Page 666

A SALUTARY INFLUENCE encourage them to remain by means of grants of one kind or another. Whether its athletic program was administered in ways consistent with the College's published statements depended largely upon the good sense and integrity of presidents, faculty, and coaches. It depended upon something else. This writer has found no evidence to refute Professor Bloom's conclusion that, if nothing else, perennially limited funds prevented the College from engaging in abuses which a more bulging purse from inside or outside the institution would have made possible.357 The approach of the Carnegie Foundation to intercollegiate athletics was somewhat different from that of Gettysburg students, whose newspaper almost always continued to argue that the College's intercollegiate program enhanced its image while helping its students. The Gettysburgian also insisted that, relatively speaking at least, the program was what, over and over again, they called clean. We want a winning team, according to the November 10,1909 issue, but "a clean team, a team of legitimate students, free from any taint or unfair tactics." In announcing the appointment of the first athletic director, the issue of May 24,1916 declared that "we want a man who will throughout stand firm for clean athletics and discourage any tendency which demands pay for college loyalty and service in her honor." Accordingly, when the staff learned that a good player who was not a regularly registered student had been allowed to participate in a Bucknell game, they used the issue of November 25, 1914 to declare that "such an affair should not have arisen and we feel sure that it will never come up again."358 Early in the century students were already refining their established ritual for supporting the football team. In the advance of a game, the customary mass meeting took the form of a pep rally, at which presidents, faculty, team members, student leaders, and others might talk, and at which there would be songs, yells, and excitement galore. Cheerleaders made their appearance as early as 1912, a response to poor Gettysburg spirit at a Penn game. Faculty resistance to having students attend away games gradually dissipated. If we can believe the Gettysburgian for November 10, 1915, almost the entire student body went with the team to Baltimore for 357Bloom, Intercollegiate Athletics, 2:6. Writing in the American Mercury for November 1936, John R. Tunis, a sports authority, listed three groups of institutions (amateur, semi-professionals, and professionals) according to their football programs. He ranked Gettysburg along with thirty-two other schools in the amateur category, in company with Allegheny, Haverford, Wesleyan, Williams, and others. "More Pay for College Football Stars," pp. 267-272. 358See the issue of April 6, 1927 for an editorial entitled "Too Much Football," which criticized the current student mores accommodating sports, dances, fraternities, automobiles, and parties, leaving room for only "an occasional class thrown in between." 66