Word: reasonably
(lookup in dictionary)
(lookup stats)
Dates: during 1900-1909
Sort By: most recent first
(reverse)
...elect any but an undergraduate captain. The exclusion for one year of all men who have been members of athletic teams in other universities was intended to discourage the migration of athletes. We do not want men who are here solely for athletic purposes. But there seems no logical reason why a student who comes for his education should not hope to make an athletic team. On the other hand, if other universities would enter an agreement to exclude graduate students, Harvard would not be likely to hold back...
...intercollegiate athletics and we think of our teams as representing, primarily, Harvard College (including the Scientific School), rather than Harvard University. The same, however, does not hold true of some other institutions whose circumstances are not similar to ours, and the study of law is no more a reason in itself against playing football than is the study of Latin or of mathematics. We are strong enough to act alone if we want to, but it is usually better to move in agreement with others and sometimes to let well enough alone. ARCHIBALD CARY COOLIDGE...
Rule IX of the playing regulations was amended to allow the substitution of another player for one withdrawn from the game. The original rule provided that when a player was, for any reason, withdrawn from the game, a player from the opposite team should also be taken out in order to equalize the number on each side, no substitution being permitted...
...Committee is always ready to hear complaints and suggestions, and urges all who have any to leave them in the box provided for the purpose. But thus far none have been received with regard to the service in the dining-room, and for this reason the CRIMSON editorial came as a very great surprise. An examination of the facts seems to show that in this case the CRIMSON was at least somewhat overhasty in its conclusions. ROGER ERNST, Chairman House Committee...
...first rebuttal speech for Harvard, Daniels contended that the affirmative went too far in assuming that the proposed remedy would meet cases that have never yet arisen. Conditions which demanded federal intervention without application from State authorities have not arisen in the past, and there is no reason to expect they will. The solution for any case that may arise will come through the present system; no such radical change as is proposed is needed...