We feel San Jose deserves a great deal of credit for its success, but the most spectacular story in sports, concerning a team and its rapport with its fans, is in Seattle.
In FACES IN THE CROWD (July 29) you credit the anteater mascot to the University of San Diego. This is a grave injustice to the students of UC Irvine who in a moment of inspiration in 1965 adopted the anteater and the cry "Zot!" as emblematic of their independence from the Bears and Bruins of other UC campuses.
DAVID B. FOLLETT
Manhattan Beach, Calif.
WHALE OF A DIFFERENCE
I would like to congratulate you on Run Noisy, Run Deep and Go to Work by Richard W. Johnston (Aug. 5). In the current period of hysteria over the well-being of marine mammals, Mr. Johnston's work represents a fine piece of clear-eyed reporting. The popular literature on the subject could certainly stand more articles of this sort.
As a colleague of mine recently stated, whales and dolphins "are not little men in wet suits." They are fascinating, beguiling creatures, to be sure, but none attains an intelligence level equivalent to man's. Actually, a dolphin is about as intelligent as a dog.
A few minor points in Mr. Johnston's article need correcting. The Marine Mammal Protection Act was passed by Congress on Oct. 21, 1971 and took effect exactly one year later—not in 1973 as reported. Also, the going rate for killer whales has dramatically increased to $75,000. This last point is important only if one is purchasing the animal.
Mystic Marinelife Aquarium
The advent of the dramatic growth of women's athletic programs (Women in Sport: A Progress Report, July 29), particularly at the college level, offers, perhaps even demands, a reevaluation of athletic purpose and financial structure.
I am appalled that the Arizona State Board of Regents should grant 60 women's athletic scholarships to Arizona State. In these days of rising tuitions and shortages of academic scholarships, one could scarcely argue convincingly that the money could not be better spent elsewhere within our post-secondary educational system.
This is not to say that women do not deserve more money to improve opportunities for athletic experience. What I am suggesting is that male programs spend entirely too much money on too few people for questionable societal benefits.
Let me propose the unthinkable: that all collegiate athletic governing bodies adopt a 10-year plan for eliminating all athletic scholarships. In the first year of the program, athletic departments would lose one-tenth of the previous year's scholarship money, this money being contributed to academic scholarships. In the second year, two-tenths of the base year scholarship money would be contributed to academic scholarships, reducing athletic scholarships by that amount. In the third year three-tenths, and so on, until in the 10th year the entire base amount is contributed for academic scholarships.
After the 10th year, colleges would be free to allocate the money any way they saw fit, except for athletic scholarships. The increasing recognition of the student-athlete makes such a plan feasible and desirable.
ROBERT M. KOK
Phenix City, Ala.