Athletics and the School

No schoolmaster who is sincerely interested in the vital problems he is called upon to face and solve can ignore the influence exerted on the student body by athletics. The absorbing and abnormal interest aroused by this phase of student activities is generally deplored. Many look upon athletics as a curse to be eliminated if possible from the sphere of student life. Others regard it as a necessary evil to be tolerated or ignored. Still others see in athletics a natural vent for healthy enthusiasm, a counter influence to injurious and dangerous tendencies, a factor to be reckoned with, curbed, and controlled, that its influence may be made uplifting and wholesome.

Those who appreciate most truly the many-sided nature of their responsibilities to the youth committed to their charge arc most keenly aware of the great value of athletics in their important work. And yet these same men, just because of their close and intimate contact with their students, outside of the class-room as well as within, see most clearly the lurking dangers which beset this phase of student life where enthusiasm and interest so largely centre, and where the appeal to youth of all temperaments and kinds finds a ready response.

In these days of increasing luxury, ease, and softness, the influence of wholesome athletics in developing character and toughening the moral fibre must not be ignored. Many a weakling is made strong through the lessons he masters on the football field. Here are taught and developed selfcontrol and self-surrender, alertness of mind and body, courage, and the ability to think and act quickly for one’s self. The meaning of democracy in its best sense is here driven home with compelling force. Self-restraint is in the very air, and self-denial for the benefit of all is a daily necessity. And the influence of these lessons is not lost on the student body as a whole. It permeates the very atmosphere of the school-community, restraining the weak, inspiring cleaner standards of life, and lifting to distinctly higher levels the student conception of physical fitness and moral worth. No arguments in defense of these contentions are needed by those schoolmasters who make their chief concern the development of the character of their pupils.

Were athletics, and especially football, taken out of the life of our schools we should search long, and probably in vain, for a suitable substitute. And yet those schoolmasters who are so deeply and sincerely devoted to the development of the whole boy — mind, morals, and body — are the ones who most clearly recognize in our athletics today a very real danger and a growing menace which demands immediate and relentless extinction. Professor Briggs of Harvard has set forth clearly in recently published articles this menace as it is found in college baseball. My purpose is to deal with it as it manifests itself in football as played to-day throughout our American schools.

For some unexplained reason, football seems to have developed a code of ethics of its own. Under this strange code, practices which in plain language can be called nothing less than base, deceitful, and dishonorable, have been born, and have grown with mushroomlike rapidity. Like the unscrupulous lawyer, the football player has seemingly come to believe that his business is to circumvent the laws of the game, not to obey them. And with all the natural cleverness and resourcefulness of youth he has made wonderful progress. To outwit the umpire; to gain his point and further the success of his team by foul means if necessary; even to accomplish his purpose by disabling an opponent, — these are the daily accompaniments of our football games.

I am not here referring to those frequent infringements of the playing rules which are constantly penalized and which yet are so often the result of mere thoughtlessness or hotheadedness. These can be explained and generally corrected. But the evils of which I speak are clearly defined. They are planned deliberately, studied carefully, and practiced to just that extent that the laxity of umpires and the difficulty of detection render possible.

These practices are well known to all close followers of the game. They include tripping, momentary holding, unfair use of arms in blocking, and needless roughness of various kinds. And these practices, forbidden by the rules, injurious to wholesome sport and clean sportsmanship, and utterly mean and contemptible in themselves, flourish and are generally encouraged wherever rival school and college elevens meet to test their skill. This is not a theory, but a fact, — a fact recognized by every close student of the game.

For many years I have been closely in touch with school and college athletics. As player, coach, and headmaster my opportunities of observing athletics from the inside have been ample to supply me with first-hand evidence to substantiate my contention. Dozens of cases occur to me as I write, which testify all too strongly to the truth of my assertions, and which reveal clearly the wide extent of the deplorable practices of which I speak. Let me cite two.

Only recently, during the progress of an interclass game, a boy who had entered the school from a large city high school, was several times detected by a watchful umpire, ‘holding’ His side was promptly penalized, and the culprit was called to the side lines and taken to task for his conduct. He had been guilty of a practice freely indulged in by football players, and consisting of seizing and holding momentarily the ankle of an opposing player, thereby preventing his opponent from exercising the freedom to tackle very definitely allowed him by the rules. The offender expressed his regret at being so clumsy as to invite detection, but appeared utterly oblivious of the plain deceit and rank dishonesty involved in his act. ‘Why,’he exclaimed a bit indignantly, ‘all the college elevens are coached to play the game that way; college coaches always teach that trick.’ And yet, of this same boy, his former principal had testified, only a few weeks before, that in twenty-nine years of teaching he had never met a finer boy, ‘absolutely honest, reliable, and at all times worthy of confidence.’

Not long ago the freshman elevens of two of our leading universities met for their annual contest. On the opposing teams were two boys who had formerly played side by side on their preparatory school eleven. During the contest even impartial observers were aware that concerted efforts were being put forth by one of these teams to disable its opponent, whose reputation had preceded him and who was regarded as ‘dangerous.’ No one was more prominent in this ‘dirty work’ than the friend of former years. Not long after the contest these two boys met. Battered and bruised, the victim of the unfair assault said to his former team-mate, ‘You never played like that at school.’ ‘No,’ replied the other in evident embarrassment, ‘but we are taught to play that way here.’

In neither of these cases am I disposed to blame unduly the offending boy. Rather is he to be pitied as the victim of conditions and influences under which even strong natures frequently break down and good intentions and purposes are wrecked. It is easy enough for an outsider to criticize and condemn. It is easy enough to argue that a boy who indulges in such reprehensible practices is inherently weak in character and unworthy of all confidence and respect. But only those who as players have felt the goad of an unscrupulous coach with his unlimited authority and power, only those who as representatives of their schools or colleges have been swayed by that mighty force known as school or college ‘spirit,’ which, echoing from hundreds of throats, calls for victory, — only those are competent to testify to the overwhelming strength of the forces arrayed against them in their struggle to be honest and play fair. And after all they are only boys. Can we wonder that they so generally yield? Is it really surprising that they fall into the common practice and do what they are asked to do, what their mates do, and what they know their opponents will do?

The underlying causes of these sordid evils should claim our immediate and our most thoughtful attention. They are easily found. Two of the most conspicuous have already been referred to. In a sense they react on each other. The coach will tell you that he does only what is expected of him. Student sentiment will defend itself on the ground that what is universally practiced must be largely right. From experience I know that student sentiment is susceptible to influence, and that it responds most readily and swiftly to that influence which directs it toward high ideals of honesty and honor and justice.

Not so the coach. Almost without exception the coach is actuated primarily, if not solely, by the desire to win. And in my experience it makes little difference whether he be an amateur or a professional. His power on the field is unlimited. His influence over the boys he instructs is tremendous. His word is law. To disobey him is to invite ostracism or dismissal from the squad. Often he is vulgar and profane. Sometimes he is brutal. Seldom does he exhibit, on the football field at least, those qualities which are demanded of a gentleman. And yet, with all these deadly influences at his command, he is allowed the utmost liberty to work upon the plastic characters of our youth. With freedom from all wholesome restraint, he is permitted to sow in fertile soil those tares which in their later growth are bound to choke the intellectual, moral, and spiritual growth of our boys and ruin in advance the expected harvest.

With the clear knowledge before us of the double standard of honesty so disgustingly prevalent in our business, professional, and political life to-day, can we longer tolerate conditions which reflect that national disgrace, and at the same time provide unlimited material for its continuance? And are we blind and foolish enough to sit idly by and allow irresponsible coaches, bereft of all high ideals and governed by the lowest motives, to deprive us of that which can be, and ought to be, one of the most helpful and wholesome influences in the life of our schools? And are we not also aware that a clean and high-minded coach may exert on our boys a more uplifting and permanent influence than that perhaps of preachers and lecturers combined?

Where then does the responsibility for this deplorable state of affairs rest? I answer without hesitation that it rests with the responsible heads of our schools and colleges. They, and they alone, have the power to eliminate this crying evil. So long as athletics occupies a position in our school and college life; so long as it exerts its influence, be that influence good or bad, on the youth committed to our charge, — just so long is it our duty, yes, and our privilege, to see that it is supervised and controlled and made to exercise its influence for the general good. If we ignore this responsibility we are merely confirming the all too prevalent opinion that athletics belongs in a sphere by itself and is entitled to its own individual code of ethics and morals. And in what better way can we develop in the minds of our youth the conception that in life itself two standards of conduct and honor are permissible? We expel a boy for cheating in his studies; we reprimand or ignore him if he cheats in his games. Can we justify to our consciences or to our boys this arbitrary distinction? Only by recognizing our full responsibilities to our pupils shall we succeed in eliminating a deadly evil.

It may not be within our ability or power to supervise in person the athletic activities of our boys; but we can appoint and hold to strict accountability those who can do this for us. Not even the college can escape this heavy obligation. Some schools have sought for years to ward off these dangers from their boys. Here and there conscientious and high-minded teachers have unselfishly given their time and thought to the athletic activities of their pupils. But even in these cases their splendid work has been largely nullified, or worse, by the callous indifference of the authorities of those colleges at which these well-meaning boys have later appeared. Many a case has come under my own personal observation where this has been sadly true.

When will our modern educators come to realize that true education cannot limit itself to the mental life alone? Our forefathers who founded our early institutions of learning were influenced by no uncertain motives. The present materialistic conception of life did not hold them in its deadly grasp as it holds so many of our educators and philanthropists to-day. They recognized that the human being, God’s highest creation, is not composed of mind alone. To them character was the paramount issue. To them character, combining in just proportion mental and moral strength, was the surest foundation of true citizenship and of those successes upon which alone national life can with safety be built. ‘Above all, it is expected that the Master’s attention to the disposition of the Minds and Morals of the youth under his charge will exceed every other care.’ So wrote the founder of Phillips Academy one hundred and thirty-five years ago, echoing in his words the ideals of the intelligent and patriotic philanthropists of his time. And later he adds these significant words: ‘Knowledge without goodness is dangerous.’ There speaks the seer with the clear vision before him of the true meaning and significance of education, — ‘Knowledge without goodness is dangerous.’

Is the realization of that plain truth before us as we pursue our all-important work as educators to-day? Frankly, I believe it is not. Satisfied with our striking accomplishments along intellectual, and especially applied scientific lines, we are prone to forget that, after all, the stability and permanency of the nation must eventually rest on the character of the individual citizen. And yet he must be blind indeed who can soberly face the great problems which confront our nation, and seriously consider the underlying weakness which threatens our national life, and yet fail to understand how vitally the application or rejection of that self-evident truth concerns our welfare. The real menace lies not in the ignorant and uneducated member of society, but in the intelligent and clever crook; not in the illiterate masses, but in the shrewd and unscrupulous leader who can play upon their emotions and mould them to his will. The rank dishonesty so widely prevalent in our business life in recent years has been possible only because of the mental ability and shrewd intelligence of those who have practiced and furthered it. The growing contempt of law is largely based on the knowledge that applause and rewards are too often bestowed on him who by reason of an acute and well-trained mind is able to circumvent the laws, rather than on him who honorably fights for justice. And even in the sacred halls of our legislative assemblies we know too well that selfish interests and dishonorable practices with startling frequency beget and shape our statutes.

In the face of these unpleasant truths, can the educator fold his hands in intellectual complacency and announce to the world that his business is to train the minds, and only the minds, of the youth committed to his charge? Perhaps this would assure us of an easier life, a life less burdened with harassing cares. But if that is our only aim, if that is the ideal which inspires us in our work, then the sooner we seek other fields and other kinds of labor, the better for our youth, the better for our coming citizens, the better for our country and the world.

‘ Knowledge without goodness is dangerous.' In every sphere of life the truth of that clear statement is abundantly evidenced. If we cannot put knowledge into the minds of our coming citizens while fortifying that knowledge with rugged honesty and sound morals, it will be better for our country, and better for the world, that we close altogether the doors of our institutions of learning. Our student life to-day is many-sided and complex. But in whatever sphere of that student life character is at stake, there our duty calls us to go; and we shall not be true to the great trust reposed in us if we fail to heed and answer that call.