Newspaper Page Text
72
THE MAROON TIGER
type of student who, after gaining a position on the
team, stays out only as long as there are trips. Now
a player who thinks only of trips or publicity does
the team little or no good, as he is not playing with
the team for the team, hut it is all for self, and good
teams are built only when every one pulls together.
But how can we expect those who possess athletic
ability to give their all for the college when the stu
dent body fails to give them the proper backing? When
a fellow starts out unless he is already a good player
he receives little or no encouragement from his fel
lows on the side-lines. More than likely he will hear
the razz from those who are too small or haven’t got
the guts to go out. Or consider the fearless player
who while under pressure, perhaps for the first time,
makes a bad pass or misses a crip shot. There is no
doubt about the stands being down on him from then
on. Why razz him, can you play better than he can?
If you can why is it that you are not out there? If you
can’t, then help him play better by giving him a good
hand when lie’s up or down.
Charles Robinson, ’30
For the past five or six years the matter of subsidiz
ing athletes has played an important role in the his
tory of athletics among Negro colleges.
Personally speaking, I am not in favor of such and
1 am proud to know 7 that such does not exist at More
house college. The subsidizing of athletes is good when
all there is wanted is a winning team, and the satis
faction of spectators. Otherwise its effects are bad. It
creates a problem which effects the school administra
tion and the true student, it shows the lack of confi
dence in a coach in developing men, it causes ill-feeling
between subsidized and non-subsidized athletes and it
causes a lack of co-operation. Furthermore, the ath
lete that is paid very seldom enters the school of his
choice, athletics are stressed more than his studies, he
plays under a strain, his aim is to play in all games
and not give all in any, he develops a superiority com
plex, and last but not least, he develops a poor spirit
of sportsmanship. He will do anything to win.
On the other hand, the student who plays the game
of his own free will, plays the game not only to win
hut for the love of it. He enters the school of his
choice, develops a keen school spirit, creates a spirit
of co-operation and team work and he chooses his type
of curriculum and then considers athletics.
The spirit to win is developed more by spectators,
students, and alumni than by the players and coaches,
and I believe that if they were more courteous toward
the players and coaches and gave a helping hand in
the time of defeats and slumps instead of a wholesale
knocking and jeering there would be developed a great
er inner urge and spirit on the parts of players and
coaches to develop and win with the material on hand,
and to do away with the spirit on the part of coaches
to seek new material to satisfy the fans.
So shall we lose our college spirit, physical, men
tal, moral, and spiritual development by subsidizing
athletes or shall we maintain these valuable qualities
by getting behind the coaches and players and giving
them our whole-hearted support? The lesson of co
operation taught by the team-w 7 ork of not subsidizing
athletes is a valuable schooling. The one prime need
of our day is the development of the spirit of loyalty,
the willingness to subordinate individual welfare to
that of a group and to look upon one’s own work as a
part of a larger endeavor.
A REPLY—IN DEFENSE OF
FRATERNITIES
In the past issue of the Maroon Tiger there was
published an article bearing this title: “Thinking of
Fraternities.” This article, I suppose, found favor and
support among quite a few, especially among those
who failed to think beyond the first level as the author
of that article did. In my reply, I am not trying to
convince the author nor any one that some of the
thoughts that were given w 7 ere not true, but I shall at
tempt to convince you that there are two sides to be
seen and thought upon, but the author failed to men
tion both. In observing a doughnut there are two things
one should see, the HOLE and the WHOLE. Now, if
you are unable to see them both, then it is you that
should be made the spoils of the JUNK PILE instead
of the doughnut.
It is true among fraternities that a clannish spirit
may he exemplified to some extent among some of
its members, but that is only one side—the bad side,
Now let us turn to the good side and see if it would
be justifiable for us to throw our fraternities on the
junk pile because they have some defects. All col
lege fraternities stress Scholarship, Achievement, and
Leadership: not only is this done at Morehouse Col
lege hut in all other colleges and universities that have
chapters of fraternities. Here at Morehouse there
is a fraternity average that each fraternity must main
tain in order for it to he recognized by the college.
As yet none of them has lost its recognition. Two-thirds
of the honor students here are fraternity men. Nearly
all, if not all. that take part in any extra-curricula ac
tivity are fraternity men. In so far as each individual
is trying to put his fraternity on the top, he reacts to
this stimulus and with his fraternity as a goal he not
only achieves for his fraternity hut achieves for him
self and his race as well. Then achievement for fra
ternity means individual achievement and race achieve
ment also.
Some of the most well-known and noted leaders and
educators of our race today are fraternity men, men
who believe in fraternities anil who are able to see
something good within them along with defects. Dr.
John Hope, the President of Morehouse College and
Dean S. H. Archer, Hon. R. R. Moton, the Principal
of Tuskegee Institute; C. C. Spaulding, the president
of the North Carolina Mutual l,ife Insurance Co.; Gil
bert H. Jones, the President of Wilberforce University;
Roland Hayes, the great tenor singer, and many others
concerning whom spaces does not allow me to make men
tion. Is there any clannish spirit exemplified in the
action of these men? Then, if they are free from such
selfish spirit, fraternities do produce something. Af
ter all, that is worth while, especially when we think
of these men as leaders who have achieved individ
ually, not only for their fraternities, but for the race
as a whole.
Criticism might best be given by those who know
within and without, and those who do not know within
should refrain from criticism, lest they err.
Where there is no whirl, there is no King,
Where there is no goal, there is no gain.
B. E. Bell, ’30.
PATRONIZE OUR ADVERTISERS