I write in order to present one Quaker Board member's perspective on Friends' decision-making processes and the decisions made at the meetings of the Board of Managers on Dec. 2, 2000, and Jan. 4, 2001. Although I am no longer a member of the Board, I served for 12 years, concluding at the meeting in December.
When decisions are made by groups of Quakers both in their meetings, (monthly, quarterly, and yearly) and in the nonprofit organizations that they oversee, deliberations are carried out during what is called a Meeting for Worship for Business. At these meetings, which are fundamentally religious in character, Friends are expected to meditate, pray, and seek God's will in reaching what Friends refer to as "the sense of the meeting." That is what is meant by "minding the Light." All who gather are experienced in the process of seeking God's will, all are committed to the centrality of the spiritual and religious bases of decision-making, and all accept the premise that there can be no decision until the sense of the meeting is reached. In organizations governed by Friends whose boards include non-Friends (generally fewer than half), training in and commitment to these principles is expected. As a lifelong Friend and a participant in and clerk of many Quaker groups and organizations, I have a deep conviction about the power of this kind of decision-making.
Since my student days at Swarthmore in the 1960s, however, I have understood that Swarthmore College is not fundamentally a religious institution and that most people who become associated with it have had little contact with Friends. At the same time, I have been impressed that the College has maintained the Friends' traditions of commitment to peace and justice, a commitment to service to the community and social change, and a belief in minimizing the material and upholding moral and ethical goals. Many programs of the College, several generous endowments, intense student support, and the commitment of the College's Board and administration to the concept of ethical intelligence resonate with the hopes of the founders in 1864, when all members of the Board were Friends.
One aspect of the Friends' tradition that has continued at Swarthmore has been the practice of the Board of Managers of making decisions without taking votes. Indeed, in the 12 years I served, the Dec. 2 meeting was the only time the process of voting was used. At no time during my years, on the other hand, were decisions made according to the manner of Friends. Meetings of the Board of Managers are not considered to be Meetings for Worship. There is no common sense of seeking God's will, nor is there any provision in the charter or the by-laws, as there would be in a Quaker organization, about the requirements for making decisions according to the sense of the meeting. Rather, there has been an understanding that consensual decisions are valuable because they do not create a victorious majority and a defeated minority, because the expectation of consensual decision-making often disciplines members to explore all the alternatives and arguments in the greatest depth, and because a decision behind which people are able to unite is usually more powerful in conveying the will of the group than decisions made in other ways. It is my understanding that the practice of consensual decision-making is now commonly thought to be the most effective method in many nonprofit organizations.
The decision before the Board of Managers last December was a complex and difficult one in many ways. The issues involved were multifaceted, and they affected many different aspects of the life of the College. The possible actions to be recommended involved precious aspects of the College--among them its intercollegiate athletic program and the composition of the student body. Further, the many factors under consideration by the Board had been developing for 20 or 30 years, not only at Swarthmore but also across the country at our sister schools. Unfortunately the Board and administration did not fully understand the urgency of these issues for our mission and policies until the fall of 1999. At the Dec. 1999 meeting, President Alfred H. Bloom brought to the Board's attention the need to consider and resolve the twin problems of athletes' and coaches' increasing dissatisfaction with their experience of intercollegiate athletic competition at Swarthmore and the increasing pressures from athletic recruitment on admissions. Had we all had 3 or 4 years to consider the issues before the need became urgent, we might all have been able to learn the history and present dimensions of the issues involved and been able to anticipate earlier the critical nature of the decisions before us. For not recognizing the great importance of the developing issues 5 or 10 years ago, we must all take responsibility.
After hearing from the president, the Board recognized that it must consider issues related to intercollegiate athletics and their relationship to the larger mission and purposes of the College and moved quickly to ask the administration to form an Athletics Review Committee (ARC) to review the issues and bring us a recommendation at our meeting in May of 2001. During the year beginning December 1999, the Board asked the ARC to be sure to look at these issues from all angles and with sufficient data to allow us to make an informed decision. The goal of the Board was to have all the information it would need for a thorough deliberation of the issues. We did not ask the ARC to determine what was the most popular decision among any group, whether students, faculty, or alumni, but rather to include the whole range of perspectives in their material and recommendations.
At this point, those of us on the Board made a second mistake. We extended the date set for a decision from Dec. 2000 to May 2001 without taking sufficiently into account the seasons of the College year and the implications of a delay of a decision on our part on the lives of students, coaches, and potential students. Just prior to the Board meeting of Dec. 2000, many suggested that making a decision the following May was tantamount to making an immediate decision to end football, in particular, because of the timing. Coaches needed to secure new positions for the fall, students who played football needed to consider transferring to schools with football squads, and if we were uncertain about whether we would field a football team in 2001-2002, the Admissions Office clearly stated that it was unprofessional and unethical for them to recruit athletes for teams whose futures were unclear.
Moved by these arguments, the Board at the December meeting decided that, immediately after hearing the recommendations of the ARC, we should take up the question of whether or not we should retain our timeline for a May decision or whether there were compelling reasons to make the decision in December. This issue was deeply engaged, with many Board members speaking to the question. After a period of discussion, it was clear that those with widely varying opinions on the specific recommendations of ARC were in firm agreement that the worst possible option was to postpone the decision. The chairman asked whether we were in agreement that we believed it to be essential for us to make a timely decision for the ethical and practical reasons we had discussed. This decision was made by consensus, with no one standing aside from the decision, and with the passionate support of many Board members who disagreed with each other on the recommendations themselves.
At the moment that we decided, through consensus, that an immediate decision was necessary, we knew that we might not be able to decide on the specific recommendations of the ARC by consensus. Although a large majority favored the ARC recommendations--while registering their disappointment and sorrow that the football and wrestling programs would end and that the status of badminton would change--several members continued to believe strongly that the recommendations were wrong, and that other paths would be best for the College. As this division became more clear, Chairman Shane asked each of us to indicate where we stood. We realized that several people disagreed with the majority but that they had not raised enough questions in the minds of the majority to change their views. It was also clear that the majority would not be able to change the minds of at least some of those in the minority. At that point, having agreed on the importance of reaching a decision, we reached a consensus that we should let the division stand, and that we would, for the record, consider the decision about the recommendations to have been made by a vote. Had we believed that we could have delayed the decision, we would have agreed to continue the discussion at later meetings, in hopes of reaching consensus.
During the December meeting, we all understood that the circumstances that led us to a vote were unfortunate but unavoidable. Not being required to make every decision by consensus, we made an exception for what we believed were compelling reasons. We also believed, however, that we were creating the wisest possible process, given the circumstances, and that we were acting in the best interests of the College.
The by-laws of the College allow for special Board meetings to be held at the request of five Managers. Following the December meeting, such a request for a meeting to revisit the issues discussed at the December meeting was submitted to the Board chair, who called the Board together for a special meeting on Jan. 4. Those of us whose terms had ended in December were invited to come to participate in the discussion but not to participate in any decisions taken. I attended in that capacity.
At the January meeting, information was presented by several different members of the Board, presenting additional data on all sides of the issues and suggesting alternatives paths to the one we had chosen in December. At the close of the discussion, the Chair asked if it was the will of the Board to revisit the decision made in December, and the members agreed, through a sense of the meeting, broadly interpreted, that they did not wish to do so. No one stood aside from this decision, and no one expressed a desire to resign from the Board. There was further discussion about the importance of creating a strong process to insure that the recommendations of the ARC with regard to strengthening the intercollegiate athletic program be implemented.
Throughout this difficult process, I have perceived members of the Board to be in agreement that consensual decision making is the preferred practice, that this instance was an exception to an our traditional method, and that we felt a sense of deep regret about finding ourselves facing the necessity of a divided decision. As much as it is possible and appropriate for a secular institution with a Quaker tradition to be, I believe that Swarthmore College and its Board of Managers keeps the inspiration and good practices of the Society of Friends before them as they strive to carry out the mission of the College in their policies and decisions.
DULANY OGDEN BENNETT '66
Portland, Ore.
Among the many roles in Quaker education and service she has
filled, Bennett served on the board of the American Friends Service
Committee for 10 years, four of them as its clerk. She is a
birthright member of Swarthmore Friends Meeting and is currently a
member of Multonomah Friends Meeting in Portland, Ore. Her term on
the Board of Managers ended in December after 12 years of
service.
The arguments put forth by the Athletics Review Committee to explain the decisions made about the complex issues of athletics at Swarthmore appear to be rational. However, there exists an unstated subtext that requires further analysis and open discussion. This subtext is the consistent view held by many in the academic community of Swarthmore that sports are a waste of time and that intellect is all. A barely hidden battle has taken place for decades between those who hold this position and others who believe that intercollegiate competition has a vital place in the life of the school. It may well be that proponents of the former view have seen their opportunity, grasped it, and triumphed. It is noteworthy that the two most macho and physical of men's sports have now been abandoned. In the long term, I suspect that the decision will harm Swarthmore. It will take true courage for the committee and President Bloom to open the discussion again and to reconsider the entire matter.
I find it hard to believe that in the eastern half of the United States our college cannot find eight other schools with football teams that recruit athletes within the limits that Swarthmore finds appropriate, and that would provide competition more or less equal to what we can offer. And as to wrestling, why not offer this as a club sport similar to badminton?
Swarthmore's reputation as an effete institution is not its strongest asset. This decision makes it worse and is especially troublesome if it was made for the wrong--and as yet unacknowledged--reasons.
PHILIP BRICKNER '50
New York City
As an alumnus who was involved in both an intercollegiate sport (lacrosse) and a club sport (rugby), I respect the decision made by the Board. I think that the statement--made by a Board member at the Dec. 12 meeting at the Swarthmore Friends Meetinghouse--that six teams use 70 percent of athletic resources presents a fundamental question regarding equity within the athletics budget as well as within the larger College budget.
STAS BURGIEL '92
Washington, D.C.
I am writing this letter in response to the "open letter to the Swarthmore Community" I received concerning the decision to eliminate the football, wrestling, and women's badminton programs. Before I begin this letter, I will admit that I am very angry and disappointed with the decision to discontinue these programs. I feel that this was a poor decision--the product of faulty reasoning, inadequate and lazy information gathering, and ultimately biased decision making. And, as such, I shall respond to several assumptions upon which the decision to discontinue to the aforementioned sports was made. Given the surreptitious nature in which this decision was reached, I unfortunately have serious doubts that much shall be done with this letter and the opinions contained within, but, in reality, I have little recourse available to me other than to voice my opinions.
And so I begin:
"Increasingly, fielding competitive teams requires specifically recruiting and enrolling an increasingly large proportion--often even the sizable majority--of many team rosters. Further (although we realize this may be surprising and uncomfortable news for many in the Swarthmore community), this recruiting effort requires us to allocate an adequate number of admissions spaces for intercollegiate sports. The experiences of other colleges have consistently demonstrated this need, and our own experience makes clear that, where we have done so, we have been successful in turning around programs and sustaining competitive quality."
It is simply a fallacy to believe that recruitment efforts are synonymous with allocation of admissions spaces for undeserving applicants. I have made the argument in a previous e-mail that Swarthmore has only to turn to its own data to find that this argument is the product of lazy, biased, and closed-minded decision making. I state this strongly because of my experiences as a member of the men's soccer team during the years between 1989-1993. During this period, our team was highly competitive, not only locally but nationally: we won our division 3 times, advanced to the MAC semifinals twice (the conference of which we were members at the time), qualified for the National Championships twice, and advanced to the Final 16 in the country once. And concurrent with these athletic achievements, our players and my teammates were succeeding at similar rates in the classroom. To use an admittedly simplistic yardstick of the academic credentials, I turn to the pursuit of advanced degrees as a proxy for intellectual curiosity, contribution to the academy, and the general prioritization of academics: Of my teammates during those 4 years, I quickly count 8 who have received Ph.D.s (in economics, mathematics, psychology, chemistry, classics, and philosophy), four who have received M.D.s, three who have received M.A.s, and one who received a J.D. Indubitably, there are others that I am missing and others that have chosen to not receive advanced degrees but are faring well in the world.
To accept the premise that a requirement of a competitive team is the admission of substandard students is ludicrous and involves such deficient problem-solving skills that I worry about the ability of those who were involved in this decision to make other decisions that concern the future of the College.
The letter then states:
"Based on information provided to the committee by our coaches, to ensure the competitiveness of all 24 of our current intercollegiate sports, we would have to grant priority to athletic ability and interest for approximately one-third of the places in each entering class."
I think it is reasonable to make the data that went into this regression algorithm available to the Swarthmore community. Who decided that Swarthmore would have to grant approximately 1/3 of its places to incoming classes? Were these decisions made with the intention of fielding nationally competitive programs? Or were these decisions made with the intention of fielding teams that would win approximately 1/2 the time? Again, without the raw data and information concerning the method by which this data were gathered, it is impossible for me to believe that it was gathered and interpreted by anything other than incompetent evaluators. Were colleges and universities with academic standards and priorities similar to Swarthmore's consulted? Did we contact schools like Williams and Amherst, colleges that consistently field competitive athletic schools? Were efforts made to communicate with Division I universities, like Stanford, Duke, and the Ivy League members to see how they make decisions?
The letter continues:
"The challenge facing the College is to build an intercollegiate program that offers all of our student-athletes the satisfaction and quality of experience they deserve, while at the same time reserving adequate places in a class of 375 students for all of the other talents, interests, and experiences that we also seek in admitting each class. "
This point is a reasonable one. However, I wonder about the criteria used to evaluate the other "talents, interests, and experiences" that other students are purported to possess. Is artistic ability held to a similar standard? How have Swarthmore students done in national art competitions? If they have done poorly, has Swarthmore seriously considered abolishing the art program? I doubt that the faculty and administration would be satisfied with a decision-making process that chose to eliminate a program, rather than consider alternatives (including replacing the poorly qualified teachers of said programs).
Later in the letter you note:
"Last Saturday, the Board of Managers, having concluded by consensus that an immediate decision was needed, endorsed the ARC's recommendations by majority vote, an unusual step because the Board usually reaches decisions by consensus. However, because Board members who did not support the recommendations wished their dissent to be apparent in the record, the Managers agreed by consensus to base this decision on a vote. The Board deeply regretted the need to act more rapidly than anticipated, especially in reaching a conclusion so disappointing for many in the College community. They believed, however, that it was urgent to define the future of the intercollegiate program before the Admissions Office and prospective students make decisions about the coming year."
I find this decision absolutely outrageous and the most disconcerting characteristic of this whole decision. In the decision that it ultimately reached, Swarthmore noted that the athletic program is simply not a top priority. How then to understand that the decision to debate the continuation of three athletic programs suddenly became so important that a decision had to be reached immediately? Why the sudden urgency to "define" the future of the intercollegiate program this year? Could not the decision be made in one year? It is disgraceful that Swarthmore felt the need to conduct such a vote without allowing members of the Swarthmore community to express its feelings and offer alternative solutions that did not involve the elimination of said sports. I am disgusted by the obvious implication that the Board of Managers so feared the repercussions of its alumni that that it chose to exclude them (us) altogether from the decision-making process. Is this the decision-making model that Swarthmore wants to exemplify to its students as it sends them into the world, where they will eventually be faced with similar difficult decisions? That it is preferable to make decisions as a coward would--in secrecy and behind closed doors, without having to face up to the consequences of the decisions? If this is the image that Swarthmore wants to portray, then I am ashamed to be associated with Swarthmore.
The letter ends with a listing of the members of the decision-making process. No mention is made of the actual votes cast by these members. If this decision was so carefully considered, why would the votes be kept hidden from the alumni? I am particularly galled by the hypocrisy behind the decision to "endorse the ARC's recommendation by majority vote" as if this decision was so important that precedent was disbanded in favor of something more equitable. If this is in fact so important a decision that a majority vote was considered a reasonable step, then why not publicize the votes of the participants in this decision? The hidden details of this vote are not representative of a careful, reasoned decision--rather, they resemble the workings of a cowardly, closed-minded body that had already reached a decision prior to reviewing the facts and was unwilling to have alternative perspectives and solutions considered. Disgusting.
The letter ends with a half-hearted attempt to address the futures of the individual sports that have been eliminated. I will not deign to address the pedestrian attempt at reducing the hypocritical guilt that surrounds this section of the letter.
The letter concludes:
"We believe the decision reaffirms both the College's educational mission and the broad role of intercollegiate athletics within that mission. We look forward to working with the community to build understanding of the decision."
How convenient that the decision makers believe that the College believes that the decision is consistent with and reaffirms the College's educational mission. Of course it does, else the committee would have reached a different decision. The grand history that Swarthmore has given to careful consideration of all perspectives surrounding difficult decisions has been one of the shining characteristics that has made it such a special place to develop a moral and ethical education. Students learn that the tyranny of the majority is simply fascism wrapped in a different coloring. I am afraid that words cannot express how angry, disappointed, and disgusted I feel with the process by which this decision was reached. It is quite simply inconsistent with the larger Swarthmore credo and, as such, makes me question the qualifications of those involved in this decision. Where once I trusted the president, the provost, and other members of the administration with at least the process of making admittedly difficult decisions, I now see that when faced with decisions that require unconventional solutions, they turn to secrecy and cowardice. What wonderful role models to hold up for the current and future students of Swarthmore.
I remain shocked and disappointed.
ESTEBAN CARDEMIL '93
Providence, R.I.
Congratulations. I understand that you have worked hard to handle a difficult situation regarding the future of athletics at Swarthmore.
However, in the future, I hope that decisions will not be made in a similarly hasty manner.
An institution in transition should, can, and must be willing to lose out on one year of athletic recruits in favor of making sound, lasting decisions by means of proper procedures.
Again, I understand that this decision represents considerable effort and compromise. Congratulations.
LEE NOEL CHASE '90
Cambridge, Mass.
I write to support and applaud the College's decision to limit the number of recruited athletes to 15 percent of the student body and, consequently, to cut some athletic programs. I have a different perspective on this question than most members of the College community, since I teach at the University of Virginia (UVA), an excellent academic school but also a NCAA Division I school with a large sports program and dedicated athletic scholarships.
I imagine most people associated with Swarthmore would agree that UVA is the last sort of place they would want to use as a model for the role of sports on campus, but, in my view, the risk of compromising educational programs is in fact far greater at Swarthmore than it is here. The central issue is size: Despite having over 11,000 undergraduates, UVA supports only 24 varsity sports (12 each for men and women)--just three more than Swarthmore plans to support in its reconfigured program. According to figures I recently received from our Athletic Department, only about 4 percent of our students receive athletic scholarships, and fewer than 6 percent participate in varsity sports. While Swarthmore's student-athletes doubtless have a stronger academic profile than UVA's, Swarthmore will still be reserving, in proportional terms, three times the number of athlete slots in each entering class, even after eliminating football and the other sports.
As an educator, it astounds and disturbs me that some in the College community think it would do no harm to push the number of recruited athletes to 20 percent or higher. Even at the Division III level, athletic recruiting significantly alters, and in many cases weakens, the academic profile of the student body. If that were not the case, there would be no controversy, and all the teams could be filled with walk-ons. While I agree that it is a bad thing when a school's football coach makes three times what its president does (as is the case here), Swarthmore is, and will remain, in many ways more invested in its sports programs than 'football schools' like UVA. The College's decision to limit athletic recruitment is wise, responsible, and the only decision for an academically serious institution to make.
JOSHUA DIENSTAG '86
Charlottesville, Va.
The only thing that I find upsetting about the recent decision of the Board of Managers to abolish three intercollegiate athletic programs is the fact that others have got upset by it. I have been astonished and dismayed to have received urgent messages from various College authorities about this essentially trivial matter.
The athletic program at a college is appropriate for budgetary support on grounds of health and fun for participants and as providing a welcome and harmless form of relief from tension for spectators. Nothing more, lest we have the sad spectacle of the commercialization of college sports, most evident in the spectacle of television exploitation. At Swarthmore, we have indeed been far from such corruption of the educational mission, but the rivalry in resource utilization and in value commitment is real, if muted.
Well over a half century ago, President Hutchins implemented and symbolized the emergence of the University of Chicago as a first-class educational institution by the abolition of football. Can Swarthmore be that far behind?
PETER DODGE '48
North Hampton, N.H.
We are writing to express our concern with recent changes in Swarthmore College policies. Under normal circumstances, it would be appropriate to write this letter to the Swarthmore College administration. However, we believe that they are consumed with being number one in your annual rankings and consequently the most efficient means to communicate with them is to write to you.
Swarthmore College's recent decision to drop three sports motivated us to write this letter. Although many justifications have been provided, we suspect that the real reason for this decision is that these athletes' SAT scores and class rank are modestly below the average for the school. Moreover, we think that this is the beginning of a long-term trend. In particular, the competition to excel in a rating system that only values these two indicators of student quality has a frightening logical outcome. That is, the value of ALL other characteristics of applicants will continue to diminish until these are the only two factors that determine admission.
Thus, we request that you consider one of the following changes. The first is to enlarge the set of criteria used to determine the quality of a school's student body beyond SAT scores and class rank. Other possible criteria include diversity of socioeconomic and racial background and even prowess at extracurricular activities (e.g., fraction of students that were all-state in high school band or all-conference in athletics). Although this type of rating system will be more difficult to implement, we hope that you will bear in mind that your publication has a tremendous influence on the admissions policies of Swarthmore College (and surely scores of other schools). If it is impossible to devise such a rating system, our second request is that you no longer calculate a "score" for Swarthmore and hence drop it from your rankings. Our hope is that this would liberate Swarthmore from the narrow definition of "quality" that your publication employs.
If neither of these changes is made, we fear that Swarthmore will continue to turn its back on its long tradition of providing a fertile environment for the development of talented individuals from all backgrounds.
MICHAEL GREENSTONE '91
Chicago, Ill.
CHRISTOPHER GUTTMAN-MCCABE '90
Arlington, Va.
The value of all artwork, whether its medium is pigment or pigskin, lies in its resemblance to life and the discipline of the mind. Any scholar-athlete will tell you that football is more than just "a means to getting bad knees."
Swarthmore football players are philosophers, engineers, scientists, and theologians--all sharing firm opinions on the traditional Quaker attributes about the dignity and utility of hard work. The football tradition at Swarthmore poignantly resembled several life attributes of adversity, hard work, toughness, attitude, and a call to play distinctive leadership roles in the global conduct of human affairs. One of my most treasured life experiences was expanding this historic Swarthmore tradition to a new football team at the University of Oxford. With the help of players from Williams, Amherst, and Swarthmore College, American football is now recognized by colleges and universities across the United Kingdom as a valuable part of their athletic and liberal arts programs.
As past members of this tradition at Swarthmore, what are we to think now? First, traditions are not the kinds of things we ourselves intentionally created. They are structures that grow up over time, in which we find ourselves at a point in time, and which influence the way we see and act in our future world. Second, they are not static frames but structures that grow and change over time. In reality, traditions adjust, they adapt, or they die. Younger student athletes, governance structures, and alumni would have inevitably supported this dynamism. Regrettably, their support was stunted.
Tradition is not replication; replication is for museum displays and fast food franchises, not for living institutions. The Swarthmore of 30 years hence should be as different from today's Swarthmore as it was 30 years ago. When we return to Swarthmore 30 years from now, I hope we can say with pride, "This is not the same as it was when I was here. I really wish I could start again. I guess I can't, but my children can."
I trust those of you who have one foot firmly set in this tradition to respond constructively to these new situations. We must trust that the faculty, administration, and governing boards will develop the College proper so as to best serve the world, including your children and your children's children. Our time together on the field at Swarthmore has come to a close, but our football futures will forever be intertwined. For those of us who shared in this great tradition, we are to continue to bear its torch in our daily world, wherever that may be.
JOE HIGGINS '91
Madison, Conn.
I can't honestly say that the recent letter from the Athletics Review Committee did anything to add spice to my holiday punch.
What value is obtained from intercollegiate sports that cannot equally be found in intramurals--except competition? But since when has competition as such been a value in the Swarthmore community's philosophy?
Every old grad will remember the turn-of-the century rally song: "Everybody takes their hats off to us/ Stars of evening shining. Put your money..."
My generation (of WWII vets), who knew something about the ultimate form of competition, would sing, with gusto and good humor: "Everybody beats the hell out of us...."
Possibly these things run in cycles, and, some day not too far off, we will recover our detachment and humor and rediscover athletics as wonderful recreation, no more and no less.
Meanwhile, consider at least the possibility that taking intercollegiate sports too seriously, with the premium that puts on competitiveness, may in fact lead some to take up betting (which the old grads presumably knew only as metaphor).
In any event, I am pleased that the Board could not reach consensus on this issue. I trust that was because at least some could not support the idea of supporting 21(!) intercollegiate sports.
ROBERT HILLEGASS '49
Greenfield, N.H.
I can understand the sadness felt by members of the College community at the demise of football at Swarthmore. As a former member of the wrestling team, I share that sadness, for wrestling too will no longer be one of Swarthmore's sports. But I am puzzled by the upset and anger that some alumni have expressed at the considered and difficult decision to restructure the athletics program.
I hope and trust the College's mission will always be that of providing the best education possible to its students. Reexamining the curriculum, adding new courses and majors, rethinking the honors program, degree requirements, etc. have caused and will continue to cause restructuring of the education offered at Swarthmore. It is hardly surprising that extracurricular activities, including sports, need consideration and changes as well.
I find myself wondering why football was not dropped some time ago. It must have consumed a very large fraction of the resources available for athletics at Swarthmore for many years. The use of those resources to encourage and strengthen a variety of less expensive sports seems to me an admirable goal. It is certainly consistent with encouraging healthy bodies for the healthy minds of Swarthmore's students.
HERB HILLMAN '47
Cambridge, Mass.
To the Swarthmore Athletics Review Committee:
With regard to your letter that states, in part, your intention to "examine and address those aspects of the Swarthmore culture that lead to the perception by some of our athletes that they are being stereotyped and devalued," I suggest that you begin your examination with your own decision to reduce the percentage of recruited athletes to 10-15 percent of the student body. While you maintain that "this allocation of spaces reflects the high value placed on the presence of our student-athletes in the community," I would argue that the decision reflects the very "devaluing" that you profess to "examine and address."
There are good reasons for eliminating Swarthmore's football and wrestling programs. But your announcement fails to enumerate them, I assume for fear of offending. It would be more forthright to state that you have decided that athletics are not to be valued in the future as highly as they have been in the past. You would then model the kind of intellectual courage that Swarthmore promotes in its students, rather than trying to be all things to all people. Reducing the number of athletes Swarthmore recruits while stating that this does not reflect any devaluing of athletes is a tenuous argument at best.
Your announcement begs the question: In place of the athletes you will no longer be recruiting, will you recruit more international students, more students from racial or religious minority communities, more with a political interest, more from the South, more with an interest in the arts? There is value in broadening the college's diversity by expanding the proportion of students from any one of these categories and many more, but in communicating your decision, you have left this out by instead trying to make it appear that there were no value trade-offs made.
Despite my preference that Swarthmore maintain a strong commitment to athletics, I wouldn't argue that under no circumstances should the number of athletes be reduced. Limited financial and other resources require difficult trade-offs. I would only hope that in making your decision, you considered what Swarthmore's athletes contribute beyond their physical exertion: Most of the recruited athletes at Swarthmore place at least an equal value on developing their intellectual potential as their athletic potential, so you are not simply closing the door to unidimensional jocks--Swarthmore has recruited very few if any of them.
Compared to their classmates, many of the athletes I befriended during my four years at Swarthmore were more self-confident, more adept at social interaction, and more accustomed to accepting leadership responsibilities at a young age. Several placed a higher value on their religion than the majority of the student body, and all of them were as good, if not better, at juggling multiple responsibilities than their classmates. In these ways, I viewed many of them as being healthier not only physically, but emotionally and spiritually, and therefore some of the best prepared students at Swarthmore for the world outside of the college campus. I don't mean to suggest that only athletes bring these qualities, but in deciding to replace athletes with others in the future, have you enumerated the values that Swarthmore's athletes tend to bring with them, and are you planning to maintain these values in filling the recruiting slots you are now opening?
Swarthmore has devalued athletics. What values are you elevating in its place? Your announcement fails to address this core question.
SHAMIL IDRISS '94
Washington, D.C.
The letter from Virginia Stern Brown and Kenneth Brown (December, 2000 Bulletin) was disturbing. To learn that Swarthmore is selling our names for profit, and thereby actively cooperating in the encroachment of the commercial-industrial complex on our privacy, is ground for their legitimate complaint.
The response from Diane Crompton [director of development operations] was appalling in its intellectual dishonesty. First she claims that "only a tiny fraction of each purchase made with these cards accrues to the College." Apparently, in her opinion, making money from selling alumni names is justified because the College is making only a little bit of money! ("Uh, guess what, I'm just a little bit pregnant")
Second, she states that the bank to which Swarthmore has sold its alumni list "shares the College's high standards regarding . . . privacy." Does this mean that the bank sells the names of its customers only to commercial institutions on Swarthmore's distribution list? Or that it sells its names only to Swarthmore? Or does this mean that Swarthmore will sell its alumni lists to anyone to whom the bank sells its names? Are we really expected to believe that Swarthmore is fully aware of the bank's practices in selling its mailing lists? "Sharing" implies mutuality--our standards are equated with (i.e. lowered to) their standards. And how "high" are Swarthmore's standards anyway? Apparently only so high as selling names, addresses, and telephone numbers, but not social security numbers and mothers' maiden names!
Finally, Ms. Crompton assures us, "Persons who do not wish to be solicited may be taken off the list on request." But why should it be our responsibility to prevent Swarthmore from doing what it should not have been doing in the first place? How are we to know, until after the fact, just what list we have been put on? If Swarthmore is really interested in preserving the privacy of its alumni (those "high standards," remember?), then surely it should not be selling alumni names in the first place.
Ms. Crompton's position resembles that taken by Boston's public radio station a few years ago, when it was caught selling the names of its supporters--a shabby attempt to excuse itself, a pretense that no real damage had been done, a general sweeping under the rug. What we need from Swarthmore is something morally stronger than what we got from WGBH and Ms. Crompton: a statement that selling out our privacy was wrong; that the people ("people," Ms. Crompton, not "persons") who did the deed accept full responsibility; and that Swarthmore policy will be to keep its alumni lists entirely private. Anything less is a betrayal of Swarthmore's entire history.
PETER KATES '61
Norwell, Mass.
I find the College's decision to eliminate certain intercollegiate sports, particularly football, to be extremely short-sighted and certainly to the detriment of the College, student body and, shortly, Swarthmore's reputation as a well-rounded academic institution. From the publicity given this action, I can only conclude that the agendas of a few thoroughly trampled the desires and wishes of many.
RICHARD KERSEY '58
Trumbull, Conn.
The new Swarthmore calendar is lovely. I like it almost as much as the 2000 edition with Barbara Seymour's ['63] paintings and the one some years ago that featured trees--my all-time favorite.
So it's churlish to quibble, but I feel compelled.
The quotation for January 2001 is not by Nelson Mandela, but by Mary Ann Williamson. It's from a poem of hers he read at Mandela's inauguration in 1994. It was disappointing enough to see comrade Mandela choosing to feature new-age claptrap in his inaugural address, but it's been even more disappointing since to see how often it's been attributed directly to him--often by people who should know better.
Thanks for another, otherwise excellent, edition of the calendar.
NELL LANCASTER '74
Lexington, Va.
My Swarthmore friends and heroes were contributors to athletic excellence--particularly football--as we played it for fun and physical well-being. Friendships, teamwork, leadership, and sportsmanship were also benefits. President Frank Aydelotte declared that athletics were "an integral part of the educational program of the College."
Some say the football squad should be as much as 75 players. Nonsense. We have had and can again produce competitive and even winning football with squads in the 40s and 50s. This is what [former coach] Tom Lapinski had in the 1980s. It means admitting only 12 or 13 players in each class--two teams of 22 each plus some "specialists." As everyone who follows pro football knows, in the National Football League only 45 players are in uniform for a game. This would be about 6.5 percent of the male students at Swarthmore.
To provide enough players for other sports and other extracurricular activities such as music, drama, art, and other talents, these multitalented athletes must be sought out by recruiting in the admissions process. It may be naïve and sound corny, but can't we go back part way to the way it was in my day, when approximately two-thirds of male students took part in intercollegiate activities?
HERB LEIMBACH '43
West Chester, Pa.
As a long-term contributor to the College, I would like to add my voice to those of Virginia Stern Brown '49 and Kenneth Brown '47 in protesting the descent of Swarthmore College into telemarketing. ("Letters," Dec. 2000).
A couple of years ago, I was besieged nightly, for months, with unwanted telephone calls from assorted snake-oil salesmen and proponents of mostly questionable causes urging me to divert some of my largesse in their direction.
You can imagine, I trust, my shock when I picked up the phone one night only to realize that Swarthmore College had added its voice to this greed-crazed chorus of pitchmen and fast talkers.
I sent a letter of protest to President Bloom, expressing the view that the high pressure tactics that are the essence of telemarketing are contrary to the Quaker principle of the Inner Light. I also expressed surprise that a wealthy college like Swarthmore, with as loyal and generous an alumni body as any in the nation, felt compelled to resort to telemarketing in order to remain solvent.
I received an answer from an executive assistant. It addressed neither point but gave me the helpful advice that if I were among the tiny minority that objected to being called by the College, I could have my name removed from the lists. So much for Quaker principles. I had my name removed from the lists but received two calls subsequently anyway.
There are many alumni who have hoped that their contributions would help the College to retain its distinctive identity and remain true to its finest traditions. Like me, they may be saddened by its capitulation to the crass and antisocial commercialism of the times, (another example: building a hotel on College land). They may want to consider diverting their contributions to the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). This Quaker organization, which won a Nobel Prize in the wake of World War II, assists the victims of violence, oppression, and greed throughout the world; people who do not have access to luxury hotels, on campus or off. So far as I can tell, the AFSC operates on a low overhead and does not engage in telemarketing.
PAUL METZGER '54
Poughkeepsie, N.Y.
I write not to support the decision to drop football (as the College asserted on its Web site) but to point out that the issue is far more complex than either side's public comments admit.
Looking at Swarthmore's won-lost records since the 1960s--when the NCAA allowed two-platoon football, making it impossible to compete with a team of 30 players--it is clear that most Swarthmore football teams endured losing records and the pain that goes with them. Even those who experienced winning seasons felt marginalized as mainstream male athletes on Swarthmore's campus. One of my ex-players commented on the Board's decision, "at least kids won't have to suffer what we did"--and this young man played on teams with winning records 3 of his 4 years at Swarthmore! Many negative pathologies develop on losing teams and in environments where people feel like outcasts.
All members of the Board should also be honest concerning their role in the deterioration of traditional team sports at the College. Several teams (including football with a 7-3 record in 1990, and a 5-3-1, second-place Conference finish in 1992; and basketball, with an ECAC playoff team in 1991) enjoyed success in the last years of Bob Barr's tenure as dean of admissions. When the Board hired Al Bloom, and approved his policies to increase diversity while also increasing the academic rigor of the entering class, it set in motion the demise of football. By the mid-1990s, almost all team sports were laughably bad, and the traditional male team sports were anemic. It was at that point that the Board "discovered" the crisis, and attempted the heroic rescue of football that has been ended by last December's decision.
The Bloom administration (since 1992) made clear that its mission was to make Swarthmore more uniquely Swarthmorean. Although there was no overt desire to harm athletics, it was a case of malevolent neglect. At a school where the successful teams operated on such a small margin, the new admissions emphases (without any corresponding role for athletics) spelled doom. The Board of Managers and its tradition of consensus (or more precisely, its inability to reach a consensus on either eliminating football or supporting it properly) produced a negative situation where players failed to enjoy the positive aspects of the sport, and where coaches had their careers short-circuited, or else retired embittered. Perhaps a few powerful alumni "preserved" football, but at what human cost?
While the Board's action was traumatic for the current coaches and players, what has been done to them follows the history of Swarthmore College. Many players and coaches who loved the school and their sport have had their hearts broken by failure predestined by the College's admissions policies. Like me in 1990, they were foolish enough to believe that they had a chance to do what had never been done since the Sixties--to make football a long-standing, successful program. Should we all have known better? Probably so, but hope can blind even the smartest people.
KARL MIRAN
[Location?]
I write as a former member of the Board of Managers and a fellow educator (34 years of undergraduate teaching ) to express my deepest concern about the abolition of football at Swarthmore. I believe this decision would, first, be disastrous for Swarthmore; second, alter the ethos of the campus; and third, be socially irresponsible. After some introductory remarks, I elaborate on each of these points below. Please distribute this letter to all members of our Board as well.
Swarthmore's deserved reputation among undergraduate liberal arts colleges stems from its decades-long, successful pursuit of two interrelated goals: academic excellence and diversity among its student body. Abandonment or significant narrowing of its current intercollegiate athletic program (of which football is the flagship program, due to the unique historical and cultural role it has played in the history of American higher education) would signal that the college has decided to abandon its previous commitment to recruit a diverse student body.
Achieving the two goals has been no easy task. Ever since the Aydelotte years, there has been an underlying tension among the different sub-communities at the college. Yet with the support of the Board, for six decades, past administrations have been able to forge a coherent community from the college's diversity: male and female, white and black, Asian, etc; U.S. and foreign born; Southerner and Yankee; precocious young intellectual and scholar athlete.
Abandonment of football would signal that instead of considering Williams, Wesleyan, Amherst, Oberlin, Lawrence, Pomona, or Carleton as our peer institutions, Swarthmore would be configuring itself to compete with Bennington, Antioch, Haverford, Sarah Lawrence, Vassar, or Brandeis. (It is noteworthy that Chicago resumed football after its long absence from the Hutchins years, in recognition of the cost of its absence.) The "little three" demonstrate that football is compatible with academic excellence. And Haverford's recent history reveals that abolition of football did not boost the school's ranking among liberal arts colleges. Rather, I suspect that a narrowing of the student body over time would erode college's quality and render the pursuit of excellence more difficult.
Diversity and Balance Why Swarthmore would wish to narrow itself is genuinely puzzling to me. The abandonment of football can only be interpreted as a surrender of the historic effort to maintain balance. Swarthmore is saying that a certain type of student--the scholar-athlete who thrives on competition and team play--is no longer welcome and has no place. It is not just the players, but what the absence of football would signal about the College to applicants who wish to be part of a well-rounded student body: You'll be happier elsewhere, because at Swarthmore your class will not contain a total range of classmates with whom you can interact; this college excludes and does not esteem the physically robust who enjoy teamwork and vigorous athletic competition. The argument on finances--that football costs a lot of money--is not convincing, because the College heavily subsidizes other aspects of the effort to attain diversity. When I was on the Board and ever since, I have worried about whether Swarthmore's heavy entry into the arts would eventually come at the cost of its athletic programs. Now we may know the answer to that question.
A truly diverse student body entails not only ethnic diversity and students of different religious, geographic, and social origins. It entails gathering young men and women at different stages of intellectual growth and with widely divergent vocational and avocational interests. Through the years, I have particularly enjoyed teaching the very bright undergraduate who is in the process of discovering his or her intellectual interests and is in the midst of selecting his vocation. Such students typically are not precocious intellectuals, but rather are very intelligent, well-rounded, interested in competitive sports, but not at the top of the class in terms of grades. But they have a spark of creativity, a freshness, and unusual leadership potential. Participation in intercollegiate athletics typically is an important part of their educational development. Their involvement in a quality intercollegiate program (or a quality orchestra or theater troupe), headed by an inspiring coach or director (Avery Blake or Ed Faulkner during my years), can have as enduring and beneficial an impact upon a student as the great professor. In short, such students are not yet mature scholars or intellectuals, but they are in the process of discovery and maturation. Abandoning football and weakening the intercollegiate athletic program means the college's sole emphasis will be upon attracting the high school student who is intellectually mature with a well-defined sense of his or her career path. Such students possible have slightly higher SAT's, and they certainly can write outstanding statements of purpose. But they are not necessarily more promising.
An Altered Ethos And then consider the impact upon the remainder of the student body, when the scholar-athlete and the students who come with them will be diminished in number. I should think that Swarthmore should aim to nurture a student body that enjoys the outdoors and for which exercise is a critical part of life. One wants a student body full of joggers, cyclists, campers, swimmers, golfers, tennis players, etc. And my sense from my many years dealing with undergraduates is that the intercollegiate sports programs help via diverse channels to create that kind of student body. An administration communicates its values to its students through the programs it sponsors or neglects. And the College now proposes to signal a lack of esteem for competition, athletics, and athletes. That is the kind of student body we'll get, no matter how many pious words are then uttered about the intramural program. Diversity benefits everyone. We will deprive the portion of the student body that remains from the many benefits they would receive from association with vigorous student athletes. Without placing too much emphasis on intercollegiate athletics, the fault at many schools, the solution is not to abandon programs but to develop sound ones and to increase the percentage who participate.
Swarthmore's Social Responsibility I also believe the retention of a diverse student body is a social responsibility of the College. Swarthmore is unique in the education it provides--especially the social ethic it transmits. Perhaps unique among American colleges, its Quaker tradition encourages its students to select socially meaningful careers and to assist the less fortunate in our society. And I think our nation would be the poorer if, 20 years and more from now, Swarthmore's influence would no longer be as strongly felt among our nation's leaders in commerce, politics, law, and even academics. The College will have ceased to train those with highest leadership potential and strong academic potential but whose SATs and intellectual maturity were not in the highest tier during their senior year in high school. Such people are frequently scholar-athletes. Instead of an institution with a future-oriented mission, it will have transformed itself into a college that exists solely to serve a special kind of contemporary clientele. Swarthmore would have become a precious little community of the like-minded that has little sense of its responsibility to educate and influence the nation's future leaders.
Indeed, if I may speculate, I would not be surprised if some of the inspiration to abolish football and downgrade intercollegiate athletics comes from a portion of the faculty. And I may have some insight into the dynamics at work here. I have been privileged to teach undergraduates, M.A. candidates, and Ph.D. students as well as postdocs. During my career, I have mentored 75 Ph.D.s, over 150 M.A.s, and over 100 undergrads a year. I have always insisted on teaching this full range of students; it is an exhilarating and challenging life. Among my students are what I would call "proto-Ph.D. undergraduates." These students already know Chinese, have read widely in Chinese history, and have written M.A.-quality research papers while at prep schools. I enjoy such students immensely; indeed, several enroll specifically to work with me. But, for my own fulfillment, I do not need undergraduates who are in fact at the M.A. or even Ph.D. level. I already have enough M.A. and Ph.D. students. So, to me, the scholar-athlete whom I recruit into the China field is the exciting undergraduate teaching experience. Now consider the Swarthmore professor. It is such a different experience: only undergraduates, and small numbers in any case. The joy and rewards are heavily in teaching students of extraordinary quality. And it would therefore be but natural, I suppose, for many professors to desire that a good portion of an incoming class consists of what I have called "proto Ph.D. undergraduates." And such professors view a football player as potentially taking the place of a "proto-Ph.D. undergraduate" who might even become his or her disciple. In this sense, abolishing football is seen by some faculty as a way of infusing Swarthmore with a graduate school ethos rather than remaining an unabashed undergraduate institution. I would call this a transformation of Swarthmore by stealth. But the purpose of Swarthmore is not primarily to serve the faculty, though that is an important mission, but rather to serve the student body well and to serve the nation.
Summary So the issue is not simply football. It is whether you and the Board of Managers want to uphold the great tradition of diversity and excellence as an undergraduate institution that has guided the College and touched the life of every graduate.
MICHAEL OKSENBERG '60
Atherton, Calif.
Like sunspots, like cicadas, like comets around the sun, Swarthmore seems to have a deeply programmed inner schedule, craving its fix of widespread public ridicule on a recurring basis.
I strongly urge a retreat to gradual adjustment of the athletic programs. After all the noise about diversity and fairness and a highly commendable commitment to include all races, religions, sexes, sexual preferences, heights, weights, and the (fill-in-the-shortcoming)-challenged in everything Swarthmore does, why are the sports-advantaged being discriminated against?
Is the claim now made that there is a higher good than diversity? How unlikely. How close to humorous this appears to the rest of the world. How many people, upon encountering the name Swarthmore in the press or on resumes, will now think only of this odd little episode instead of the College's legacy of outstanding achievement?
ROY PERRY '74
Bryn Mawr, Pa.
Say it ain't so, Al Bloom! Swarthmore College with one of the nation's oldest football programs (1879) cannot be casually tossing that program in the dustbin, can it? Now I know how three million Dodger fans felt when the O'Malley family tore the heart out of Brooklyn in 1957. And what the "Charm City" faithful went through when Bob Irsay backed up the moving vans in the middle of the night, to steal away the Baltimore Colts.
I was a nondescript back-up running back and receiver at Swarthmore in the mid-70's. I have also coached Women's Softball there for sixteen seasons, including three as head coach. Athletics at Swarthmore gave so much to me, that I was honored to be able to give something back to the college community. Intercollegiate athletics exist at Swarthmore in their purest sense. Whether it is football, wrestling or badminton, you find well-rounded, scholar-athletes who play for the joy of the game. That football has survived for over a century, and currently is on an upswing, is something to celebrate and cherish. The teams of the mid-70's survived a 30-game losing streak and looked into the abyss of dropping the program. I was proud that Swarthmore cared enough about this tradition to save football, while it perished at other places like Haverford College and Villanova University. I attributed it in part to a keen sense of history, and to some Quaker stubborness and tenacity.
I do not attribute ill-motive to President Bloom and the Board of Managers. However, I do greatly question their judgment and the process by which they reached that judgment. By all accounts, this was done largely behind closed doors. In America, when a group has its rights threatened or are about to lose something of value, we have a basic concept of fairness, involving notice and an opportunity to be heard. That was not the case here. The memory of "Tiny" Maxwell (turn of the century gridiron great, commemorated by the Maxwell Club) and great coaches such as Lew Elverson and Ernie Prudente, deserve better. The spirit and dogged efforts of players like John Humphrie, Chip Veise, Bruce Leinberger, Bobby Chang, Gary White and hundreds of others who have carried on the Garnet tradition until this day, demands better. Certainly by involving all interested parties, other viable, less draconian options could have been found.
Being able to play intercollegiate football was a dream come true for me. Invaluable life lessons were learned. Teamwork, sacrificing for a common goal, tenacity and perseverance through adversity...long after classroom lessons fade, these lessons endure. Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once said of the generation of leaders that came of age during the Civil War: "In our youth, our hearts were touched with fire." Football, in a lesser sense, provides similar tests to young men, and fires their hearts and imagination. Hundreds of Swarthmore players have gone on to be leaders and contributors in their communities. President Bloom and the Board have an opportunity to display some leadership and courage, and reconsider their decision. It is easy to let a tradition and a program die...it takes real conviction and vision to preserve and sustain it.
MARC PETERSON '78
Media, Pa.
I was absolutely delighted when I picked up my September edition of the Bulletin and saw Dr. Kathryn Morgan's beaming face on the cover. I couldn't wait to read the interview inside. When I did, all the memories of my Swarthmore experience flooded back--good and bad.
I recall very clearly that among the African American students it was so empowering (and so much like homecoming) to see this petite and striking black woman strut the campus in her always neatly coiffed Afro hair and long flowing African robe dresses, with her sassy earrings swinging with the breeze.
It was sheer joy to see from her interview that Professor Morgan is still as beautiful, inside and out, as she ever was.
Continue to keep us posted.
ROSALIND PLUMMER '73
Philadelphia, Pa.
I love Swarthmore. But I loathe your decision to abandon the football program. It is wrong-minded for so many reasons.
As a former lacrosse player, theoretically I should applaud the ostensible goal of recruiting more lacrosse players (with the now-available football slots). Then, I realized that some of the very best lacrosse players on our very best lacrosse team (1982) never played the sport until [former coach and former Board member] Jim Noyes went to the football team after its season and gave anyone who wanted one a lacrosse stick. And thus were born Eddie Meehan, John Hiros, all the Walsh brothers, and so many other great Swarthmore lacrosse players.
At the very least, the decision to end football should have been made with much more care and deliberation--or at least the appearance of care and deliberation. There was no legitimate period of public debate and comment. The excuses for haste (to let the football players transfer!) verge on the absurd.
Instead, the matter seems arbitrarily and badly handled. It smacks of the small-minded hypocrisy of Swarthmore's cultural elite, who so often--as now--are neither cultural nor elite.
As the leader of the College, you are responsible for insuring that such decisions are made fairly, and the harmed parties are guaranteed respect and due process. Based on what I know, I respectfully submit that you have totally failed. The College is a smaller place for it.
I urge you to rescind this stupid edict. Reinstate football immediately for a five-year period. Appoint a broad and objective group of people to study any decision and fully solicit the views of the whole community, including alumni. Make this decision only after you have gained reasonable support from the broad constituency you serve.
ADAM REEVES '85
New York City
With its action in December to eliminate three sports from the athletic program, the administration and the Board majority call into question not only the decision itself, but the decision-making process.
Many alumni feel that the decision is more than a failure to maintain a 122-year-old football tradition. It is a failure of leadership in meeting the challenge of fulfilling Swarthmore's mission. We have formed an organization to try to reverse this trend. Please see our Web site, www.mindthelight.com, for more analysis of the decision and its consequences.
The essence of the Quaker tradition of decision making is patience, active listening, and a determination to understand all opinions and to find an accommodation that preserves the spirit and the health of the community. It is an expression of love and mutual respect.
Tragically, this tradition was not maintained in making this decision. Unlike the debate about Swarthmore's investment policies toward South Africa, which took eight years of full and open discussion to reach a conclusion, this decision was made in one day without a written report and verifiable data to substantiate the Athletic Review Committee's recommendation. No attempt was made to engage the talents of the full Swarthmore community to discuss the recommendation. Students, alumni, faculty, and parents were not consulted.
The aftermath of this decision and the way it was made have been the destruction of Swarthmore's sense of community. Two Board members and many class agents have resigned to date, and many more are deeply disturbed by this decision. Hundreds of alumni and College community members--athletes and non-athletes, men and women--have joined the Mind the Light organization to fight for a restoration of Swarthmore's traditional values and decision process.
The only way to restore the College's sense of community is to go back to basics and study the issue in an open manner, drawing on our best talents and our mutual love of Swarthmore. Without this commitment, even if, over time, the uproar diminishes, it will mean that a large segment of the College community will have given up on the College, their love replaced with indifference.
WILLIAM ROBINSON '60
Westlake Village, Calif.
I have often advised my three children, one of whom attends Swarthmore College, that if you want to know people, watch their actions, and when they try to explain their actions, pay close attention to what they do not say.
Three years ago, the hierarchy at Swarthmore College made a commitment to a football program, and, in doing so, a commitment to an entire student body. Shortly thereafter, an idea was put in place to form a committee to study of all things, athletics. Just when the football program is making a rebound, and before it could become too successful and prove the advocates correct, a study is completed that persuades the hierarchy at Swarthmore to eliminate the football program. Given these events, would it surprise you if you knew that the moving force behind this committee was never in favor of the football rejuvenation to begin with? Would you be further surprised that the mission of the committee, formulated by this same "force," made the conclusion inevitable?
Before I continue, please understand that I do not in anyway mean to minimize the importance of the sports of badminton or wrestling. I concentrate on football only because it's existence created the need for the decision-making process. The athletes in these other sports I am afraid were added to the mix for reasons that have yet to surface, but which I will suggest have more to do with masking intent and maintaining a bargaining position rather than any legitimate college-enhancing rationale.
I will now make a proposal. Give me the authority and mandate to form a committee and give me one year to make a study. In the end, I will hand you a report no less objective than the one given to the hierarchy of this institution. In fact, it will be more objective, since it will contain options and verifiable data. That report will show that athletics and academia have forever had a symbiotic relationship, and no matter which you deem to be the host, both have historically survived and prospered. The report will also show that 10% to 15% "athletes" per class is an arbitrary number and bears no reasonable relationship to anything, falsely and dishonestly supporting a predetermined result. The report will show that athletes are not numbers but human beings who bring more to the table than their brains and athleticism and often fill multiple and diverse "slots". The report will show that 18% to 25% is actually a better ratio, and, with the correct administration, that Swarthmore can be athletically successful without any sacrifice of academic standards. Why? For the same reason you are told this report supports dropping these three sports--it is the result the report is intended to support. My report will also show that many football players also play lacrosse, basketball, or baseball, and the program could have easily continued using those slots. It will show that an alternative was presented to this administration, which involved only six more slots, and it was summarily rejected. It will show that there are many alternatives, none of which were considered by this administration. Why? Simple--they do not support the predetermined conclusion (By the way, it will also show that the Athletic Review Committee really had no clue regarding the true state of their badminton program--but most people know that already).
In my profession, truth, veracity, and the lack thereof are constant issues, and I have grown to appreciate the process by which different people "see." I have had opportunities to examine eye witnesses to events who have seen the event differently. I do not mean they are interpreting the facts differently; I mean they actually think they saw different events! Now you begin to imagine what happens in the "interpretation" phase. You learn that what people "see" is inherently tied to who they are, what they believe, and on and on. We call it perception, and it is the process by which we filter the events in our lives. The point is this: What we think is objective decision making is actually a process to make manifest our beliefs in a world of time and space, and, unfortunately, all too often a manipulative vehicle by which we try to sway others to our belief system. The decision to remove football was made some time ago, and of this I have no doubt. I leave to other inquiring minds the identity of the moving force.
Some years ago, a national debate raged in the mainstream press regarding "values." At the time, the students now attending Swarthmore College were probably still in grammar school. I remember seeing the cover of Time magazine, which proclaimed "Whose Values Anyway?"--the import being that there were no values common to all cultures or groups. Anyone who has studied the work of Carl Jung or the wonderful and varied works of the late Joseph Campbell (former professor of comparative religion and expert in comparative mythologies at Sarah Lawrence College), knows that there are core values that have existed for much of recorded history. They are the underlying principles that constantly tell us, inter alia, that we are indeed our brothers' keepers. I suggest that what the hierarchy at Swarthmore College has recently done so offends those values that the harm may be irreparable. The term "commitment" now carries a one way meaning and "honesty" and "integrity" have been relegated to a level common in Washington, D.C.
There will be no amount of excuses, no amount of explanations, and no amount of time that will replace the Swarthmore College that existed in my mind just a few short days ago. Once credibility has been sacrificed, it is extremely hard to repair.
The administration deceived a number of wonderful kids--kids who believed what they were told, relied upon what they were told, and made one of the most important decisions in their young lives based upon what they were told. In good faith, they elected to bring their considerable athletic and academic talents to Swarthmore College, an institution now unworthy of the belief and trust bestowed upon it. The administration has deceived another wonderful group of kids--kids who were not overtly mislead but who have been recently shown that their administration does not know and does not care who they are.
They deserve better.
The administration has deceived a number of wonderful families--families that were intimately involved in the decision-making process and supported and continue to support their children's choices with time, money, and most of all--love. They insisted upon and believed in the commitment, knowing full well that any athletic program is a "set-up" for failure without it. And when it came time for their child to make that choice, and based upon the promises they were given, they too made a commitment--emotional and financial.
We deserve better.
Finally, the administration has deceived an entire student body and the existing alumni family. It held itself out as honorable.
You deserve better.
JOHN RYDER, parent of Justin Ryder '03
Nutley, N.J.
As an alum and a former athlete and current student of kinesiology/sports medicine, I want to voice my support of the Board's decision to trade football at Swarthmore among other reorganizations.
I fully support the mission of Swarthmore College to stand as tall as it can with its endowment as a school that supports strong and rigorous academic scholarship and community involvement, above the money squandering and competitive pettiness of intercollegiate athletics for name recognition, and "rah! rah!"
I don't know the figures, but I would very much like to compare Swarthmore College's athletic budget to that of its community service and community based learning programs. I am certain that despite the strong Quaker values of service that are at the foundation of the College's purpose and mission, the community service program looks quite pale and ill (despite the diligent efforts of a heartfelt corps) compared to the long-term financial sacrifice the college community has made to athletics over the past 125+ years. If Swarthmore's bold step makes a move toward taking the lead in transforming the multibillion dollar intercollegiate athletic industry into actually meeting community needs, I urge alums to stand with their alma mater.
I don't think that this decision should make Swarthmore a place that pays attention solely to the cerebellum, at the expense of the rest of the human anatomy. We are all, after all, whole human beings and Swarthmore a school with endowment. Sitting, reading, and writing for four years straight during a time period that is in some ways the prime of life's intellectual and physical development is both highly detrimental and stupid. I would encourage Swarthmore to find new and innovative ways to invest valuable resources from the athletics budget into ways that students can promote lifelong wellness for themselves as whole people (rather than chronic stress monsters) and help to promote well-being in nearby communities that are woefully undeserved in terms of education, healthcare, health education, and just plain caring attention, not in part due to historical inequalities.
I personally have struggled with a spinal disorder over the past 10 years called spondilolysthesis, which is a quite common disorder causing considerable back pain. This condition is either congenital or built up over years of athletic impact. Exercise physiology and the field of sports medicine have no doubt learned much from the fervor over the human body, that is athletics. Recently I read that someone's research states that 23 of the most common human diseases are related to lack of regular exercise in our post-industrial info-age society. Yet, musculoskeletal pain, the most frequent symptom the vast majority of humans express to their doctors, is still mostly unexplained. Just walk the streets of Swarthmore or Chester, for that matter, and you will see a preponderance of disability due to such.
I just imagine many different innovative collaborations between
dancers, yoga practitioners, athletes, biologists, premeds,
engineers, physicists, community activists, and many other
combinations of this and that, that is Swarthmore, coming up with
something new and even better than American football, whose ugly side
is just a metaphor for our capitalist society's fight over land and
status, between cowboys and indians. Swarthmore, stay strong! BARTON
SMITH '93
Bronx, N.Y.
We write in response to the December Bulletin article on plans for an inn to be built on a section of the College campus. That article focused on the project's purported economic benefits to the Borough of Swarthmore, suggesting that the College seeks to improve the Borough's economic health.
Whether better economic health will result is, however, much less certain than the article implied. A consultant to the joint College-Borough task force on economic revitalization concluded in his report that the inn would have no net economic benefit to the Borough. It's not even clear the inn is viable without heavy College subsidy. College-related business would generate optimal occupancy only about 45 nights out of the year. In a 100-room inn (the proposed size), that would leave 32,000 "room nights" to cover. To put these numbers in perspective, it may be useful to compare the plans for an inn of the same size at Temple University, an institution with several graduate programs and an enrollment about 20 times the size of Swarthmore's. In negotiating with a developer who also specializes in upscale boutique hotels, Temple has discussed a university guarantee of 4000 room nights a year.
Should an inn be developed, the College will incur significant subsidy charges for both infrastructure and daily operation. Those funds will not be available for the educational purposes of the College, whether strengthening the curriculum, improving staff salaries and benefits, expanding the library, or any other needs characteristic of a liberal arts college.
Besides the lack of economic benefit to the Borough and direct and opportunity costs to the College, the College will find it difficult to replace the land devoted to an inn and to the subsidiary structures that have been proposed (a commercial building and parking garage). In a recent letter to the Borough, the College proposed that in return for the inn, the Zoning Board would rezone for institutional use three parcels of land currently occupied by faculty and privately owned housing. This proposal generated, however, fierce reaction from Borough residents living near the parcels, whose property values would be adversely affected, and from several members of the Borough Council. The College then both withdrew its letter and restated its support for an inn. But if the inn is developed, the land use issue will hardly go away. If the College needs space, it will of course find that valuable land it could once have used without making any zoning requests will be under lease to a hotel developer and zoned for commercial use.
In sum, the inn does not further Swarthmore's liberal arts mission. It does not seem to us a prudent use of Swarthmore's finite financial and physical resources.
ROBERT DUPLESSIS, Isaac Clothier Professor of History
RICHARD VALELLY '75, Professor of Political Science
Thanks to Nell Lancaster '74 for pointing out that the quotation attributed to Nelson Mandela on the January 2001 page of the Swarthmore calendar is actually from a poem by Mary Ann Williamson. Mandela used it in his inaugural address, and it is frequently misattributed to him.
Also, the photos of Lea Haravon Collins '89 (December "In My Life") were taken by Jane Martin, not Linda Kahlbaugh.
ALUMNI DIGEST / BACK PAGES/ BOOKS BY ALUMNI / COLLECTION / EDITOR'S NOTE / FEATURES / IN MY LIFE/ LETTERS / PROFILES / ARCHIVE / TALK BACK
Swarthmore College. All rights reserved. 2001