University Missourian. [volume] (Columbia, Mo.) 1908-1916, 1914-05-20
VIEWPOINTS


ton:
The Missouri lovers of athlet-
les are sorry that the rOoters 50
far forgot the proprieties as To
hurl pop bottles and various and
| sundry uncomplimentary epithcts
at the Kansas University ball play
rrs Friday aft tarnOon but they
would really b. sad if there had
not been so much justification in
times past for some display of
righteous Indignation. The trouble
with Kansas University athletics
is that there has never been any
sincere effort on the part of the
University from the top down To
keep the sport clean and To live up
To the conference rules. The re
suit is that their teams are always
under suspicion and usually justly
50. An article appended to this,
which was printed last year, tells
part of the story. The games in
which Bishop played last year
were afterWard forfeited but that is
not much satisfaction to those who
believe in clean sport. The unfOr-
tunat. thing about il is that il so
often appears that the raw deals
are not the fault of irresponsible
students but have the evident
backing of the athletic managers
and coaches who III turn appar
entity have the backing and sup
port of the University authorities"
and of common fairness | protest. II
is we'll understood that violation OF
the rules of eligibility can take place
only when student plays who has
been declared ineligible. The student
may not have the qualifications for
eligibility; but he is eligible if he is
chosen To play. The fact that he is
permitted to play is his eligibility, il
he is allowed to play that settles 1t:
he was eligible because he was chosen
-electable because he was elected.
The rule is clear; eligibility consists
in the fact OF having been declared
eligible incligibility, in having been
declared ineligible. The only inell-
sible player is the one who didn't play
or the one who played after he had
been told that he must not. For some
purposes. of course there is a distinc-
ton between the fact and the judicial
prOnOuncement OF it; man may, Tor
example, be acquitted when he is
guilty, or convicted even though he be
innocent. But eligibility in athletics
follows a principle according to which
every man is innocent until he has
been declared guilty. His guilt lies
solely in the fact that he has been so
pronounced. Once convicted, he Is
Therefore. guilty, no matter what the
fact may actually have been; convic-
ton and guilt are one. Likewise,
therefore, ones character is ones rep
utation. So far. then, as the rules OF
the Conference are concerned, the ob-
LEGATION of the University OF Kansas
to its competitors is merely to play
no one whom il has declared inelisi-
BILE. Ii is not pledged by the rule To
declare ineligible a student who III
fact was not qualified to be eligible.
Qualification for eligibility is one
thing; eligibility is another thing
and the final thing SO far as the rules
are concerned. One must have a clear
head for distinctions who is to reason
safely on the ethics of athletics.
Kansas only fault. therefore-or
better, its foolishness-was III forfeit
ing that game last year. According To
the rules, and by the standards OF
those who believe in clean sport, the
game belonged to Kansas. II was
merely to prejudice itself through
idealistic and quiXotic standards for
Kansas To forego a victory to which
the rules by plain Interpretation en-
titled it. Kansas is, then, open to crit
icism only on the ground that its
ideals of sportsmanship are foolishly
severe and impracticable. The jay
we-as, if we are fair. We shall admit
but only naively and fussily super
sensitjye-suffering for the light that
might be- had from the example of 9TH
ers. II. J. DAVENPORT.