Problems?

By Roger Gillespie

Sports Editor

San Jose State College is a school with a problem. It seems that the Black community of San Jose has the school administration, the student body and a good portion of the local populous worried about their upcoming game against BYU.

Could it be that they are afraid of another loss on the gridiron? Oh, that it were so simple. Even though the Spartan grid crew has taken its lumps this year, the game itself unfortunately will be overshadowed by the racial issue.

The problem lies in the claim by Negro athletes that BYU discriminates in its policies against the black man. To show their disdain for such practices, these Black athletes have announced that they will not play in the scheduled game against the Cougars this Saturday in San Jose.

Many of the leaders of this movement have been quoted as objecting to the Mormon doctrine that “the black man is condemned to hell because of the color of his skin.” Yet, by these very statements they show they have no real understanding of the Church’s doctrine toward the Negro.

BYU DECLARATION

BYU has declared that no prejudice is to exist on campus. Contrary to the practice of many schools, BYU has no place on its admission papers to indicate race. President Wilkinson is proud of proclaiming to all that the Provo campus is one of the most cosmopolitan in the world, “drawing together students from all 50 states and more than 50 foreign countries.” This, of course, includes Negroes.

For those who are willing to look, they will find our own Book of Mormon proclaiming: “and he (God) denieth none that come unto him, BLACK and WHITE, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God . . . (II Nephi 26:33)

San Jose State, a school of 20,000 plus, has long been a hotbed of racial discord. In 1967, for example, the SJS administration was “forced” to cancel a game with the University of Texas at El Paso at the last minute because of the threat of violence by Black militants. The reason for the cancellation, according to Professor Harry Edwards, an outspoken leader of black militancy, was that San Jose State was discriminating against its own Black athletes. Apparently the shoe was on the other foot last year.

NO TEAM SPIRIT

The problem faced by SJS was brought to a head last weekjust prior to the Arizona State football game. Because ofthe racial division, team spirit was non-existent. The Negro and White players would not even speak to each other . Perhaps they were lucky to escape with a 66-0 whipping.

Differences between the two groups on the SJS football team are clearly defined in this quote from a San Jose Daily: “A spokesman for the Whites said they fully sympathize with the ultimate goal of the Blacks who were taking a stand against the ‘racist’ policies of Brigham Young but they didn’t subscribe to the means selected by the Blacks to attain their goal.”

Fortunately, cooler heads have prevailed and spokesmen for both teams have indicated that the game will go on “no matter what.” It takes courage to stand up against the threat of force and our warmest congratulations go to those who have taken this position.

But what would it mean if San Jose were to cancel the game?

In addition to the large monetary guarantee the Spartans would have to dig up out of their own pocket, BYU would undoubtedly be forced to review the feasibility of playing future games scheduled with the Spartans.

All other Western Athletic Conference schools would also be forced to review their relationships with the California school. College football is big business ani schools all over the country would be hesitant to schedule a contest with a school that has called off two games in two years because of the threat of racial violence

Wiles Hallock, commissioner of the WAC, indicated that were the cancellation to occur, the topic would be of major consideration at the league meeting next week.

The present situation takes on a sadder look when it is noted that several years ago when San Jose was trying desperately to gain admittance to the WAC, it was our own President Wilkinson who argued long and hard to their favor.

The answer to the question really seems quite simple. Last year the colored members of the UTEP track squad tried the same trick; a boycott of a meet with the Cougars.

But the UTEP administration refused to back down. No play, no pay, they said. Even at that the tracksters refused and dared the school to deep good its promise. How surprised they must have been when they were dropped from the track squad. They are back this year, but none are on athletic scholarships or receive university grants-in-aid.

Results? A strong bond of good will has been established between the two schools (even though they did spoil our Homecoming this year) and the athletic contests waged have been without incident.

This seems to be the only sane policy the administration of San Jose State has open to it. Relations between the two schools for many years have been excellent. It would be a shame for an incident like this to casta pall over the continuance of this warm relationship.