Page 665

A GREATER GETTYSBURG at which "no evidence was found that athletics were subsidized by any group or individual." For that matter, none of the nineteen Pennsylvania institutions visited was included on that list. The report did state that, at the time of the visit, Gettysburg was awarding thirty of what it called "frankly and unequivocally . . . athletic scholarships" and, in addition, was one of a number of schools which somewhat informally "cared for" an unspecified number of athletes simply in order to remain competitive with the teams it customarily played. Finally, almost in passing, the authors mentioned several ways in which Gettysburg staff members corresponded with promising young men with athletic ability whom it was interested in attracting as students.356 College reaction to the findings of the Carnegie report was immediate. President Hanson issued a statement which appeared in the Gettysburg Times (October 24) and the Gettysburgian (October 31) and which stated flatly that "the facts quoted relative to Gettysburg College no longer exist." He denied that the College had "slush funds" or engaged in "cut-throat competition" in recruiting students, insisting that it did not "cheapen educational standards to accommodate athletic prospects." All scholarships, he stated, are awarded on the strength of "character, need, scholastic attainments and athletic or other accomplishments." In a statement to the local newspaper, Professor Arms, a member of the Athletic Council, confirmed the accuracy of the president's statements. The Gettysburgian editor complained about the "ill-timed explosive" which the foundation had set off by releasing a report based upon evidence which, he claimed, was some four years old and, "in newspaper parlance, slightly stale." Fearlessly he issued a formal invitation to investigate the current situation at Gettysburg, for "we are ninety- nine and forty-four one hundredths per cent pure." Perspective, usually a decided advantage to have, suggests that Gettysburgians overreacted to the matter-of-fact Carnegie report, responding to accusations which its authors had not really made. While establishing that some schools had satisfactory athletic programs without apparent recruiting or subsidization of students, the authors did not insist that, in order to escape their critical comment, all schools need emulate them. They did not say, even imply, that Gettysburg had slush funds or engaged in cutthroat competition. The report did remind its readers that many of the details of intercollegiate athletics were sensitive matters which few wanted to explain at length and in public. The Gettysburg reaction reflects this sensitivity. Surely few persons in the College constituency at this time expected that Gettysburg would not make an effort to attract students with more-than-average athletic ability or that it would not 358Ibid., pp. 241, 242, 256, 257, 232, 234. 66