Congratulations to Alfred Wright on his article about the University of California at Berkeley (The Big Game and the Barricades, Jan. 3). As a '65 graduate of UCB I was delighted to discover that, for once, a writer has been interested enough in the problem to report the "other side." It is always the Bettina Apthekers and the New Left that the public hears about—so much so, in fact, that they have come to believe that we are all a "bunch of Commies." I hope this article will open up the eyes of a few people because I, for one, am tired of defending my school to people who have depended solely on distorted information.
Yours was the most accurate and understanding discussion of this subject since the sit-in uproar at the university began. As an "Old Blue" from the class of '42, I have read both the public journals and the university statements of the situation on my alma mater's campus. I even went out to the campus to look at some of the students and see the tumult going on during an average day. I found exactly what your reporter found and drew the same conclusions. It is gratifying to know that there are wise people who recognize what meaning can be drawn from these activities.
C. JAY HOLLANDER
In my opinion, the article handles a dangerous and threatening subject much too lightly. It presents an incomplete picture of the true state of affairs in and around Cal, and it skips over too quickly the well-known, identified Communist influence and organization behind the continuing opposition to our country's policies and the Establishment.
The description of the agitators as the New Left paints too mild an image. Why don't you use terms like Communist. Communist-front, Communist youth group or Marxist-oriented when the situation calls for them? You write of these hawkers of protest as a student thing when, in fact, most of those who organize and direct and plan disturbances are not students at all.
January 17, 1966
If Mr. Wright was trying to explain something about the well-rounded and superior intellect of the Cal student, he missed badly. The "average" student turns out to be a bigger "oddball" than I suspected.
LAVERNE L. FRANCIS
Wright overlooks the same point all writers overlook in discussing this matter. "Involvement" is the current campus fad, just as "cooling it" was back in the '50s. Notice how often the word appears in the windy, self-important statements of the students. Observe how the idea of "getting involved" is applied to almost any venture other than that of attending classes.
As for Berkeley itself, it is a huge, rootless educational factory totally lacking in the traditions and values that typify the institutes of the East. The fact that it is located in a state that has spawned or harbored all manner of oddballs probably contributes to its current turmoil.
Mr. Wright overlooked the fact that the school's administration fostered many of the conditions now existing by making meeting space, a loudspeaker system and other facilities easily available. Granted, a university is not a dungeon, but some direction is needed. Whatever Cal's brainy kids might think of themselves, they are still immature young people who badly need some guidance.
I read with interest your accounts of unsportsmanlike conduct in the stands at various gymnasia (SCORECARD, Dec. 20 and Jan. 10). Actually this seems a bit boorish and even passé. After all one cannot out-Palestra the Palestra. Instead, we at David Lipscomb College have turned from such high schoolish behavior to a tactic known as Diabolic Mental Warfare (DMW).
Aside from subtle variations, the two basic steps of DMW are 1) a standing ovation for the officials and 2) absolute silence when opponents attempt foul shots. This strategy is not practiced halfheartedly. As he is introduced, each official hears a trumpet fanfare, a drum roll and tumultuous applause. This establishes firmly in his mind a positive association with Lipscomb. It also weakens the poise of the enemy. As for step 2, our foe usually does better from the field than from the foul line. I mean, who can shoot foul shots with 3,500 cataleptic zombies somberly observing him? It's like shuffleboard in a catacomb.
Oh, yes. We've won nine in a row.
The recent controversy in your columns regarding Duke fans shouting, "UCLA, go to hell!" and the Georgia Tech song line, "He would yell to hell with Georgia like his daddy used to do" (19TH HOLF, Jan. 3), brings to mind a remark of Harvard's famous president, Charles W. Eliot.
One Saturday afternoon in November, as President Eliot was walking toward the stadium with the well-known Boston littérateur. Edward Everett Hale, they were accosted by a rather unworldly professor who asked: "Where are you going?"
"To yell with Hale," Eliot replied.
SAMUEL CABOT JR.
I certainly don't condone the behavior of fans in all respects, but incidents such as the ones at the Duke-UCLA game almost always happen in the "big games." Today it takes a good team to win at home, and it takes an extra good team to win on the road. But the games are still played on the courts, not by the fans in the stands.
PFC. JAMES T. VAUGHN, USA
Schofield Barracks, Hawaii
You may be interested in knowing that the Eastern College Athletic Conference Public Relations Committee has developed a Basketball Spectator Code that received the approval of all 145 conference members at the annual meeting in early December. The committee is hopeful of making some inroads in the Northeast over the next couple of years.
ALBERT W. TWITCHELL
New Brunswick, N.J.
I was happy to read in your FOR THE RECORD section (Dec. 13) of Clark Graebner's recent victories over Fred Stolle and Roy Emerson—his second straight win over Emerson. It further supports my firm belief that the U.S. is on the threshold of tennis equality with, if not supremacy over, the Aussies. And it erases the fiction that Emerson is the world's top player. That rating belongs to Spain's Manuel Santana, who has demonstrated his ability and virtuosity by winning the U.S. championships on grass and the Swedish championships on clay, in which he defeated both Emerson and Stolle in straight sets. And it was Santana who put Spain into the Davis Cup finals (¬°Olé! Manolo—a Little Bit Too Late, Jan. 10).
To get back to the U.S. vs. Australia, however, our heroes seem to be knocking off the Aussies with some consistency. In addition to Graebner's singles victories, Clark and Marty Riessen have bested Emerson and Stolle in doubles. Arthur Ashe, who defeated Emerson in the quarter-finals at Forest Hills and Stolle in Fort Worth, beat them both again to win in Brisbane. He defeated Stolle still again in Sydney and defeated Emerson, for the third time, in the Adelaide tournament. And what about Charlie Pasarell? He beat both Emerson and Stolle at Merion, Emerson again in the Pacific Southwest, and Stolle at Forest Hills.
It was Australia vs. Spain for the Davis Cup this year, but the U.S. will have to be reckoned with in 1966. In view of the string of victories by these three U.S. hopefuls, we must be doing something right.
CORMAC H. RYAN
New York City
While I feel that your choice of Sandy Koufax as Sportsman of the Year is a great honor for a great athlete, it is my opinion that the true sportsman of 1965 was Arthur Ashe. In Dallas last summer I saw Ashe perform as few others have on a tennis court. Further, his record in Australia this winter has more than proved his outstanding ability. Ashe has to be the "future" of American hopes in the Davis Cup.
DAVID ALLAN WALKER
I am a bridge enthusiast and have read and enjoyed many of Charles Goren's articles, but I must take exception to A Quiz to See if You Like to Fight (Dec. 20). I am the first to agree with Mr. Goren that the bidding rules he himself devised for the club player are meant to be broken in many situations. I consider myself a fairly aggressive player of "run-of-the-neighborhood" bridge, but I would receive more than a glare from most partners if I bid as aggressively as he suggests on several of the hands. Mr. Goren should realize that not all of his readers are experts and that he can only add confusion to the typical party-bridge game by advocating such abandonment of the rules.
The next time a partner asks me if I "play Goren" I'm going to think twice before answering.
Port Hueneme, Calif.
It disturbed me greatly to learn that the Baltimore Colts and the Green Bay Packers received 1/14th of their regular salaries to participate in the playoff game for the division championship. By the same logic that baseball players do not receive extra money for the fifth, sixth and seventh games of the World Series, football players should not receive a reward for participating in an extra game to determine a conference championship. Pride plus the better payday of the championship game (as contrasted with the Playoff Bowl) should be reward enough. If football is to be kept beyond reproach, no extra pay should go to the players involved in divisional championship playoffs.
FRED D. BANFIELD, M.D.
As an avid fan of college and professional football I have been very much interested in the drafting of college football players and, particularly, the enormous bonuses paid to some of these men by the wealthy professional teams. Many of these players have acquired their skills through four years of intensive training at their various colleges. Therefore, it seems to me that the college coach should share in a percentage of the bonuses paid to them.
Take the case of Quarterback Joe Namath, bought by the New York Jets for an amount reputed to be $400,000. At least 10% of this amount should have gone to his coach at Alabama, Bear Bryant, the man who developed his talent and gave him the opportunity to star.
GORDON B. CLEVERSLEY
I enjoyed Jack Olsen's most interesting article, Enemies in Speedland (Nov. 29 and Dec. 6). However, I have always wondered why Craig Breedlove and the Arfons brothers went about building their vehicles the hard way. Why not get hold of a surplus afterburning jet fighter? For such a worthy cause I'm sure either the Navy or Air Force would be happy to let one go at the scrap cost. Then beef up the main landing gear, add rugged, oversize wheels, suitably enclosed in "spats," as we used to say, chop off the wings just outboard of the main struts and reshape the inboard stubs to give little or no lift.
Then, for the speed run, slap her into burner; then, as the speed builds up, ease back on the stick until the nosewheel is in the air in normal takeoff attitude. At this point, retract the nosewheel and fly her down the course on the main wheels. At the completion of the run and, hopefully, the first half of a new land-speed record, shut down the engine, lower the nosewheel, pop the speed brakes and the chute and roll to a stop. All in all, it would be interesting to see how such a ruptured duck would do against a Green Monster or a Wingfoot Express.
COMMANDER R. K. AWTREY, USN
New York City