The New York Interscholastic Athletic Association publishes a monthly paper, which is called the Interscholastic Record, and is edited by a board composed of one member from each of the schools represented in the Association. It is fair for the general public to assume that the opinions expressed by the Record are official and endorsed by the rank and file of the members of the Association, and, consequently, of the New York schools. But in justice to the true and straightforward sportsmen of New York, of which there are many in the schools, I want to say to the readers of the Record in other cities that the opinions expressed by the paper are by no means those of the better element among the scholastic athletes of this city.
The Editor-in-Chief of the Record is Mr. William J. Ehrich, of the Harvard School. Mr. Ehrich attended the College of the City of New York for a term in 1894, but for some reason did not continue his course, and returned to the Harvard School. He caught upon their baseball nine last spring, and was protested by the De La Salle Institute because Section I of Article X. of the N.Y.I.S.A.A. constitution states that no member of any school is eligible to compete in any athletic contest who has been enrolled as a member of any college. Mr. Ehrich was fully cognizant of this law when he played. Mr. Freeland, the principal of the Harvard School, must have been fully cognizant of this law. Nevertheless, Ehrich played. The result of this has been that at a recent meeting of the Arbitration Committee of the N.Y.I.S.A.A., the Harvard School was found guilty of fraud, the penalty for which is expulsion from the Association.
In commenting upon this action of the Committee the Record says: "Now that the football season is practically over, the delegates to the I.S.A.A. have found it necessary to 'keep the pot boiling' by rehashing old protests and concocting new ones. For example, the time-honored protest against Harvard School for playing Ehrich on her baseball team last spring is being resurrected. This protest was, we are certain, finally decided and buried last June immediately after the baseball season closed. Being a party directly interested in the failure of the protest, we do not care to discuss the question of its validity. Suffice it to say, that after riding in the bicycle-races of eight scholastic and interscholastic athletic meetings, and receiving his medals for these races; after playing on the Harvard baseball team in every game but the last without having his well-known attendance at C.C.N.Y. brought up against him—after all this, we ask, is there any right or reason in protesting Ehrich for playing in the championship games between De La Salle and Harvard?"
It is possible that Mr. Ehrich did not write this himself, but whether he did or not, the statement is certainly not published without his knowledge and consent, and he is consequently severely censurable for such an expression of opinion. It is contrary to the spirit of amateurism, it is harmful to the best interests of honesty in school sport, and it is insidious in that it may lead younger boys to believe that such statements are just and correct. And another thing: Mr. Ehrich has no business to criticise the action of the N.Y.I.S.A.A. in the paper which claims to be the official organ of that Association.
But this is not the worst offence committed by the Record against amateur and school sport. Farther along in the editorial column we read: "If we had our choice all those technical rules governing athletics in the schools would be stricken out of the constitution; and any bona fide member of a school who is under age would have a right to compete in the games. We have frequently heard intelligent fellows say that this would not do, as the college athletes would come back to school to compete. It evidently never occurred to them that an athlete would much prefer competing in college, and that an athlete whom it would pay a school to support would be able to do very well at a college." Among the "technical rules" that Mr. Ehrich and the Record do not like is the one which caused the conviction of the Harvard School for fraud. This easily accounts for the opinion expressed. But the rule is not a "technical" one. It is a very practical rule, a very good rule, and a necessary rule, and the Association was perfectly right in enforcing it.
And now, parents and guardians, and principals of the New York schools—Dr. White, Mr. Lyon, Messrs. Wilson and Kellogg, Mr. Freeland, Dr. Cutler—all of you, is not it time that you should look into this? What does the editor of the Record mean when he says that "an athlete whom it would pay a school to support would be able to do very well at a college"? I beg of you to consider this! Does any New York school "support" any athlete? If so, do you know of it? And is there any doubt as to what sporting men understand by the term "to do very well"? Is it possible that the Record suggests to the lurking professional spirit in certain school athletes that there is money "in it" for the boy who will go to college and try to enter sport for money? Does the Record believe this of the colleges? Does the experience of the editor of the Record at his own school lead him to believe that there is money to be had for playing baseball at college?
My own opinion about this editorial is that the young man who wrote it did not realize what he was saying. I don't think he meant to convey the idea which his words clearly state. But even if he did not, he has done a great wrong to the schools of this city, and the Association under whose name these dreadful fallacies are published should interfere at once.
FOUR FOOTBALL TEAMS.
ST. MARK'S SCHOOL, SOUTHBORO MASS.