Consider the image of UCSD student athletes. They are individuals who commit themselves to hours of intense practice every day for months at a time while excelling academically to boast one of the highest GPAs of any student group on campus. The success of these students within their respective sports and in the scholastic arena is rarely acknowledged without also mentioning the complete lack of athletic scholarships afforded to them.

In the past, reluctance to step away from the image of a strictly academic institution where financial support is not provided on the basis of athletic talent has been applauded; however, UCSD is now actively rejecting NCAA Division II regulations in favor of retaining the school’s firm principles and traditions.

Current NCAA Division II regulations stipulate that member institutions must provide a minimum of $250,000 annually to student athletes as scholarship funds. UCSD has received a waiver for the rule through the fall of 2006, making it the only one of 285 schools not abiding by the policy.

UCSD’s incompliance and reluctance to adjust to the demands of a growing student body do not reflect the academically minded principles that inspired a no-athletic-scholarship policy. If this core is more proficient than the general student body academically, then would it not be in the better interest of the institution to promote it?

So, when Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson unveiled a plan to offer democratically distributed scholarship funds to each of the nearly 550 student athletes at UCSD, whereby NCAA requirements would be met without abandoning the emphasis on academics, it was readily endorsed by A.S. leaders and UCSD athletics.

But rather than go before the Academic Senate on May 24, the proposal has been put on the back burner until the fall in light of criticisms raised by faculty concerning the prioritization of money going to student athletes before reaching other programs.

Am I missing something here? The choice of whether to comply is swiftly disappearing, as the NCAA will not grant exemptions forever, but that’s beside the point. Student athletes are among the most universally talented people at UCSD, and we owe it to them to recognize their efforts.

Accepting Watson’s proposal would mean giving each student athlete $500 per year, as long as he or she remains eligible. Does this sound like a substantial sum relative to what is being sacrificed by the student?

Most varsity sports have about a four-month-long schedule, during which time it is common for athletes to practice three hours or more each day. Weekends are typically a blur of tournaments, travel and homework, with rest and a limited social life filling in whatever is left. Fit a job into the scheme, then realize that though the season ends, practice for next season starts immediately.

The scholarship is only incentive enough to push a student athlete who is not likely to receive any scholarship money elsewhere to come to UCSD, assuming that is the only thing affecting the student’s decision. It is not enough to convince an athlete to change his or her collegiate plans; it is not enough to taint the proud academic reputation of UCSD; it is not enough to pay most student athletes’ rent for one month, let alone the full four months of an athletic season.

Five hundred dollars is virtually nothing. It is literally a few hours of extra time that a student will be able to buy him- or herself during the season.

Athletic scholarships have a reputation as salaries for student athletes who are not expected to go to class.

While this may be valid in other cases, offering a token of appreciation to a small number of Division II athletes who consistently prove themselves academically superior to the rest of the student body is hardly comparable. The money will mean a great deal more to student athletes than the lip service that they are so often paid.

UCSD needs to get over its no-athletic-scholarship legacy. The school’s administration has to realize that if it is to grow as an academic powerhouse, then it has to expect pressure to expand those programs associated with campus life, including athletics. The new NCAA Division II regulations serve to balance the other 284 member schools. If this were an issue of pride, as it has been in previous years — where UCSD chooses to honor its students before its athletes — then it would be conceivable to reject Watson’s proposal. But in the face of universal change, it is ludicrous to abstain from progress.