violation of signed pledges to
maintain the standards of pure anna
! teurism and not seek entry into the
ranks of amateurs. \ college which
undertakes to enter its students in
amateur contests viii share in the
punishment if its men are not
genuinely amateurs.
1t is suggested Georgetown's s
alumni will not approve the step
proposed by the athletic manage
ment. 1t is assuredIy to be hoped
not. Acquiescence in deceit in this
matter of summer ban-which is the
Offense charged against some other
eolleges-is bad enough. Retreat
from a position of manly op-
position TO it is worse. But
the establishment of a new standard
that students may profess to be
amateurs and professionals at the
same time-while it has the merit
| l. E