It is rare that I read something so outrageous and so ignorant that I feel the need to respond beyond a few mutterings or rants. The column by John LaFleur is just such a piece (Unpopular U athletics do not deserve funding, SN 11/3).
His thinking is so convoluted and illogical that I find it difficult to understand his central thesis. Is he attacking Title IX, which requires equal access for women? Of course, many blame women for Title IX when universities cut mens sports rather than blaming the university for failing to find other ways to create parity between mens and womens access to sports and facilities. Does he believe that only womens sports are nonrevenue generating?
For the record, LaFleur, I am a feminist, but I neither whine nor screech as I write my response. If all nonrevenue sports should be dropped, which would probably leave us with two or three sports remaining, why are sports even played at the collegiate level? Could it be that there is something bigger at work here? How about sports as a way to bring people together to build community and school spirit? How about the idea that athletics promote a healthy body to balance and enhance the intellectual pursuits of academia?
second-year graduate student