Editorial Unfair to Athletics Referendum

Dear Editor:

From all of my discussions with athletes and administrators, I have come to realize that the problems in the intercollegiate athletics department stem from the fact that the UCSD community wants our teams to perform at a level that the university will not fund. Students complain about our teams not winning when these teams are not given nearly the resources competing schools have.

I am greatly disappointed in the editorial that ran on May 18 criticizing the idea of a referendum. The intercollegiate athletics referendum in 2001 was not only supported by a unanimous resolution by the A.S. Council, but also passed with an unusually high percentage of students voting in spring elections. Students decided to take the steps to move into Division II, students got the fee referendum established and passed and students passed the fee to build RIMAC Arena.

After student fees went to start funding RIMAC, the Athletics, Recreation, Sports Facilities Advisory Board was created, which has eight undergraduate and two graduate representatives, four faculty members, two staff members, one alumni representative and four nonvoting members, including Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Joseph W. Watson. ARSFAB’s responsibilities include reviewing and evaluating the athletic programs, program changes and other issues that may arise related to athletics. To view ARSFAB as a strictly facilities-based committee is incredibly short-sighted and irresponsible. And while the committee is only an advisory committee, it is similar in function to the University Centers Advisory Board or the Registration Fee Advisory Committee, which are also concerned with handling student fees.

I am also disappointed that you suggest charging students admission to athletic events, when that would only be a barrier to improving campus life. I am even more disappointed that you would say that “if students have money with which they are willing to part, the A.S. Council can surely find a more important use for it than athletics.” The Undergraduate Student Experience Satisfaction report says that students want traditions and campus-unifying events and want to feel part of a college and not a university. These can be aided by a successful athletics program, so why shouldn’t students support giving the athletics department more money?

The referendum is an attempt to keep the athletics program in Division II by providing funds for the mandatory grants-in-aid requirement, so that the department no longer has to operate out of reserves or continue to cut where too many cuts have already been made. If students want to see these improvements, like the U.S.E.S. report and past referenda have argued they do, then this referendum will pass. And I believe that any attempts to improve student life and the social atmosphere on this campus should be encouraged.

— Kari Gohd

A.S. Commissioner of Athletics