A Walk in the Woods

More documents

Recommendations

Info

more’s student-athletes doubtless have astronger academic profile than UVA’s,Swarthmore will still be reserving, in proportionalterms, three times the number ofathlete slots in each entering class, evenafter eliminating football.As an educator, it astounds and disturbsme that some in the College communitythink it would do no harm to push the numberof recruited athletes to 20 percent orhigher. Even at the Division III level, athleticsrecruiting significantly alters—and inmany cases weakens—the academic profileof the student body. If that were not thecase, there would be no controversy, and allthe teams could be filled with walk-ons.Swarthmore is, and will remain, in manyways more invested in its sports programsthan “football schools” like UVA. The College’sdecision to limit athletics recruitmentis wise, responsible, and the only decisionfor an academically serious institution.JOSHUA DIENSTAG ’86Charlottesville, Va.SHORT-SIGHTED DECISIONI find the College’s decision to eliminate certainintercollegiate sports, particularly football,to be extremely shortsighted and certainlyto the detriment of the College; studentbody; and, shortly, Swarthmore’s reputationas a well-rounded academic institution.From the publicity given this action, Ican only conclude that the agendas of a fewthoroughly trampled the desires and wishesof many.RICHARD KERSEY ’58Trumbull, Conn.LOVE SWARTHMORE, LOATHE DECISIONI love Swarthmore. But I loathe your decisionto abandon the football program.As a former lacrosse player, theoretically Ishould applaud the ostensible goal ofrecruiting more lacrosse players (with thenow-available football slots). But some ofthe very best lacrosse players on our verybest lacrosse team (1982) never played thesport until [former coach] Jim Noyes wentto the football team after its season and gaveanyone who wanted one a lacrosse stick.And thus were born Eddie Meehan, JohnHiros, all the Walsh brothers, and so manyother great Swarthmore lacrosse players.ADAM REEVES ’85New YorkTHE ATHLETICS DECISIONAND QUAKER PROCESSI write in order to present one QuakerBoard member’s perspective on Friends’decision-making processes and the decisionsmade at the meeting of the Board ofManagers on Dec. 2.When decisions are made by groups ofQuakers both in their meetings (monthly,quarterly, and yearly) and in the nonprofitorganizations that they oversee, deliberationsare carried out during what is called aMeeting for Worship for Business. At thesemeetings—which are fundamentally religiousin character—Friends are expected tomeditate, pray, and seek God’s will in reachingwhat Friends refer to as “the sense ofthe meeting.” That is what is meant by“minding the Light.” All who gather areexperienced in the process of seeking God’swill, all are committed to the centrality ofthe spiritual and religious bases of decisionmaking, and all accept the premise thatthere can be no decision until the sense ofthe meeting is reached.In organizations governed by Friendswhose boards include non-Friends (generallyfewer than half), training in and commitmentto these principles is expected. As alifelong Friend and a participant in andclerk of many Quaker groups and organizations,I have a deep conviction about thepower of this kind of decision making.Since my student days at Swarthmore inthe 1960s, however, I have understood thatSwarthmore College is not fundamentally areligious institution and that most peoplewho become associated with it have had littlecontact with Friends. At the same time, Ihave been impressed that the College hasmaintained the Friends’ traditions of commitmentto peace and justice, a commitmentto service to the community and socialchange, and a belief in minimizing thematerial and upholding moral and ethicalgoals.One aspect of the Friends’ tradition thathas continued at Swarthmore has been thepractice of the Board of Managers of makingdecisions without taking votes. Indeed,in the 12 years I served, the Dec. 2 meetingwas the only time the process of voting wasused. At no time during my years, on theother hand, were decisions made accordingto the manner of Friends.Meetings of the Board of Managers arenot considered to be Meetings for Worship.There is no common sense of seeking God’swill, nor is there any provision in the charteror the bylaws—as there would be in a Quakerorganization—about the requirementsfor making decisions according to the senseof the meeting. Rather, there has been anunderstanding that consensual decisions arevaluable because they do not create a victoriousmajority and a defeated minority,because the expectation of consensual decisionmaking often disciplines members toexplore all the alternatives and arguments inthe greatest depth, and because a decisionbehind which people are able to unite isusually more powerful in conveying the willof the group than decisions made in otherways. It is my understanding that the practiceof consensual decision making is nowcommonly thought to be the most effectivemethod in many nonprofit organizations.The decision before the Board of Managerslast December was a complex and difficultone in many ways. The factors underconsideration by the Board had been developingfor 20 or 30 years, not only atSwarthmore but also across the country atour sister schools. Unfortunately, the Boardand administration did not fully understandthe urgency of these issues for our missionand policies until the fall of 1999. At theDecember 1999 meeting, President AlfredH. Bloom brought to the Board’s attentionthe need to consider and resolve the twinproblems of athletes’ and coaches’ increasingdissatisfaction with their experience ofintercollegiate athletic competition atSwarthmore and the increasing pressuresfrom athletic recruitment on admissions.For not recognizing the great importance ofthe developing issues 5 or 10 years ago, wemust all take responsibility.After hearing from the president, theBoard moved quickly to ask the administrationto form an Athletics Review Committee(ARC). The goal of the Board was to have allthe information it would need for a thoroughdeliberation of the issues. We did notask the ARC to determine what was themost popular decision among any group,whether students, faculty, or alumni, butrather to include the whole range of perspectivesin their material and recommendations.At this point, those of us on the Boardmade a second mistake. We extended theM A R C H 2 0 0 177
L E T T E R SS W A R T H M O R E C O L L E G E B U L L E T I Ndate set for a decision from December 2000to May 2001 without taking sufficiently intoaccount the seasons of the College year andthe implications of a delay of a decision onour part on the lives of students, coaches,and potential students.Just prior to the Board meeting inDecember, many suggested that making adecision the following May was tantamountto making an immediate decision to endfootball, in particular, because of the timing.The Admissions Office clearly stated that itwas unprofessional and unethical for themto recruit athletes for teams whose futureswere unclear.Moved by these arguments, the Board atits December meeting decided that therewere compelling reasons to make the decisionin December. This issue was deeplyengaged, with many Board members speakingto the question. After a period of discussion,it was clear that those with widelyvarying opinions on the specific recommendationsof the ARC were in firm agreementthat the worst possible option was to postponethe decision. This decision was madeby consensus, with no one standing asidefrom it and with the passionate support ofmany Board members who disagreed witheach other on the recommendations.Yet at the moment that we decidedthrough consensus that an immediate decisionwas necessary, we knew that we mightnot be able to decide on the specific recommendationsof the ARC by consensus.Although a large majority favored the ARCrecommendations, several members continuedto believe strongly that the recommendationswere wrong, and that other pathswould be best for the College. As this divisionbecame clearer, Chairman Shane askedeach of us to indicate where we stood. Werealized that several people disagreed withthe majority, but that they had not raisedenough questions in the minds of themajority to change their views. It was alsoclear that the majority would not be able tochange the minds of at least some of thosein the minority. At that point, having agreedon the importance of reaching a decision atthis meeting, we reached a consensus thatwe should let the division stand—and thatwe would, for the record, consider the decisionabout the recommendations to havebeen made by a vote. Had we believed thatwe could have delayed the decision, wewould have agreed to continue the discussionat later meetings, in hopes of reachingconsensus.During the December meeting, we allunderstood that the circumstances that ledus to a vote were unfortunate but unavoidable.Not being required to make every decisionby consensus, we made an exceptionfor what we believed were compelling reasons.We also believed, however, that wewere creating the wisest possible process,given the circumstances, and that we wereacting in the best interests of the College.Throughout this difficult process, I haveperceived members of the Board to be inagreement that consensual decision makingis the preferred practice, that this instancewas an exception to our traditional method,and that we felt a sense of deep regret aboutfinding ourselves facing the necessity of adivided decision. As much as it is possibleand appropriate for a secular institutionwith a Quaker tradition to be, I believe thatSwarthmore College and its Board of Managerskeeps the inspiration and good practicesof the Society of Friends before themas they strive to carry out the mission of theCollege in their policies and decisions.DULANY OGDEN BENNETT ’66Portland, Ore.Bennett’s term on the Board of Managers endedin December after 12 years of service.UNSTATED SUBTEXTThe arguments put forth by the AthleticsReview Committee to explain the decisionsmade about the complex issues of athleticsat Swarthmore appear to be rational. However,there exists an unstated subtext thatrequires further analysis and open discussion.This subtext is the consistent viewheld by many in the academic community ofSwarthmore that sports are a waste of timeand that intellect is all. A barely hidden battlehas taken place for decades betweenthose who hold this position and otherswho believe that intercollegiate competitionhas a vital place in the life of the school. Itmay well be that proponents of the formerview have seen their opportunity, grasped it,and triumphed.I find it hard to believe that in the easternhalf of the United States our collegecannot find eight other schools with footballteams that recruit athletes within thelimits that Swarthmore finds appropriateand that would provide competition more orless equal to what we can offer.Swarthmore’s reputation as an effeteinstitution is not its strongest asset. Thisdecision makes it worse and is especiallytroublesome if it was made for the wrong—and as yet unacknowledged—reasons.PHILIP BRICKNER ’50New York CityAGAINST COMPETITIONWhat value is obtained from intercollegiatesports that cannot equally be found in intramurals—exceptcompetition? But sincewhen has competition as such been a valuein the Swarthmore community’s philosophy?Possibly these things run in cycles,and, some day not too far off, we will recoverour detachment and humor and rediscoverathletics as wonderful recreation—no moreand no less.I am pleased that the Board could notreach consensus on this issue. I trust thatwas because at least some could not supportthe idea of supporting 21 (!) intercollegiatesports.ROBERT HILLEGASS ’49Greenfield, N.H.ATHLETES COMPETING IN CLASSROOMSIt is simply a fallacy to believe that [athletics]recruitment efforts are synonymouswith allocation of admissions spaces forundeserving applicants.I state this strongly because of my experiencesas a member of the men’s soccerteam during the years between 1989 to1993. During this period, our team washighly competitive, not only locally butnationally. We won our division 3 times,advanced to the Mid-Atlantic Conferencesemifinals twice, qualified for the NationalChampionships twice, and advanced to thefinal 16 in the country once. And, concurrentwith these athletic achievements, myteammates were succeeding at similar ratesin the classroom.To use an admittedly simplistic yardstickof the academic credentials of my teammatesduring those four years, I quicklycount eight who have received Ph.D.s (ineconomics, mathematics, psychology, chemistry,classics, and philosophy), four whohave received M.D.s, three who havereceived M.A.s, and one who received a J.D.Undoubtedly, there are others who have78
Page 1: A Walkin theWoods
Page 4 and 5: P A R L O R T A L KS W A R T H M O
Page 7 and 8: a special meeting on Jan. 4, theBoa
Page 9 and 10: J o i n i n gk n i t - i nt h eOOn
Page 11: CORNELL VISITING PROFESSOR OF ENGIN
Page 15 and 16: efore the school bus lodged on Rock
Page 17 and 18: When war left most of your platoonf
Page 19 and 20: A W a l k i n t h e W o o d sThe Co
Page 21 and 22: paved walkways, parking lots, and i
Page 23 and 24: The Ville of SwarthmoreCollege Athl
Page 25 and 26: seen pileated woodpeckers. These bi
Page 27 and 28: ound, he was playing against 480 pe
Page 29 and 30: lot—“the right choice, by chanc
Page 31 and 32: Every aspiring scientist learns tha
Page 33 and 34: MARTIN NATVIGproblem with the resul
Page 35 and 36: “When I grew up, it was the game,
Page 37 and 38: aseball becomes the apotheosis of s
Page 39 and 40: Calling all entrepreneursWhat do Mi
Page 41 and 42: A L U M N I P R O F I L ES W A R T
Page 43 and 44: ished values being taken to extreme
Page 45 and 46: F i l mDavid Linde ’82, producer
Page 47 and 48: A L U M N I P R O F I L EA H i t o
Page 49 and 50: S W A R T H M O R E C O L L E G E B
Page 51: C L A S S N O T E SS W A R T H M O
Page 55 and 56: O U R B A C K P A G E SS W A R T H
Page 57: R E T U R N T O T H EW O O D STERRY

A Walk in the Woods

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?