Cutting from Athletics is Not the Solution
Nathan Epstein
Issue date: 11/4/09 Section: Sports
No matter how many times you hear Democrats saying, "Times are getting better" or Republicans simply spouting back "No," it seems like times have not changed that much over the span of a year and a half, at least at Longwood. Budget dilemmas continue to plague the front offices.
More tuition increases are reportedly on the way, and as many would expect, the money that is not being cut is the same money being fought over by departments, clubs, or organizations like kids over the last piece of pizza. One of the worst indicators of the mounting frustration resulting from these troubled times is the all-powerful index finger; especially the finger pointed in one direction.
It's only natural that times of unrest bring about the want to fix them. It's also natural that the emotion surrounding that want to correct the situation quickly sometimes draws incorrect conclusions.
The example that has been most prevalent on campus these days is a handful of faculty and students who support the idea that, in order to help balance the budget, a portion of funding should be cut from athletics. To further investigate the debate, one only needs to search Facebook for one of two groups: "Longwood is Division I...Let's keep it that way" or "Education before Athletics."
Going beyond whether or not cutting funding would help resolve the budget crises, most advocates of the idea present such arguments as Longwood has always been a small school, that athletics only makes the school bigger, and that the people who chose to attend this university did so under the ideas of close teacher-student relationships and the attachment to the small-school environment.
The overall argument from most advocates of the idea seems to be that increased attention to athletics means less attention to the quality of education.
According to a resolution proposed by Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) Chair Brian Bates, just over $2,000 comes out of students' comprehensive fee and into athletics. Is that a pretty large chunk of change? Yes, but now I will attempt to put in my two cents and put some things into perspective.
More tuition increases are reportedly on the way, and as many would expect, the money that is not being cut is the same money being fought over by departments, clubs, or organizations like kids over the last piece of pizza. One of the worst indicators of the mounting frustration resulting from these troubled times is the all-powerful index finger; especially the finger pointed in one direction.
It's only natural that times of unrest bring about the want to fix them. It's also natural that the emotion surrounding that want to correct the situation quickly sometimes draws incorrect conclusions.
The example that has been most prevalent on campus these days is a handful of faculty and students who support the idea that, in order to help balance the budget, a portion of funding should be cut from athletics. To further investigate the debate, one only needs to search Facebook for one of two groups: "Longwood is Division I...Let's keep it that way" or "Education before Athletics."
Going beyond whether or not cutting funding would help resolve the budget crises, most advocates of the idea present such arguments as Longwood has always been a small school, that athletics only makes the school bigger, and that the people who chose to attend this university did so under the ideas of close teacher-student relationships and the attachment to the small-school environment.
The overall argument from most advocates of the idea seems to be that increased attention to athletics means less attention to the quality of education.
According to a resolution proposed by Academic Affairs Committee (AAC) Chair Brian Bates, just over $2,000 comes out of students' comprehensive fee and into athletics. Is that a pretty large chunk of change? Yes, but now I will attempt to put in my two cents and put some things into perspective.
Be the first to comment on this story