The evening times. [volume] (Grand Forks, N.D.) 1906-1914, 1906-02-13

oIIenStus intellectual Ut PHYSICAL lS
always to be admired and the desire
to see the !, best manifestation of
strength is entirely legitimate.
But It is against that other desire
which is at the basis of all prize-con-
tests that wish to bring my COM
plaint-against the desire to find
something that has in it the element
Of chance. Prizes were offered not
merely that men might see men exert
ing their strength but in order to slim
ulate something in which there was a
chance to win or lose. A contestant
in one OF these contests might win or
lose and the spectators found SO much
pleasure in the suspense and oppor-
tunity for speculation that these con-
tests afforded, that they were willing
to offer prizes In order to stimulate
them. This same desire to see some
thing like this is at the bottom of
every prize contest. Analyze your in
terest in any prize contest and you
will see. that your interest in it is
due to this element of chance which
Is involved. And what Is this desire
to see something in which there is a
chance to win or lose? What is It?
It is simply one phase of the gambling
instinct in mankind, an instinct which
we are all willing to admit is both
dangerous and rutnous to mans high
est welfare. And SO this is the first
charge that I bring against prize-giv-
ing. that one of those very desires
which are the cause of prize giving is
the desire for something in which
there will be an element of chance.
But you will say to me, now, that
am unfair, that I have left out one
of the prime motives for prize-giving
today-the desire to stimulate-that
which is best in men and to arouse
them to their greatest efforts. You
ask me "are not our prizes in oratory,
essay writing and other literary work,
as we'll as many prizes in athletic
work given with the idea in mind of
stimulating the contestants to their
best eftorts?" 1 grant you that this
motive, which is certainly a most
worthy one, is present in the minds
of many of those who offer prizes but
I have not given it as one of the prime
motives for all prize giving because
there are many contests in which this
motive never enters in. We can hard
ly say that the lady Of society circles
who bestows upon the winner at
whist, a prize, does it because she de-
sires to stimulate this ability along
the lines of whist playing. No such
element could enter in. Here the prize
is given simply to add interest to the
game by bringing in the element of
chance, the gambling element. We
could hardly say that the prize given
to the one guessing nearest to the
number of beans in bottle was given
for the purpose Of stimulating his
guessing powers. 1t is because. Of such
contests as these that we cannot say
that the motive of stimulating the
best in US is prime motive in all
prize giving.
But right here, let me state, that If
prize giving could be used to stimu-
late contestants to their best efforts
and do that alone would be willing to
admit that it would be worthy Gus
tom and should be practiced univer-
sally without discrimination.
But does it really stimulate the con-
testants to their best efforts? If such
a practice would succeed anywhere it
would succeed in the schools where
prizes appear of such value to the
children. But a test in the school
shows us that prize giving fails to
stimulate those who need stimulation
and even harms them. A prize is Of
fered in school. For the first two or
three days there is a general contest,
all the children try very hard to win
the prize but by the end of that time
they recognize the fact that some two
or three, are naturally SO quick and
brilliant that the rest have no chance,
and that they do their work more
shiftlessly because they think that
these brilliant students are getting
prize for doing their work while they
themselves are getting nothing. And
SO the plan fails. Those whom the
prize was meant to stimulate were ac-
tually made less earnest in their work
while those, who would do good work
without the prize, won it. And SO the
giving of prize does not do good but
actually does much harm.
But lest may seem unfair am
frank to admit that in some cases the
offering Of prize encourages some
to better work. And II this were
the only feature Of prize giving we
would be ready to give 1t place in
our modern life. 1t would perhaps
do little good but it would not do
great deal OF harm.
But there are other features, one
of which l have already mentioned,
that render prize giving very danger
GUS to our modern society.
! propose now to turn to the effects
Of prize giving upon the contestants.
The first injury the prize giving does
to the contestants is to develop in
him spirit of hostility to others.
There is legitimate desire to do his
best but there is, believe, another
idea which completely covers this one
up, and that is the idea that the
other fellow must be beaten. The
contestant does not care particularly
how well he does himself, at least that
idea IL not predominant In his mind,
but he does care whether or not he
beats his competitors. I have talked
with many people who have competed
In prize contests and the consensus
Of opinion seems to bear me out in
this statement. know for myself
that never went into d prize contest
yet that wasn't completely bound
up In the idea that ! must beat the